Standardized Tests Debate

scores on standardised tests != grades?

Except for one thing ... Schools tend not to fail many people. When an entire cohort has a different level of ability, standards adjust. Possibly some proctored, standardized exams might be more comparable over time. I have read that, controlling for student demographics, SAT scores (frequently used for US college entrance) were increasing until the mid 2000s and then flat since then.

They're not directly using quotas, but they get the same result by putting less emphasis on test scores and grades.There is a real argument that test scores are easily gamed, and that studying for the SAT for 2 hours a day because your parents made you, doesn't necessarily translate to success in college/life/business.

Many top schools are no longer requiring test scores in fact. There is an argument that the test itself is somehow biased against under-represented groups. Also, less nobly, if a school makes test scores optional, their average test scores increase (which is a factor in rankings) since students will only submit them if they have good scores.

Standardized tests have been known for years as an very unfair way of judging students. People with resources to prepare and study for those tests often end up with inflated scores than for people who don't have the resource to prepare for them. High school grades have been consistently found the be #1 leading indicator of how well a student is going to do in college.

Your comment is very on point. The situation where more elite students take certain tests makes it much harder to understand skills and achievements that come from different schools.

It's "standardized" as in everyone gets the same test in a given year. Absolute results on something like a college admissions exam are pretty meaningless since getting into college is a zero-sum game for all but the worst schools. All that matters is doing better than X% of the population.Seems to me like incentivizing deep learning over memorization outweighs losing the ability to compare absolute results from one year to the next.

A certain percentage of people just have test taking anxiety or other issues that impede their ability to test well. If you judge only on the results of a test, then you've just eliminated all those people from the start. But then our school system tends to already be biased against such people so it wouldn't really be that out of line.

The article says:> The rating will not affect students’ test scores, and will be reported only to college admissions officials as part of a larger package of data on each test taker.So there is no discrimination, unless this is used in a feedback loop, which maybe it is.> "My family sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years"So your family has hardship, but managed to skew things so you can have it better. If this analysis means more is done to help kids from p

Standardized tests aren't perfect but there isn't anything better. There's no better way for a poor kid with high drive to compete with rich kids. That's why MIT decided to bring back scores in admission. There isn't a better solution.