Umm, the other way around. "Tests don't seem to be a good predictor of college success, even when taking GPA into account. But they do seem to reduce diversity."
(You wrote "promote" instead of "reduce".)
What is the origin of your quoted paragraph ending 'If you have the intrinsic cognitive skills, you can easily do moderately well on the SAT, even without prepping.'?
I don't know how the source quantifies "a significant number of people" or "intrinsic cognitive skills". If "intrinsic cognitive skills" means "does well on the SAT or other forms of standardized testing" then of course there's no need for prepping.
And the problem is the other way around. Given the emphasis on the SAT, a single bad day (or if you have the money to re-test, a couple of bad days) - if on the day of the test! - can "doom" you.
I'm also curious about the quote because a lot of people have a good life without going to college and without "minimum wage servitude". Median pay for plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters is $27.08 per hour (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers...), done by apprenticeship and/or vocational-technical training.
And don't tell me that plumbers (or Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics, or Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers, or other careers which don't require a college degree) don't require 'intrinsic cognitive skills'.
> consider diversity
As a reminder, I used the term "diversity" in quotes, because I don't like the vagueness of the term. The specific sub-populations in the paper I linked to were "first-generation-to‐college students, minorities, Pell Grant recipients, women and students with Learning Differences".
> Instead of simply stack-ranking based on the most easily demonstrable predictors of success.
I don't know what you mean. The linked-to document about UC says:
] Training admissions office staff on the “comprehensive review” process that looks at grades, extra-curriculars, the socio-economic factors in which students grow up and other non-test criteria becomes even more important, Estolano said.
That sure does not look like simple stack-ranking to me.
> the most easily demonstrable predictors of success
FWIW, two easily demonstrable predictors of success are: 1) applicants from a rich family, and 2) applicants with at least one parent who has been to college.
I think you can see that using these predictors - and if you believe college is an important influence on life-time earnings - means the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
(You wrote "promote" instead of "reduce".)
What is the origin of your quoted paragraph ending 'If you have the intrinsic cognitive skills, you can easily do moderately well on the SAT, even without prepping.'?
I don't know how the source quantifies "a significant number of people" or "intrinsic cognitive skills". If "intrinsic cognitive skills" means "does well on the SAT or other forms of standardized testing" then of course there's no need for prepping.
And the problem is the other way around. Given the emphasis on the SAT, a single bad day (or if you have the money to re-test, a couple of bad days) - if on the day of the test! - can "doom" you.
I'm also curious about the quote because a lot of people have a good life without going to college and without "minimum wage servitude". Median pay for plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters is $27.08 per hour (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers...), done by apprenticeship and/or vocational-technical training.
And don't tell me that plumbers (or Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics, or Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers, or other careers which don't require a college degree) don't require 'intrinsic cognitive skills'.
> consider diversity
As a reminder, I used the term "diversity" in quotes, because I don't like the vagueness of the term. The specific sub-populations in the paper I linked to were "first-generation-to‐college students, minorities, Pell Grant recipients, women and students with Learning Differences".
> Instead of simply stack-ranking based on the most easily demonstrable predictors of success.
I don't know what you mean. The linked-to document about UC says:
] Training admissions office staff on the “comprehensive review” process that looks at grades, extra-curriculars, the socio-economic factors in which students grow up and other non-test criteria becomes even more important, Estolano said.
That sure does not look like simple stack-ranking to me.
> the most easily demonstrable predictors of success
FWIW, two easily demonstrable predictors of success are: 1) applicants from a rich family, and 2) applicants with at least one parent who has been to college.
I think you can see that using these predictors - and if you believe college is an important influence on life-time earnings - means the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.