KMRblue1027
Deity
That has to be a societal thing. Extremely rigid style of education may work in somewhere like Japan where basically nothing but education matters when someone is young but that's incompatible with most Western countries.
So whats is really wrong with standardized tests?
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
That has to be a societal thing. Extremely rigid style of education may work in somewhere like Japan where basically nothing but education matters when someone is young but that's incompatible with most Western countries.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Good score is not a proof of great school/system.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
You could say that about Finland as well.
The concern in Australia about standardised testing is largely to do with their consequences when combined with funding or other incentives for schools - the curriculum is narrowed when results will determine resourcing.
University entrance here is (with a few exceptions) entirely determined by ATAR, which is a rank from 30.00 to 99.95 based on statewide final year exams (comparing someone who did subjects A, B, C, D & E with someone who did subjects A, B, F, G & H). I don't think Australia has the socio-economic issues that would make this sort of thing impossible in the US, and the arguments against it aren't generally that it's not a good measure of academic merit, but that academic merit maybe shouldn't be the sole factor in university entrance.
Similarly, 'advise these 14 separate clients in eight one-syllable words' and argument selection.
University entrance here is (with a few exceptions) entirely determined by ATAR, which is a rank from 30.00 to 99.95 based on statewide final year exams (comparing someone who did subjects A, B, C, D & E with someone who did subjects A, B, F, G & H). I don't think Australia has the socio-economic issues that would make this sort of thing impossible in the US, and the arguments against it aren't generally that it's not a good measure of academic merit, but that academic merit maybe shouldn't be the sole factor in university entrance.
Similarly, 'advise these 14 separate clients in eight one-syllable words' and argument selection.
Is there really no difference in the attainment of majority-aboriginal schools and majority-white schools in Australia? After all, I don't think anyone's arguing that attainment per se should determine university admissions, but ability - in other words, the test should accurately put people in order of their likelihood of getting a first-class degree. It may be that somebody who has been taught less but is naturally better will surpass, if taught at the same university, somebody with better grades, and the system should be able to correct for that.
I'm not intimately familiar with any relevant statistics, but I'd certainly imagine there are problems with Aboriginal attainment levels. However, as far as I'm aware, a lot of the problems in the US stem from local funding models, and would affect a much larger percentage of the population. And scholarships for Aboriginal students are one of the most notable of the small number of exceptions to the pure use of ATAR. Also, universities often have bonus point systems, so e.g. if you're wanting to get into a course with a 90.00 cut-off but got 86.00, you might benefit from a +5.00 for being living in a disadvantaged area.
I'm not sure that I agree that ATAR isn't a good way of predicting the likelihood of getting a first-class degree/honours - if someone receives a lower ATAR, then sure, perhaps if they had been given a better opportunity during high school they may have fared better, but that's a hypothetical. Simply put, their lower ATAR indicates that they have not performed as well academically than someone with a higher ATAR. Now, we can say that they should be compensated for their lack of high school opportunity by being given a university place despite their lower marks (and to be clear, I support such affirmative action), but that doesn't magically make them as well-equipped academically to deal with the work. Alternatively, we could say that university is about more to society than producing honours candidates. But I'm sceptical of an argument which suggests that somehow present academic achievement isn't a good predictor of future academic achievement.
I'm not sure that I agree that ATAR isn't a good way of predicting the likelihood of getting a first-class degree/honours - if someone receives a lower ATAR, then sure, perhaps if they had been given a better opportunity during high school they may have fared better, but that's a hypothetical. Simply put, their lower ATAR indicates that they have not performed as well academically than someone with a higher ATAR. Now, we can say that they should be compensated for their lack of high school opportunity by being given a university place despite their lower marks (and to be clear, I support such affirmative action), but that doesn't magically make them as well-equipped academically to deal with the work. Alternatively, we could say that university is about more to society than producing honours candidates. But I'm sceptical of an argument which suggests that somehow present academic achievement isn't a good predictor of future academic achievement.
It's a good predictor, but I don't think it's a perfect one, and university admissions deal in large enough numbers that it'll let down a fair number of people. It seems pretty self-evident to me that somebody who has achieved (say) three As at A-Level in a second-rate school while having to work part-time is probably more likely to do well at university than somebody with the same grades who came from a very good boarding school. One might even argue that they'll still do better even if their grades were slightly lower.
I suppose no matter the method, some people are going to feel that some other system would've benefited them. Perhaps the problem is the lack of decent methods to correct for those who will be let down by a strict application of a standardised academic score. Interviews seem more likely to exacerbate disadvantages (see Eton and Oxbridge), and even if they didn't, it's simply shifting the focus to whoever is best at interviews.
To pick up on something you mentioned in the previous post, I'm not sure that, if there actually is such a thing as being 'naturally better', natural aptitude should be preferred to hard work in the absence of talent. Putting aside disadvantage, I don't agree that drawing out those who are 'naturally talented' in preference to those who have achieved higher marks is a good thing, even if those with the natural talent might theoretically have greater potential.
To pick up on something you mentioned in the previous post, I'm not sure that, if there actually is such a thing as being 'naturally better', natural aptitude should be preferred to hard work in the absence of talent. Putting aside disadvantage, I don't agree that drawing out those who are 'naturally talented' in preference to those who have achieved higher marks is a good thing, even if those with the natural talent might theoretically have greater potential.
Well it still works amongst Asian families living in western countries ...
'You doctor yet?
No
Don't talk to me until you are'.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's just recipe for the next Dr. Evil
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Unfortunately the student at the elite boarding school will be far more educated than the kid from the second rate school so while one kid has a demonstrated work ethic, the other kid has demonstrated academic prowess. Second rate schools in the US tend to be easier. The total percentage of A's and B's etc are not that different school by school, the education quality is, however.
The kid from the boarding school is probably going to be better at handling the material from an academically rigorous college. This is one of the reasons top colleges have trouble getting around recruiting most of their candidates from rich-folk private high schools.
I don't think that's necessarily true - I don't think learning ability is necessarily beaten out of you by not being tested - but it's an interesting way to legitimise the current system.
EDIT: To use the metaphor below, I believe that everyone's 'output' in whatever field you care to mention is broadly a diminishing-returns curve - you can push people up it faster, but you're never going to push anyone beyond what they're naturally capable of. So I think the choice is actually between a candidate for whom getting three As is 70% of his potential and one for which it's 90%. If the university is confident that it can teach them both equally well, then the first will get a better mark. It's like the old question about the selecting coach who sees two athletes run 100 yards in the same time, but one with perfect form and one with awful form. If he's got any sense, he picks the awful one.
Maybe not, but it's in the universities' interests to recruit the people who will get the best degrees, not the people who have already peaked.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
It's actually more a question of the household and whole-environment a kid is brought up in than just the schools, but I think you're underestimating the differences in students' potential to grasp complicated intellectual ideas that come from being routinely exposed to the necessary language at a much earlier age.
For some of these kids, the tail end of high school or college is where they get their first dose. As smart and hardworking as they are, the sheer volume of codebreaking puts them at a severe disadvantage.
You see this in action at my school: straight A students with great extra curricular activities, smarts, and solid work ethics but came from disadvantaged backgrounds struggle severely. The school devotes significant extra resources to help these students keep afloat, and still the more privileged kids, without any help, are nearly breezing past.
For some of these kids, the tail end of high school or college is where they get their first dose. As smart and hardworking as they are, the sheer volume of codebreaking puts them at a severe disadvantage.
You see this in action at my school: straight A students with great extra curricular activities, smarts, and solid work ethics but came from disadvantaged backgrounds struggle severely. The school devotes significant extra resources to help these students keep afloat, and still the more privileged kids, without any help, are nearly breezing past.
I think that's a valid argument, but I think you're overestimating how much being exposed to the necessary complicated ideas - as opposed to unnecessary ones, like interviewing well and being trained to take exams well - correlates with coming from an advantaged family and getting a corresponding advantage in university admissions. For at least some people, I think the problem is that we select based on skills which are more related to their parents' situation than their actual academic ability.
To give a really egregious example, in this country you can pay to resit an A-Level exam. If you have a bad day in the exam hall and your parents are willing to stump up £50, you can have another go, and your record becomes AAA rather than AAC. If they're not, it stays AAC, which means you're automatically disqualified from most of the best universities.
To give a really egregious example, in this country you can pay to resit an A-Level exam. If you have a bad day in the exam hall and your parents are willing to stump up £50, you can have another go, and your record becomes AAA rather than AAC. If they're not, it stays AAC, which means you're automatically disqualified from most of the best universities.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
My school is a public school with a public mandate to serve the people with an admission process that works hard to gave advantage to the under privileged for the precise reasons you mention. When you get here, you start off with Foucault and that ilk. Kids who grow up with lawyer parents can navigate the language with a little guidance from the professor. Kids who are largely self taught and self supported frequently drown in that material without significant assistance/intervention. The university works hard to include as many self taught kids who can stay afloat, and they do a good job, but the kids I know from truly disadvantaged backgrounds struggled and often never matched their competition in the material-comprehension department.
If we had more bridging (which is literally what my school calls a summer program for certain kids who need it to get acclimated to the university level) then that gap could be narrowed much more easily. But as it stands, two 18 year olds going through a 4-yr institution aren't given enough time for that and have their top-level education too.
If we had more bridging (which is literally what my school calls a summer program for certain kids who need it to get acclimated to the university level) then that gap could be narrowed much more easily. But as it stands, two 18 year olds going through a 4-yr institution aren't given enough time for that and have their top-level education too.
I am not sure that is true. Speaking as someone who went to a comprehensive school and oxbridge, the interview is where they really try to get though all the stuff you have learnt to pass exams and find out how you can think on your feet. It is certainly not perfect, as evidenced by the percentage of oxbridge who went to private school, and even more so Eton and its like, but I do think the interview is probably more of a leveler than exacerbating disadvantages.
That's the idea - the potential problem is that it also exaggerates spit, polish, and being at ease talking to (usually) an old gentleman in tweed in an ancient building. Hopefully the interviewers in question know that and consciously work against it.
But then the university environment and the high school environment are very different.
And it's only anectodal but
> be me
> get 97.95 ATAR
> struggle to finish uni
ATAR is still probably the best tool we have at the moment. To get ATARs that are more reflective of people's academic abilities I'd be looking at the broader issue of education reform, rather than just testing in the last year of high school.
Not to mention potentially greatly disadvantaging ethnic/religious minorities if bias in job interviews are any indication.
didn't read pages 1-5 of thread, might have already said things that were already said, don't hurt me
Not to mention that we naturally warm to people that seem like us - which is in play on both sides. One would hope that academics would be more aware than most people of this sort of thing and consciously work against it - making small-talk before getting into the meat of the interview, or holding the interviews in a modern part of the university, would seem like an obvious thing to do.
Similar threads
