Hacker News Reader

Comment by happytoexplain | Hacker News Reader

I can't read the article - do they explain why they think this is a "paradox"?

Expectation: removing standardized tests will give more opportunity to students who historically tend to do worse on those tests, like poor kids.

Reality: removing standardized tests means that universities have to put more weight on the rest of the college application, such as extracurricular activities which are often expensive and thus disadvantage poor kids.

Calling it a "paradox" is maybe a little hyperbolic, but basically it did the opposite of what they expected.

But this is relative, right? We're talking about SATs vs just relying on grades. Do poor kids do worse on SATs relative to how they do in their class grades, as compared to other kids? I kind of just figured poor kids do worse overall.

Its easier to get good grades in poor schools since regardless how you grade your teachers grade you against your peers, and poor schools have worse peers. So given same knowledge poor students have better grades, so their grades will be relatively better than their SATs.

At least in public schools were you don't have an incentive to give everyone an A, maybe private schools are different.

This doesn't exactly answer your question, but MIT added test scores back recently and wrote a blog post explaining why: https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our...

I think the "paradox" is that you'd expect disadvantaged students to perform worse on standardized testing.

Personally, I don't think they actually believe it's paradoxical, I think the authors are just trying to be polite to those who criticize standardized testing with identity politics. Politeness can aid in persuasion, so I don't blame them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com