Harvard drops standardized test requirement through 2026

Well our current crop of elites are pulling out all the stops to make sure they pull the ladder up after them.

 

So your disagreement with me on the SAT/ACT testing is now more one of degree, rather than kind. You finally agree that these tests are not intelligence tests, but that they do somewhat correlate with intelligence. OK fine, I don't disagree. But the big revelation from this is that the only reason you are in this thread is because you you mistakenly thought the SAT/ACT tests were intelligence tests. You apparently have a built in bias against intelligence tests and the concepts of IQ, and came loaded for bear for a topic that wasn't about intelligence tests.

However for someone in academia, I was surprised that you made the mistake of confusing SAT's and ACT's to IQ tests. Maybe you don't see them in Canada ( I don't know what, if anything, colleges and Universities use to evaluate potential students in Canada), but now that you've been educated and up to speed, maybe you can tailor your comments to fit the actual topic of the thread rather than your personal demons.

 

1) Merit-entry only is fundamental to the majority of Universities in my country. Granted these are public institutions - they have to operate on that basis. We do have some private universities (not that any remotely ambitious kid would even consider them .. they're mostly underfunded rubbish), which may engage in bribery and cronyism .. but given their tiny presence it probably doesn't matter much.

2) I'm in a 'minority' family, and those who came to the West back in the 1950's and 1960's had no trouble getting into universities and graduating with high level degrees at that time. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. They came from humble but determined families - people who were never going to let obstacles prevent them from making the most of every opportunity.

3) No real idea what you're saying here, sorry.

 

They'll lower it ocassionally for their pet group du jour ... knowing that such token gestures won't represent any kind of threat. And of course, for the right kind of financial impetus.

 

Exactly what you are saying, thank you do not apologize.

 

Never once have I referred to a SAT or ACT as an i.q. test. You again falsely misrepresent no different than you did by deliberately distorting the actual info you improperly repeated.

Again I repeat, the fact that standardized testing is not the same method of testing as i.q. tests does not mean they are not intelligence tests. They both are and its not me who states it, its the psychometrists who invented the tests.

Next do I have a built in "bias" against all psychometric tests? Of course. None can be 100% accurate and I have explained why and even the creators of these tests will concur. They were never meant to be anything more than estimates of attempts at measuring certain kinds of intelligence.

As for your personal remarks about personal demons like your attempts to deliberately and falsely misrepresent what I said they are petulant and pointless.

The fact is in life, universities will always have systems of admissions that are going to be questionable. Pure merit as a criteria to entry in universities with no political considerations of any kind is a naive concept.

Harvard was always and will always be a symbol for some, of their class level and network not intelligence level. For others it might very well be for them a standard of academic excellence. It has always contained both. Brilliant academics, people who will do well in life with their education will do it with out without standardized testing. They will find their way.

 

Your post number three argues against that...

WTF? But you just said...

OK I actually knw less about your point now than I did after your very first post in this thread. I guess you are in academia!

 

Who is they? You and Lil Mike advance a conspiracy of elitists pulling up ladders.

Seriously, who is "they"? How do "they" pull up the ladder?

With due respect because I am simply debating in a polite manner with no confrontation meant, standardized testing did not stop "they" from entering universities if you meant simply rich people with no other merit.

Standardized testing claimed to offer a specific way to measure intelligence skills the testers thought would be needed in universities and thus would predict those students most likely to succeed academically. It was not intended as an automatic guarantee you would then get into university. You still need money to pay for the education and no there is no automatic financial aid thrown in once you got a certain score.

Standardized testing never directly addressed economic barriers to financing, so necessarily could not address barriers of admission due to lack of having sufficient money to pay for school.

More to the point, over the years since standardized testing was created, students with high scores have still dropped out of universities causing the test creators now to have to start rethinking their standardized testing formats and considering adding other criteria I mentioned to try make them more accurate predictors of academic success in prospective candidate but it will not use your amount of personal wealth as such a criteria. Because it does not it does not predict how many otherwise good students drop out because of financial hardship.

Let's be clear. These standardized tests never came with them automatic guarantees of financial scholarships and support. That financial support might have been indirectly linked to aptitude test scores but not directly.

If criteria for getting money is simply based on a test score it won't help "poor" students any more than it helps "rich students.

Therefore criteria for financial support for those in genuine need of it regardless of their testing scores has always been the no.1 obstacle of getting to higher education with or without standardized testing assuming you also do not have a genuine disability which is equally as challenging.

"Rich people" what ever that label may mean might be able get their children into schools, but what those children then do once they are in is another story. Their social connections may get them to graduate but sure as hell do not have them achieve anything academically-only their merit will.

Yes when you get to graduate research areas, corporate financing is a huge factor on whether the research can get done and the corporate interests may influence the scope and purpose of research and its findings but that is yet another issue as to academic integrity.

To make things even more complex while there are scholarships and bursaries based for people with certain lower income levels, you would have to look at each scholarship to see how it defines its criteria and all scholarships in North America are STILL subject to laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, disability, gender, gender preference so it's a complex issue.

If a scholarship is in fact designed to address perceived discrimination by targeting a specific group in the categories I just mentioned, it can get tricky if two people of the same identified group compete with one another-you still need additional criteria.

Also when you engage in affirmative action type scholarships they could be challenged legally asif you can't prove they are addressing a genuine barrier of discrimination. What "genuine" means is not a simple black and white definition.

So what I would suggest is that it is not as simple as "they" controlling schools for their children. It never was.

That perception of "they" is a subjective one we all have of those we compete with who we think have an unfair advantage over us for any reason. I would suggest since its subjective its not necessarily accurate.

I again would suggest "they" is a subjective label. It is a subjective stereotype, conspiracy buzz word.

Its not helpful to understanding the complex issues involved with higher education.

 

Other than demonstrate your illiteracy what is your point? How hard is it to grasp that IQ tests and Standardized Testing are not the same methods of testing but both test intelligence. Is it really that hard for you?

Here:

3 + 1 = 2 + 2

Both formulas are different but equate to the same thing.

Really is that so hard to grasp?

Lil Mike move on.

 

We're obviously losing ground here. I'm not sure why you constantly keep bringing up IQ and intelligence, that has nothing really to do with this thread. Given your performance in the Rittenhouse thread, I didn't expect much from you, but you double downed on that failure, and don't really represent either the Law or higher education very well.

So moving on...

 

The White Supremacists who call themselves Progressives. They may or may not be 'elite' - but they're rarely less than upper working class.

 

Not really.

That would require psychological testing.

I have three undergrad degrees, a Master's and a PhD, and I taught for 3 years, but I actually have over 400 semester hours.

The reason(s) students drop out is purely psychological and has nothing to do with intelligence and short of a psychological evaluation, there's no way to predict it.

Many students drop out for relationship reasons. You know, they're in love. It's more likely if their partner is not a student, but they still drop out when getting married even if their partner is a student. They often drop out with the intention of going back, and many do go back and finish.

Many students drop out because they never wanted to be there in the first place. The only reason they are there is to get mommy and daddy off of their freaking backs, because mommy and daddy are continually harping about their future and their education and blah, blah, blah on-and-on until they wanna puke.

Going to college to make other people happy is always the wrong reason.

Many students drop out because of substance abuse. If they weren't already alcoholics and/or drug-users in high school, they are now once they've been unleashed on the world and are no longer under mommy and daddy's control.

Many students drop out for reasons of self-discipline. They're poor managers of their time and unless someone is standing over their shoulder prodding them 24/7, the work never gets done, they miss assignments, miss classes, don't study and then do poorly so they drop out.

Many students drop out because they're book-smart and nothing more. The purpose of Kindergarten is to socialize you so that you can properly conduct yourself in a classroom environment. The purpose of primary education is to give you the foundation for secondary education, and the purpose of secondary education is to give you a foundation of basic knowledge.

University is differently, because it's not about acquiring knowledge -- although that certainly happens -- it's about applying the knowledge you have.

I taught US Foreign Policy. Regurgitating US foreign policy is not gonna get it. You need to be able to compare, contrast, make generalizations, extrapolate and then apply it. Those who couldn't do that got a gentleman's "D".

Having said that, it might be possible to use essays on a standardized test but I don't see how you could test for a lot of career fields.

Many students drop out because they realize they made a bad choice. I did that. Twice. After doing observations and student teaching, I realized working in a Liberal/Union environment with dumbass administrators in their fiefdoms just wasn't worth the hassle. I went back a few years later in chemical engineering. I loved it right up until I did a co-op stint with an oil company doing oil assays. I didn't really wanna spend all day in a lab, and I didn't have the necessary creativity to create new chemical compounds and get my name in lights.

Many students drop out for social reasons. College is a different environment than high school and for many the environment is not for them.

Having said that, those students might do better with asynchronous learning online.

Finally, you do realize that Affirmative Action is responsible for higher drop-out rates, right?

You're taking people who should never be allowed on a college campus and trying to crow-bar them into college.

And we know that, because my tax-dollars are being wasted on stupid things like remedial English, remedial math, and remedial science courses.

Anyone who needs remedial anything shouldn't be allowed on a campus.

No, I'm not sorry about it.

It's their fault. Did they demand a tougher curriculum? Better teachers? The firing of teachers that suck? Tough discipline to ensure students can actually learn something in a classroom?

No, they did exactly the opposite.

They demanded the curriculum be dumbed-down, they let bad teachers get shuffled around and any attempt to enforce discipline is considered "cultural genocide."

A better way of saying is that standardized tests measure what you have learned, while IQ tests measure what you could possibly learn.

 

More on how getting rid of standardized testing helps the elites.

Harvard and others nixing standardized tests reinforce privilege and harm minorities

 

You lost me. Manywhite supremacists don't finish high school. Progressives also come in every shade and colour ofskin let alone ethnicity, religion, gender, gender preference, weight, height.

Labels. Labels mean nothing to me when you use them in such a subjective way.

 

You quote an opinion piece that states this unsubstantiated generalization:

“Someone who scored well on the SAT, the GRE or the LSAT could enjoy opportunities previously reserved to those favored by college gatekeepers for other reasons, such as wealth or bloodlines.”

In regards to the first generalization its just not true in fact it may very well be the opposite:

see-https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

Again I would repeat as I have several times-the assumption standardized testing levels the economic playing field for admissions is false.

 

I don't think anyone on the pro testing side is arguing that standardized testing is perfect, but it's certainly better than nothing, and you seem to be suggesting...nothing. Honestly, I don't understand your hatred for standardized testing. You came bursting into this thread claiming falsely that they were IQ tests, and after finally getting through that battle, you still oppose them for...what? It has nothing to do with your previous nonsense about IQ, so what is it? How will American (because we are talking about American testing, not Canada or any other country) students be better off in getting into college without standardized testing?

 

Dumbing down the students to meet a desired race quota is nothing short of oppression based on race.

 

A good indicator that you need to pay closer attention to the subtext of Progressivism.

Meantime, Progressivism is very much a white thing. There are always going to be some POC on that bandwagon - those insufficiently alert to recognise they're working against their own interests, and perhaps wanting to carry water for the white overlords in the assumption that those overlords are on their side - but they're not especially common.

 

To start with please do not tell me what I need to pay close attention to. Your reference to paying close attention simply means agreeing with you. Of course I do not. Comments like "Progressivism is very much a white thing" are subjective meaningless biases you project.

You simply create a scapegoat and assign it subjective generalizations and engage in the very bigotry you claim your stereotyped group manifests and you lack the insight to see the irony in that.

Does that surprise me? No I have taught students for over 25 years and like you many have no concept of what it means to critically analyze. What they can do like you is spew out scripts with labels of who is right and wrong and assign subjective negative generalizations to people they disagree with.

Your references simply are your own elitist and holier then thou superior to other opinions nothing more and nothing less.

My purpose on this thread was to challenge statements made by you and Lil Mike that are not accurate and contain only the two of you spouting your personal views.

The issue of standardized testing and removing it is not left or right in political ideology and it has many complex issues associated with it that I tried to explain to you that defy your simplistic black and white stereotypes.

Here is an article that summarizes the issues you and Lil Mike clearly do not understand-try instead of labeling people to read it:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/has-pandemic-put-end-to-sat-act-180978167/

 

We? No you speak for you. I didn't repeatedly bring up intelligence you did-I in fact limited myself to challenging your inaccurate and then false statements that aptitude tests did not test intelligence.

Your decision now to try deflect from those misrepresentations and try bait me over an unrelated thread where I challenged your inaccurate and false statements about the rules of evidence in criminal law speaks for itself.

Interestingly you continue to be unable to take the information I provide you and contradict it with anything other than name calling no different than you did in the other thread.

In regards to your advocacy of what Rittenhouse did either go back to that thread or start a new one but it has nothing to do with this thread.

In regards to your false or inaccurate statements, don't make them, and I won't challenge them. It's really that simple.

Merry Kwanza.

 

Challenges or barriers to entering university have always been associated with:

a-lack of money to pay for the university fees
b-disabilities of many kinds
c-geographic site/climate issues
d-language
f-political issues and events
g-gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age

Standardized testing was in fact a trend that came out of trying to take returning GI's from WW2 who wanted to go to university and were being given free funding and try find away to determine which ones were the most likely to succeed in university. The factors in a through g preexisted the sudden surge of returning gi's and have always remained not withstanding standardized testing.

Doing away with standardized testing and did will not suddenly erase a through g.

There is also no data to suggest universities have been "smarter" thanks to standardized testing.

It is an interesting fact that students from societies de-emphasizing individualism in education, such as China and India seem to do better than those from Western nations. Also interestingly studies have shown no matter what type of barriers were put up certain ethnic groups, particularly Jewish people still found and ways to overcome the barriers including standardized testing that at one point was used to try stop Jewish student admissions in American universities by trying to find another way other than high academic standing to determine admissions.

The actual history of admissions tests including standardized testing is full of many different issues of nuance and complexity including using them to prevent certain students not just rich white students from getting access.

 

I'm sorry but your first paragraph is false, so I didn't bother to read the rest. I don't see any value in trying to have a civil discussion with someone who constantly promulgates falsehoods. I suppose misrepresenting constantly both your positions and those of your opponents may be a common practice in both the law and academia in Canada, but I'm not Canadian so I can't really bother to accommodate myself to that.

 

1) A lifetime of observing the Left (my own party), coupled with the reality of the pretentious white middle-classes' infiltration of the Left this century, do not allow any other conclusion. That I'm also observing from the perspective of a POC adds additional insight - insight which you may lack if you are yourself are white. Suffice to say, the racism of the Progressive Left is plain as day to anyone with their eyes open. It's basically a white supremacist ideology - though many acolytes are wilfully oblivious, such is their need to hold on to what's been sold as the morally superior position.

2) We understand it perfectly. There is a motive for 'dumbing down the masses', and it's not to help the masses. That you claim it is, says you're either a conscious participant in the undermining of POC, or you're wilfully oblivious (see above).

 

1) The only barrier (short of intellectual disability) is lack of commitment to education. Commitment is entirely free, and available to anyone who wants it - regardless of their station in life.

2) You've just explained why standardised tests are the gold standard. Anyone can pass them, given sufficient motivation - and those ethnic groups mentioned share that very motivation - COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION. There is nothing else relevant, because they're entirely disparate groups and cultures. There is nothing genetic, or ethnic, or economic. It's entirely a product of their willingness to work their @sses off.

 

Your statement issues a subjective moral judgement to deflect from the issue that not being able to afford university is a major barrier for many students including those doing well on standardized testing.

In fact yio completely ignores the articles I provided you on why standardized testing does not necessarily level the playing field for people who may have insufficient funds to go to university.


Your sweeping generalizations have no basis. For example you provide no data as to how you know disability is the only barrier to admissions to university.

As for your statement commitment is entirely it is illogical to the point of being absurd. You are well aware many people with high SAT or other aptitude scores, who get admitted to universities must be using your terms, committed to finding funding and in many cases working part-time and/or full time to earn finances BEFORE they can go to university, precisely because universities are not entirely free.

The fact some of them can not raise the funds does not as you subjectively claim necessarily make them uncommitted as your statement says.

The term commitment is free is inane. Universities are NOT free.


You deliberately deflected from and ignored the very issue of sufficient funding being a barrier for many to entering university.