The SAT isn't hard to study for, but the question is, if your dad is in jail (which many of my black friend's dads were), you are feeling uncertain about the world because of the color of your skin, would you put in the effort? I think people look at tests like the one and all, but many kids have other stuff to work out.
If you aren't willing to put in the effort for a multiple choice (easy) exam, you are failing any STEM college degree (the only ones that give you a chance at making it out of the poorhouse), straight up. Compared to the SAT intro calculus at any top university is magnitudes harder.
If you admit the kids you're talking about under affirmative action they'd just be weeded out in intro courses and get relegated to some social sciences degree with negative return on tuition. That is objectively worse than rejecting them.
I guess we aren't talking about the same humanities majors. Most of my friends from Berkeley who are history or humanities majors are lawyers, academics, or doctors (yes, many of the humanities became doctors). They don't really seem to care about the money even though we as engineers seem they should care. Or they had to go through additional layer of study which depresses their true value.
Ok, lets take your example. why should the kid in your example get a step over a kid with a stable family. Even kids in stable families have dreams. Even stable families got problems.
I think they both need to meet in the middle. I came from a low-income family and had plenty of wealthy friends.
Kids with stable families have money. Take away the money, and the thing that gave them the advantage goes away. For the poor kids, the money is no longer a blocker.
what part of this is fixed by getting rid of the SATs, exactly? do all the other problems that are making it hard to get on top of school suddenly disappear? do they magically disappear in college? how is it even beneficial to remove one possible avenue for demonstrating aptitude beyond the ability to succeed in a classroom environment, which is profoundly tilted toward rich families who can help kids with homework, bitch at teachers about bad grades, etc.?
Strength leads to strength. If you can get to a place of prestige and that place continues to have high standards, then the people who are bound for the streets or no purpose have a means to a higher goal. Maybe I believe that if you give people a little bit of chance, they end up better?
ah, so you just find a way to continue to have high standards while continuously lowering the standard for admission
but that's not even the point... the post was about how students who don't care about school will somehow be better served by getting into a good school anyway. sure, some people will have an "oh shit i cant screw this up" moment, but... many will just fail. right? and in the meantime, the student who didn't get the chance to pursue their dreams... does what? it is unfortunately a pretty zero sum game. i wish it weren't. i think it'd be great for universities to figure out how to scale up much bigger than they are currently for exactly this reason.
I don't think you have to worry here. The people who take the SAT are a minority. We need to stop thinking everyone takes the SAT. It is not valid. This policy benefits the people who take the SAT, which is likely a minority of students.
I have no problem if a kid in that situation decides to not put in the effort. I also have no problem if decisions to put in more effort yield better outcomes.
