I don't think there are enough White Men in the NFL and NBA (perhaps they don't rise to the required level of misogyny). Whom do I sue?

JK. Don't care. Each league is poisoned by assholes, and only basketball is marginally interesting.

I enjoyed 'Admission' by Jean Hanff Korelitz. It may or may not accurately address these "issues", but it's fun as a highbrow soap opera.

Pinker is delighted to be Ivy, and wants you to aspire to his, um, aspirations.

Why not SAT scores? Sure, they're not perfect, but they would be a lot better than what we have now. Currently, the deliberately obfuscated systems in place let the universities justify anything at all.

Most of the people I have know who claimed they "didn't test well" frankly did poorly because they weren't very intelligent. There are a few people who suffer serious anxiety when under stress - but the ability to handle stress is - frankly - another important aptitude.

FWIW I started an application to Harvard for graduate school; in preliminary discussions with the school said that I had a good shot (not least because my employer was willing to pay full tuition). However, when I got to the part of the application where I had to copy all of the information from my transcripts by hand onto a blank sheet of paper, I stopped the application process.

The idea that the Harvard engineering school was going to do a personality analysis on me via my handwriting - that was just too stupid to tolerate. And, indeed, this is exactly the kind of thing that allows them to retroactively justify whatever decision they to make.

I should proofread my posts...

"I don't think SAT scores are the answer. Some of us are able to test well. Some are not. I've been lucky to have a sense of the "game" behind multiple choice tests -- how test-writers are trying to trip test-takers up -- and I've done better than I probably should have on a number of tests because of it."

The sense of the game is a certain type of intelligence, which Asians also tend to excel at, but if the questions were hard enough, like differential calculus, the sense of the game becomes useless to all but those who actually have an aptitude and previous education in advanced math.

The solution could easily be, harder, and better tests. No one here seriously thinks that MIT is admitting many people who are not already proficient in advanced math/computer science do they?

Like many measurements, there is no *one* answer but a standardized test, or a series of standardized tests is certainly more fair, than the creative wholistic admissions these schools are using to stack the deck in proportional colors.

Ethnicity should be the one factor, schools *aren't* allowed to take into consideration.

By the time people get ready to go to college, they should have acquired advanced education, or special skills in *something*.

Perhaps scholarships, and automatic admission should be reserved for those students who are not only smart, but have also excelled at some academic, athletic, artistic or musical pursuit (like the young pianist from DC) and the rest of the class should be picked by a lottery, from all those who score above a qualifying SAT/ACT score?

Having known people in admissions at Harvard, they told me they're looking for the best in -every- field. They want the best mathematicians, the best artists, the best politicians, the best business leaders, the best rabble-rousers, the best writers, the best everything. The best of every ethnicity, and the best of every country.

So if you're a math person, you're getting put in the math pile and you're competing against them. If you're an artist, you're in the artist pile. You're Arab royalty, you're competing against other Arab royals. You're competing against people who are similar to you... so whatever category you end up in you'd damn well have something different and interesting about you.

If you're a writer, submissions of your work will count more than your math SAT/GRE (whatever level you're applying for). If you're an engineer, you'd better have a great math SAT score.

If 90% of your school is made up of brilliant biologists, you're not meeting your goal of having leaders in all aspects of society.

Private schools can pick whomever they want, it is up to them. If they want a finger in every pot, they can have one.

State schools are another matter and should be more objective.

What about the people who test well but are morons?

I worked with a guy who had significant mental issues. Given proper direction he was a hard worker and a pleasure to work with. But on his own he couldn't find his way out of a wet paper sack. And many of his social skills left something to be desired. He did the best of anyone on the company technician test. He had some of the best grades in college. He tested well, but real life didn't fit in those neat little categories and his brain couldn't handle it.

"If 90% of your school is made up of brilliant biologists, you're not meeting your goal of having leaders in all aspects of society."

You are begging the question.

Why should *having leaders in all aspects of society* be the goal or mission of any university?

Why is it not enough to take the best and the brightest, and allow them to maximize their education and potential, what ever field they choose?

If Al Gore and Barrack Obama are examples of the kind of *leaders* Harvard is proud of turning out, I think they ought to rethink their institutional goals, and get back to the business of educating.

What about the people who test well but are morons?

I worked with a guy who had significant mental issues. Given proper direction he was a hard worker and a pleasure to work with. But on his own he couldn't find his way out of a wet paper sack. And many of his social skills left something to be desired. He did the best of anyone on the company technician test. He had some of the best grades in college. He tested well, but real life didn't fit in those neat little categories and his brain couldn't handle it.

Posted by: Ben at September 15, 2014 10:45 AM

It is not the business of colleges or universities to try and screen for success after college. That is beyond their ability and scope to discern, or plan for.

Real life, outside of college does that for them. You would be extremely surprised at the number of people I know with genius IQ's who have chosen to spend their life in occupations involving mostly high skill manual labor. Would you like to force them to become a theoretical physicist?

The mission of American Universities has already become so Byzantine that it has pretty much destroyed their ability to deliver a real education to the people who could actually benefit from it.

"There is value to diversity, but not at the expense of merit."

Amen.

There is a problem with the "diversity" that universities look at today. They seem to only look at superficial diversity - race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Things that really don't matter. (or at least shouldn't)

But, the real diversity that they should be looking at is diversity of ideas. Far too often the search committee at schools end up hiring people who think like them. Is it because they don't want their ideas challenged? or is it because they think other ideas show a sign of lesser intelligence than themselves?

Quite frankly, I find that a lot of folks in higher education end up with "group think" and just cannot see any other way.

I don't think SAT scores are the answer.

Depends on the question.

If it is "What criteria correlate with success at [fill in the Ivy]?" then the SAT and ACT are bound to figure prominently. On the other hand, if the question is: "how low can we let scores go in deference to other considerations before wastage gets out of hand?" then wastage is the answer.

A couple lifetimes ago, I was a Navy flying training squadron commander. While in that gig, I went to a COs' conference that, among other things, discussed admission criteria for flight school. Among them is the long standing requirement to score better than the 85th percentile on the officer qualifying test (more of an IQ test than the SAT/ACT) to even be considered.

I had long known that; what I didn't know, though was that the number hadn't just been pulled out of someone's rectal data bank. In fact, below the 85th percentile, the training failure rate significantly increased, and increased faster the further south scores got. (data from before the 85th percentile requirement was in place).

Since flight training is so bloody expensive -- about 20 times more per year than the Ivys -- minimizing wastage is a very big deal, diversity be damned.

Oh, BTW, mismatched college admissions do have real costs, too.

The "answer," as is so often the case, is the purifying power of marketplace competition.

Colleges and their surrounding industries and administrations and technocracies are bloated underperformers. The money they waste isn't real to them or to anyone else... Not the students, not the legislatures, not the bankers, no one.

Here's how to make it real again, real fast.

The Courts told them affirmative action was illegal and must cease. Did you expect it to stop? You'd have too many Asians, too many Jews and not enough of our traditional ethnic minorities. You could put me in the NBA, but that doesn't mean I can play basketball, and it certainly doesn't mean the NBA can make you believe I can play basketball. It's got to be tough being a competent minority professional.

+1 to what Jeff Gunn said at September 15, 2014 8:10 PM.

SAT scores are (or were) intended to measure a person's competence in college-level subjects - i.e., whether a person is actually prepared for college-level study (back when that meant something).

A person may be a wonderful person, kind to animals, and just back from a summer helping a third world village dig a well. That means nothing when she steps foot in the Organic Chemistry lab.

Too many "college" students today require remedial education just to catch them up to where they should have been on day one.

"Most of the people I have know who claimed they "didn't test well" frankly did poorly because they weren't very intelligent."

And thus, the MBA was born, testing well, high SAT scores, excelling in class - and then tanking their companies, exporting jobs, gutting American manufacturing might, pretending greed trumps morality - and then bemoaning all the poor people in the USA.

There needs to be a test for assholiness.

"Most of the people I have know who claimed they "didn't test well" frankly did poorly because they weren't very intelligent."

And thus, the MBA was born, testing well, high SAT scores, excelling in class "

And here I thought the MBA was for those college grads, not smart enough to get into Law school, (before standards to get into law school fell through the floor to put bodies in the seats., and scoop up all that federal loan money)

Isab,

You misunderstood my point. Several people complained about those who couldn't get into college because they test well. But there are also people who only test well. And as time goes on college is preparing people ever more poorly for paying work.

So what if you can't get into the college you want or even any college at all? That may limit your job opportunities at a large company. But most Americans work in small companies where competence is more important than credentials.

Also, I'm not real impressed with Harvard or most of the other ivy's output. A lot of big hat, no cattle people come from there. And if the Harvard MBAs are infesting the top of your company I recommend updating your resume.

Isab,

You misunderstood my point. Several people complained about those who couldn't get into college because they test well. But there are also people who only test well. And as time goes on college is preparing people ever more poorly for paying work."

So, what was your point?

The goal of college didn't start out being preparing people for paying work. That is what apprenticeships are for.

If colleges did prepare people for specific jobs, we would be calling them trade schools.

My point was you aren't being held back if you can't test well. There are plenty of other paths. And there are as many false positives as false negatives on standardized tests.

Honestly, if colleges aren't about preparing people for jobs then why are we spending tax dollars subsidizing them? Why offer federal loans? I can see a reason to pay for research, but why the rest? I can't justify spending $50k-$200k for 'the experience'. And why are they a requirement for jobs in large corporations? I'm not even asking they prepare people for specific jobs. Most schools do terrible work preparing you for any job.

"My point was you aren't being held back if you can't test well. There are plenty of other paths. And there are as many false positives as false negatives on standardized tests."

This doesn't even make any sense. A false positive, false negative analogy requires a one question test such as does he have Ebola or does he not have Ebola?

What in the world do you mean by this, and can you provide any academic citation to buttress your claim, that standardized tests are essentially worthless?

"Honestly, if colleges aren't about preparing people for jobs then why are we spending tax dollars subsidizing them? Why offer federal loans? I can see a reason to pay for research, but why the rest? I can't justify spending $50k-$200k for 'the experience'. And why are they a requirement for jobs in large corporations? I'm not even asking they prepare people for specific jobs. Most schools do terrible work preparing you for any job.

Posted by: Ben at September 16, 2014 3:41 PM

Good Question, But for some reason the idiot legislature keeps giving them money.

Are you the last to get the word that college has turned into a giant socialized welfare system from soup to nuts, I.e. academics to Football players?

College isn't a requirement for jobs in a large corporation unless that Corporation chooses to make it so.

And a very small percentage of Americans work as management in large corporations.

If you were in the tech sector, or in one of those corporations that hires management from within, you might have a different perspective.

Nobody cares about a degree in Womyn's Studies from Podunk U. American colleges have saturated the market with worthless degrees, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Standardized tests aren't perfect. They are just better than what they are doing now for admissions. So I still am not sure what your point is about people who test well, but don't work well. You gonna forbid them to go to college, or what?

Anyone, even the mildly mentally retarded can get into some school, and probably graduate with a degree in something, but that piece of paper is now mostly worthless.

At least half the people getting a college degree this year probably couldn't make it through a basic US history survey course required for every degree at my extremely average state university alma matter almost forty years ago.

Most of these new graduates are of barely average IQ, and they have the reading comprehension and writing skills of an 8th grader fifty years ago, due to the pathetic, and failing public schools most of them have been forced to attend.

You are taking what I say way to strongly Isab. I didn't say standardized tests are worthless. I said they aren't perfect. For those who complain 'I don't test well' I say quit your whining, it doesn't make that much of a difference.