Just need a hacker dude and we'll be rich - <AUTHOR> http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/eng/692562510.html

<comment><USER2> This looks like a reasonable advertisement for a first technical hire at a somewhat flaky startup self-evident web marketing competence. (yes, we're onto your game)

What's the big deal?

<comment><USER3> but dude, machine learning! You will eat your words once Sproost makes Strong AI.

<comment><USER4> And uses it to, um, make interior design accessible to everyone. Just like we all secretly dream to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Of the "I just need a hacker" posts, it's among the best.

Maybe it's still damned by its genre.

</comment><comment><USER6> What happened to consistency? You people disappoint me. I clicked on this comment thread expecting disdainful sneers, not cautious optimism.

<comment><USER7> Because if you follow the link you'll find that the headline was in jest.

From the listing: The founding team has a strong vision for Sproost and can happily share all of the details with you. But we call BS on anyone who says they know what the future holds...

Well played. I like these guys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What beverage would you ask them to buy you? I'd ask for a Becks. What does that say about me? I dunno.

<comment><USER9> Jaegerbomb = worldly, likes red bull, can hang with the corporate jocks, likes to mix things up, can handle the ups and downs of everything (you know upper and downers).

thats enough

<comment><USER3> i like that justification a lot, you're hired

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _You'll be the first true hire [...]_

Hired people work for salary. The kind of people who qualify either command high salaries or shares.

Other than that it sounds like a nice job for a 20-year old hacker wanting to get some experience and buff up that resume in the process.

<comment><USER11> _You'll become part of the founding team; together we'll architect and realize Sproost's vision._

Suggests that a considerable amount of equity compensation could be involved.

But yeah, when they said "first hire", that was my thought as well -- they basically want a technical cofounder / chief architect sort of person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Only a nonhacker would care about degrees...

<comment><USER13> Obviously, they're nonhackers, which is why they seek a "hacker dude." How would you advise nonhackers to evaluate hackers?

I doubt there's really a good answer to that question. Looking for a degree is probably not the worst answer, though it may not be the best either (probably better than asking them what beverage they drink, which is presumably to establish their stuffwhitepeoplelike cred).

<comment><USER14> You have to know at least one hacker. Then you pay him to help you interview talent.

<comment><USER15> I'm always surprised by how poorly non-hackers can judge the abilities of hackers. If they are all non-hackers, they may not know who among their friends are even competent enough to help them identify a hacker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interior decorating meets machine learning... I'm laughing right now, but I'm kinda interested.

</comment><comment><USER17> degrees schmegrees

</comment><comment><USER18> ads like these make me feel like I should change my major to CS, but I don't want to take all the required science classes

</comment><comment><USER19> Make it a Dew</comment>


Ask HN: Where is the Who's hiring thread for December? - <AUTHOR> I was looking at the frontpage and wondering where is this monthly thread. <comment><USER2> From the account info [1], it is posted at "11 AM Eastern" whatever it is. One online time conversion site, says that you have to wait almost 2 hour to see it.

(Has the posting time changed recently? I remember it was posted earlier.)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=whoishiring](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=whoishiring)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the observation and for providing the username!</comment></comment>


University of California Will Stop Using SAT, ACT - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-california-will-stop-using-sat-act-11590099469 <comment><USER3> [https://archive.md/SuCkO](https://archive.md/SuCkO)

<comment><USER4> _interesting_ url there...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A related article is [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university- california-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california- sat-act.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I know some people protest measures that are considered more "objective" over measures that are more "holistic", whether this is in school admittance, performance evaluation, promotion consideration, interviewing, determining welfare benefits, choosing who makes the rules and governs.

However it has been my experience that whenever an explicit test or hierarchy is removed another shadow one builds up that is more subjective, more biased, and more subject to abuse.

Sure the SAT/ACT does favor students whose parents had enough money to afford private tutors, but it also meant that if I didn't have a private tutor if I could get a perfect score my chances increase. Now it changes to the whims of the interviewer, the committee that ranks my "holistic" experience, etc.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I agree with this 100% - these students are going to be compared to each other somehow, and it's always going to be imperfect and favor those who are better off. Still, these tests are at least relatively objective, and if you remove them the kids will be compared with less objective measures that allow for more bias to be introduced.

The SAT/ACT are the worst form of college admission criteria very much in the same way that democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others. A lot of people criticize them, but those critics haven't come up with anything better.

<comment><USER8> Finland, often touted as the best in education, does not use SAT. The same can be said for many other European countries with excellent education. Are you implying there is no correlation? Have you looked at their systems before making a claim such as "haven't come up with anything better"?

<comment><USER9> European entrance exams, including Finland's, are far, far worse than the SAT. They are much more serious and shape one's life far more and enforce systemic bias to much higher extreme.

<comment><USER10> I don't have direct experience but I think the whole system in Europe is designed to irrevocably pigeon hole students very early in the game.

If I remember California State Colleges have a bunch of placement tests to gauge what level of classes to put beginning students in. I think I'd be happier with a system that throws a net wide and than deals with the result on an as needed basis. Than a hyper meritocratic system that excludes large segments of society.

<comment><USER11> > _the whole system in Europe_

Pet peeve: There is no European system. At least every country has their own unique system.

<comment><USER10> So whats your point here?

<comment><USER12> That your statement about "the whole European system" is factually incorrect, because every single country takes their own approach, and there are huge variations between them.

Trying to tar the whole of Europe with one brush would be like Europeans conflating the US education system with Paraguay and Ecuador because it's the "whole American system".

<comment><USER10> So whats your point here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >Admissions tests, allegedly biased against minority students, will be phased out over five years

Why are we lumping minorities into one group when we know that many minority groups score better than average on standardized tests than the general population. Asian Americans, Nigerian Americans, Jewish people, etc all do very well.

In a world where the wealthy have ever more advantages in college admissions, standardized tests serve to level the playing field. I grew up in a very wealthy town and many kids I knew whose parents spent large sums on SAT tutors never improved their scores because they didn't have the intellectual horsepower.

Just because college administrators and others feel uncomfortable that certain groups continue to do better than others on the SAT is a horrible reason to get rid of the test.

<comment><USER14> > In a world where the wealthy have ever more advantages in college > admissions, standardized tests serve to level the playing field

wish I could upvote this more than once. Rigorous testing and merit based examinations have a reputation for being elitist but they're the exact opposite.

There's some benefit for people coming from higher social classes, but the difference in intellect is much smaller than the difference in networking, cultural attitudes or any other vague criterion that tests are replaced with.

At any country you look that has truly high mobility in education and has managed to produce a broad, national high quality system there's almost a Leninist attitude towards discipline and putting people through examinations. It's much harder for social privilege to be sustained in these institutions than in some kind of essay writing competition. It's also I think the reason for the pretty strong diversity of the military.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is very unfortunate. Yes, you can improve your SAT score by studying somewhat, but not massively. The College board has made a free online prep course with Kahn academy that achieves similar results to professional coaching if the student puts in the time. The fact that a student is willing to put in that time should be an indicator that they're likely to be successful in college.

Where more of the abuse is is in parents getting disability diagnoses to get extra time on the test. This same technique can be used to game grades though too.

<comment><USER16> I'm not convinced more time on tests will actually help somebody who doesn't legitimately have some relevant disability.

Generally tests are structured so that if you know the material, you'll have plenty of time to spare. But if you don't know the material, it's unlikely you'll figure it out even if you're given twice as much time on the exam. It's not like they'll spend that extra hour teaching themselves the trigonometry they neglected to learn in the weeks/months before the exam.

<comment><USER17> I've taken exams in college where the professors intentionally put more questions on the exam than you have time for. They say, "think of each question as an opportunity to increase your score" as opposed to caring about answering them all. The score is then standardized at the end, since most results are below 50% correct. It turns out exams like this usually give a very normally shaped distribution. More time is a massive advantage in these cases.

<comment> barry-cotter More time is only an advantage if you get it and others don't.

<comment><USER18> The time pressure forces others to not get it. You getting it does depend on your skill to a large degree, but extra time increases your probability of getting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That sound you hear is panicked elites, rushing to the "side door" of the UC system in an attempt to figure out how best to influence their kid's probability of admission since paying a few grand for prep sessions (for piece of mind, mostly) on what's a pretty darn good measure of academic aptitude is a waste of everyone's time, now that the test is rendered meaningless ... until California develops their own. I'm sure whatever they come up with will be quite the improvement.

If there was a checklist that you'd go down to help the University system implode "remove testing for academic aptitude" is probably right before "all objective measures of performance are banned". At that point who the hell can justify paying $150k+ for a "degree"?

Edit: pasting this from my below comment.

I think people are misinterpreting my comment as suggesting elite parents would've been against this - far from it. They absolutely wanted this because now it's easier to hide middling academic aptitude from admissions boards at elite schools.

To be clear: Removing this test helps elite parents, and hurts those who can't afford spending money on "summer experiences" abroad or poverty tourism or whatever.

<comment><USER20> Haha.. I think you have this backwards! If you think money can buy a good SAT score - go make some. Reality? Much easier to pay for a trip to "volunteer" in africa or at the local hospital, get on sports teams etc etc. If you have $$ being head of club X is a cakewalk! I had life changing SAT scores, and while prep helps, that slacker kid isn't getting 1600

<comment><USER21> A few years ago, I was advising a group of undergraduates at a university and noticed that one was the President of their club. I thought that was cool and met another.. who was also President. Then a third.

It turns out, they called all their members "president" so they could all declare they were a "president of X" on their resume and could talk about leadership. Creative way to game the system for $0.

<comment><USER22> Words have meaning and that amounts to a lie en masse. Because the word "president" has a specific meaning in the English language, what you describe is not "creative", it's "collusion".

<comment><USER23> The fact that it works is an indictment of the system, not an indictment of the kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Such a move would mean I would never have been admitted to university, and I don't think I'm alone.

I graduated third from the bottom of my class from High School and had enormous difficulties with a school system that was adversarial to me throughout my childhood.

In my public elementary school my principal deceived state officials to try to put me into special ed. She was admonished after it was revealed she hid my Iowa standardized test scores from state officials.

In my public high school, my teachers and administrators were given my elementary school file and treated me similarly. I was forbidden from taking AP classes or even taking the exams with self study. After I graduated, my high school refused to release a copy of my file to me, saying they had destroyed it mere weeks after I received my diploma.

Standardized tests were the one opportunity I had to demonstrate I didn't fit my grade point average or what I'm sure would have been derogatory information provided by my public school to any university I applied to.

<comment><USER25> > In my public elementary school my principal deceived state officials to try > to put me into special ed. She was admonished after it was revealed she hid > my Iowa standardized test scores from state officials.

I think a student talking about that during the application process would actually be considered for admission.

<comment><USER24> I would say it's a very naive assumption that admissions will look that deeply into a story of a "low-performing" student saying they have been wronged with no evidence otherwise.

Especially if I did not have a standardized test score, a public school file documenting it, or anything to back up that claim other than recollections of my own and my father's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a great victory for privileged kids that can now rely more than ever on coaching to have the most awesome extra-curriculars and most convincing essays. Truly a brave step to ensure that poor kids can't sneak through the admissions system using their smarts. I expect this will lead to higher donations to the UC system in the future. </s>

Seriously, considering stopping donations this year - I'm a UC alumnus and this makes me sad.

</comment><comment><USER27> When this subject comes up I always tell the same story.

When I entered university, the head of admissions had been forced to accept the job. He didn't want to be head of admissions (for physics, our subject).

He used the opportunity to do an experiment. Normally you need advanced Maths with a decent grade to get onto a physics degree. He abandoned that and admitted about 20 people without that. He also admitted people with lower grades than usual. Hs basically made offers to everyone who applied. So our first year class was almost twice the size it was meant to be.

He was my personal tutor and asked me to help host admissions lunches for prospective students, so the subject of admissions came up.

He laughed and said he admitted everyone because as far as he was concerned, if you were too dB to pass first year you'd be kicked out then and if not you deserved to be in second year whether you're grades at 18 were good or not.

Of the 20 people without maths, at least 15 failed or transfered to other subjects in year 1. But a few graduated.

So he gave them a chance and they took it.

I know the logistics make it impossible. But I actually think letting everyone who applies in and letting the end of term/semester/year exams decide who stays is much fairer than single tests or one off interviews of lists of (parentally supported) extra circular projects. Imagine if MIT or Harvard said "Everyone is welcome but only 10% of people pass the first year".

<comment><USER28> The logistics aren't impossible. As far as I'm aware, this is how e.g. the Belgian system works.

In the US, however, I think attrition is a metric that contributes to University rankings. So if you accept people into a course you want people to graduate. In such a scheme, the attrition rates are high.

<comment><USER29> Depends on the school. I don't think the elite schools like the ivy leagues do this but they are very selective so it's kind of assumed everyone that gets in is smart enough that they should graduate. A lot of the competitive public state schools though absolutely do this.

I went to a public state school and they straight up bell curved the grades for most classes at the TA level so that a certain number of kids were always going to get a D/F both of which are not passing grades and thus requiring the student to either retake it or switch majors.

It was pretty brutal but also highly effective at getting me to really study the material to stay above the curve and pass.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Yay, another chance for schools to curate incoming classes based on what they want on a brochure rather than on merit.

<comment><USER31> I'd hardly call rich parents paying for SAT prep classes a better solution.

<comment><USER32> Private high schools bother me much more then SAT tutors do. I went to $GOOD_UNIVERSITY and it drove me insane how many people had previously gone to a private high school.

The amount of resources they had that I didn't have at my good, public high school was astounding. It was really 'stand out from the crowd' kind of resources that are probably going to become even more important with the removal of SAT/ACT.

<comment><USER33> Yeah, I also went to $GOOD_UNIVERSITY (in the UK). There were a lot of private high school students, but what stood out to me even more was the level of resourcing and support that the state schools that some students had gone to had given them.

A lot of these "good state-funded schools" pushed people to specific A-levels that looked good to universities, and had coaching on the university interviews and entrance exams (not to mention a much higher standard of teaching). These schools regularly had 100+ students a year get into $GOOD_UNIVERSITY. In contrast to my school that 2 people go in my year and none some years, and and couldn't even work out which entrance exams I needed to be entered for (which they had to do on my behalf).

I don't agree that the SAT is helpful though. These kind of standardised tests measure ability to prep far more than they measure intelligence. In my experience the universities are actually putting quite a lot of effort into making their courses widely accessible (setting lower entrance grades for people from less good schools for example). The problem is really with vastly uneven quality of teaching at the high school level which means that some students really are a lot more prepared for the courses than others (even if that doesn't reflect base level intelligence).

<comment><USER34> I went to a UK $GOOD_UNIVERSITY, and before that, a "good state-funded school". The sum total of coaching for the interview was one mock interview with the head of chemistry and the deputy head - neither of whom had been to $GOOD_UNIVERSITY themselves, or really knew what the interview would be like. Still, they did their best, and i appreciate that!

Somehow, the school still got ~10% of each year into Oxbridge; i suppose that's the power of selective admissions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I had middling grades and not much extracurricular padding in high school but 99th percentile SAT (no prep other than a practice test). If it weren't for the SAT I would have had worse college options. School felt like it provided nothing more than read and regurg and my background did not promote anything extra. So personally I do not see how this decision evens the playing field.

<comment><USER36> There are a lot more cases which are the exact opposite. People who have done well in school, extra curriculars and more, but are held back by a meaningless test.

<comment><USER35> I don't have perspective, maybe, but what is exactly holding back someone who does well in school to score higher on a test? It's not like you don't get to retake it if it was a fluke.

If it's the test fee, just allow a retake for free like a gas station smog check offer.

Or, a college can bucket grades and test scores separately and just take whichever is higher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I grew up fairly poor in a rather mediocre school district. I wonder if I'd have even gotten into college without the SAT (which is the better test, in my opinion). Getting 99%s on that made a difference for me.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wish UC the best of luck designing another test. That it was a unanimous vote is suspicious to me though... did the college board stop bribing the board of regents? Or did the regents pool together to create a consulting agency that's getting paid out to develop the new test? Or are they really all so pliable or same-minded?

</comment><comment><USER39> Everyone is focused on this being a means of controlling the selection process, but just look at the money. CollegeBoard had a 2017 revenue of $1.07bn with an astonishing $928m in expenses.

If the new UCSAT displaces the SAT, UC gets to add an extra $100m to profits and $XXX million in 'expenses' to get lost in the UC System. And they get more control over the selection process.

<comment><USER40> You're assuming they'd charge for the test. Is that documented somewhere? I don't see that in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> UC Berkeley alumni here. Don't know that this is a good thing.

Currently, the UC's provide a lot of weight to holistic applications. These often favor privileged kids, as they have access to far more opportunities than others. For some, the SAT provided a sort of leveling field in that regard.

Still, it wasn't perfect, but I fail to see how what they come up with will fix the issue.

Of interest is that all of this is taking place in a state that has banned affirmative action.

<comment><USER42> >These often favor privileged kids, as they have access to far more opportunities than others.

I think these "holistic" admissions do the opposite. They allow a small group of college administrators to pick which "backgrounds" they want to make up the freshman class each year.

<comment><USER38> Admissions already works like this. An admissions committee is a bunch of professors that volunteered / were convinced to do admissions, and they consider the academic background, personal background, demographics, essays (sometimes), and most of all - ability to pay. Requiring aid negatively impacts your chances of even getting in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Can we fix the article title to properly capitalize SAT and ACT to be more readable? Particularly since both "sat" and "act" are words.

</comment><comment><USER44> The connections between this decision, the recent _Students for Fair Admission INC v Harvard_ , and the _Varsity Blues_ scandal are striking. The interesting tid-bit is the _Varsity Blues_ information.

Previously, the price of bribery was unknown. The economics of such a trade, illegal as it was, were murky. With the unmasking of the scheme, including possible angles, and now a known bargaining price point, the whole admissions process has become much clearer.

Covid19, throws a wrench into everything, including college admissions. But these other mechanisms of entry are still in place.

I suspect that the admissions departments are about to get a lot larger. Especially with the ability to use Zoom for everything now.

</comment><comment><USER45> I took the SAT in high school and my scores discouraged me so much that I ended up not applying to any colleges. Worked out in the end because I went to a community college then transferred to Berkeley (which thankfully didn't require an SAT score)

<comment><USER46> My experience was much like your own except I never took the tests, which I'm sure I'd have done horribly at given my high school experience. I'm now getting a PhD in a really nice program so I feel good about the transfer route.

High school and college are so different, I've often wondered if transfering wouldn't be the best for most people. Then you can prove that you can succeed in college by going to college and learning what that means. I meet so many people that went straight from their high school to a competitive undergraduate institution and then came out the other end of it feeling like they never knew why they did what they did. In fact, many make it all the way through their PhD, only to think afterwards whether it was what they really wanted. They never worked at normal jobs or really left the citadel. 18 is so young to commit to all of this. I think the transfer route allows for more reflection and a far more realistic "model" for institutions to base projections of later success in a BA or BS program on.

Going to a community college and being in class with people who are middle aged and seeking new directions, refugees, people who made mistakes, and other young people who knew they wanted to do something but not what yet, was an invaluable part of my life and formed my understanding of what it means to seek out education. It is an insight many of my colleagues lack.

Though it doesn't really seem to be the point of the debate on exams, what really could stand to be improved is the extent to which undergraduates have the best long term life outcomes based on their educational experience and how the admissions process functions relative to this question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> People keep saying those tears favor the rich, but I think if you look at legacy admissions, which are the domain of the rich, those tend to have lower SAT scores than other students.

Also, the various people arrested in the college payment schemes were rich, but still were not able to get their kids into the colleges based on their scores.

Basically, the colleges are doing this so they have more leeway to select the students they want without having to answer tough questions about bias and discrimination.

</comment><comment><USER48> > The road to Thursday's vote has been full of twists and turns. Ms. > Napolitano began the review of the use of the SAT in 2018, that prompted a > faculty committee began a review of the use of the exam. In February it > recommended that the system continue to use the exams, arguing that > applicants' scores on the SAT and ACT still serve as better predictors of > first-year performance than high school grades.

I think I would have followed that recommendation.

</comment><comment><USER49> Another strike against genuine education. Now prep schools that have 17 valedictorians will help their students pad their applications with nonsense extra-curricular activities and experiences. However it's likely much easier to create the same pastiche of fluff in poorly-performing schools than it is to actually raise test scores.

Now more than ever, college signals nothing other than the ability to follow rules and jump through hoops. Such a tragedy.

<comment><USER50> Alternatively, this may prompt more students to take the AMC examinations.

[https://www.maa.org/math-competitions](https://www.maa.org/math-competitions)

<comment><USER32> Good luck self studying for those -- I tried. I made AIME but had no chance there.

There's no way a significant number of generic public high schools start caring about the AMC. It will just be helicopter parents, wealthy private schools and the odd self motivated student.

<comment><USER51> You can study for the AMC–I used to (disclaimer: I knew a lot people who did so as well). However, doing well on the AMC usually means you need to actually understand what you're doing; it's fairly difficult to cheese your way through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> It's weird that the development of our educational system is being driven by what basically boils down to free market competition where UCs reject the value proposition of those standardized tests and impact the market for educational testing services. It's also interesting to see, if you view this as the market becoming more efficient, it's interesting to see how long it took for any significant move towards efficiency to happen by rejecting standardized tests. I wonder if market skeptics are right and that these evaluations and decisions would have been made a lot faster and better with regulation and centralization, or if market advocates are right and this was the best/fastest way to have educational institutions realize the impact subpar admissions selection based on flawed tests has and course correct, which they might only do because UC is competing against other institutions (unlike universities in other countries), and which opens up the market for better evaluation methods that will, because of a profit motive, lead to new, less biased standardized evaluations being developed rapidly to increase equity and equality of opportunity in society.

</comment><comment><USER53> Lot of great comments here, just wanted to add one piece of historical context:

This had a really bad outcome the last time the UC system tried to do this 20 years ago: [https://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/02/21_sat.html](https://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/02/21_sat.html)

In response to the UC's criticism the College Board added an essay to the SAT. The thinking was this would expose the softer, more human side that standardized tests missed.

What happened?

It significantly increased the cost of the test (gotta pay someone to grade it) and made it even harder for poor kids to go to rich schools because they couldn't afford the more expensive test.

Not to mention the subjectivity of grading an essay.

Standardized testing is like that Winston Churchill quote on democracy being "the absolute worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" \-- what system does the UC have that's more fair?

The NYT piece said they're planning on developing their own test -- so now prospective students have to take two tests if they plan on applying to schools outside the UC system?

The practical effect of this is Asian Americans will have to work 2x as hard as other groups to get into good schools, as was revealed by the Harvard case [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian- enrollme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment- applicants.html).

</comment><comment><USER54> I would prefer if schools just gave as concrete as possible feedback for why individual applicants are or are not admitted.

i.e. Congrats, you got accepted. Your GPA ranked in the top $X percentile of our admitted class and your engagement in robotics was astonishing.

or

You were not admitted because while your GPA was excellent, we did not see sufficient community engagement in your extracuriculars.

<comment><USER55> There's no point in feedback since you can't go back in time to fix those issues. You should already be able to guess from looking at the profiles of students who got in and those that didn't.

<comment><USER54> I don't necessarily agree with either of those.

Maybe a college tells me that a particular type of extra-curricular wasn't valued as highly as I thought it was and I elect to pursue something different in undergrad (I wouldn't recommend this but to each their own). The feedback would also provide relevant data points to future applicants if chosen to be shared.

There are plenty of examples of students who are accepted/rejected to schools which you wouldn't expect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56>
         > ...dealing a significant blow to the multibillion-dollar college admission testing industry.

why such concern for a parasite industry?

</comment><comment><USER57> Still feel like test scores are the least inequitable parts of college admissions. This is where people can [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/upshot/how-universal- coll...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/upshot/how-universal-coll..).

Louisiana made everyone take the ACT and... more people went to college, especially the high achieving low income and/or minority students!

[https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2303z4.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2303z4.html)

</comment><comment><USER58> This pragmatically means the administrators are free to pursue their biased and ideological policy objectives.

I loathe to be so cynical but 'roughly objective' measures are usually better than none.

<comment><USER42> > This pragmatically means the administrators are free to pursue their biased > and ideological policy objectives.

This is the express purpose of this change.

<comment><USER58> This is probably true, and really it hurts.

In this Trumpian era we like to talk about the 'integrity of institutions' and yet so many are boldly willing to do away with the results of baseline objectivity when it doesn't suit their agenda.

Because of course, the 'agenda' is what matters, not Truth or Objectivity.

Hmmm ... I wonder if we could have a place, where like ... 'free thinkers' could be free to talk about ideas and be objective without worrisome authoritarians creeping in. Maybe we could protect such people with things like 'tenure' so that they would be free to not have to follow some specific ideal ...

Now that would be interesting!

<comment><USER59> > In this Trumpian era we like to talk about the 'integrity of institutions' > and yet so many are boldly willing to do away with the results of baseline > objectivity when it doesn't suit their agenda.

Except that the SAT and ACT have been shown over and over again to _not_ be objective, so calling it "baseline objectivity" misses the point entirely.

<comment><USER58> No, the SATs are by far the most objective criteria, to not realize this, is to miss the point entirely.

That 'rich kids to better' is a more nuanced thing, not a fundamental flaw, because, after all, that 'rich kids do better' at the SATs and everything else, means that they are actually first-order better candidates for the school.

It's only when you take into consideration the secondary objectives, that the flaws in SATs become evident.

Now, of secondary objectives such as 'economic and racial composition' become the 'primary objective' \- then objectively academic exercises like the SAD, grades etc. become irrelevant.

There is the possibility that SAT's are actually a distraction, that and that there might be a better way of determining ability - most of the rest of the world does it somehow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> If you thought grade inflation was bad before, hold on to your tuchus.

</comment><comment><USER61> I can't say I agree with this decision. I graduated from Cal probably a bit higher than 70th percentile by GPA in EECS 10 years ago. To this day, I was motivated by everyone smarter than me who was admitted based on merit based on their SAT. If I were to graduate today (at lets say) 85th percentile, not because of merit but because Berkeley admitted applicants not as strong, that would've damaged my motivation more than being in a fair 70th percentile placement.

</comment><comment><USER62> Yes, finally! As someone who underwent the standardized testing grind, I have been waiting for an announcement like this by a university system for years.

I understand that there needs to be some standardized way to objectively score students, because allocating college seats to students seems to be an induced scarcity problem.

However, as someone who scored highly and is currently studying computer science at UC Berkeley, I ultimately feel like my time was wasted because the tests have almost no relation to any of my studies in class.

I know that in the absence of SAT and ACT, universities will need to come up with a different system, that has an equal chance of being gamed. Perfect is the enemy of good, and in this case, I would rather we strive toward standardized systems that actually relate to the content of high school. So many times while studying for the test I thought how much of a waste of time it is, and that I would rather be doing something else like programming.

Thank goodness that nowadays all I have to worry about is actual computer science. I got past the time-wasting hump and I never have to look back again. That is, unless I face the GRE...

<comment><USER63> _I ultimately feel like my time was wasted because the tests have almost no relation to any of my studies in class._

The SAT is basically a somewhat disguised IQ test and I'm quite confident that intelligence was related to the studies in your classes.

<comment><USER62> I hated this admissions process so much that I did the ACT as early as I could, graduated high school a year early, and started college faster. As soon as I knew the battle was over, I knew I could drop the facade of playing the game. It felt so liberating to focus on what I deemed "more relevant" tasks.

My problem though is that I do not think educational reform is my passion. My passion aims at progressing in my chosen major, and I desperately wanted to show to colleges this passion, but my test score was the Great Filter that decided whether or not the other aspects to myself mattered, such as personality, side projects, or personal achievements. I did well in high school, so it's not that I dislike the system because I didn't perform well. I dislike the system because there is such a great disconnect between what is relevant to the college experience and what college admissions is based off.

In general, high SAT/ACT scores correlates with well-achieving college students, but I'm sure most begrudgingly pushed themselves to get over the IQ test hump.

I have thought about this issue a lot. The incongruence between college admissions and student achievement really compels me to strive for a better system so that future generations will not have to waste time like I did. However, I suspect that all the great people who could work on a better system do not stick around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Sadly this is a continuation of a long trend. In 2005 Inside Higher Ed mentioned:

> Fewer than a third of college degree recipients are "proficient" in everyday > literacy, U.S. study finds, and rate is falling.

Do you think its gotten worse or better, 15 years on?

Back in 2017 I wrote about how Cal State replaced no-credit classes with credit bearing ones, and then nixed the requirements for placement exams and remedial classes: [https://email@example.com/higher-education- erodes-a7c...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com/higher-education- erodes-a7c9983692e0)

> At Cal State, about 40% of freshmen each year are considered not ready for > college-level work and required to take remedial classes that do not count > toward their degrees.

> The hope is that these efforts will also help students obtain their degrees > sooner — one of the public university system's priorities. Cal State has > committed to doubling its four-year graduation rate, from 19% to 40%, by > 2025.

</comment><comment><USER65> Ibram X Kendi has an excellent book, "Stamped from the Beginning" that does a great job of explaining how SAT and ACT tests were really only ever meaningful as a barrier to class mobility for blacks in the United states. in the 21st century it does the same thing. By keeping test prep out of public school and forcing takers to invest up to a thousand dollars on a classroom instruction for the test (which often promises an increase up to 200 points) it remains a disadvantage to latinx and black minorities who are generally poorer.

'Test prep' is also less about what you learn, and more about the finesse or 'form' required to take the test. Much the same as a power lifter lifts greater weight due to ther superior form, those whove attended test prep complete the SAT and ACT with a higher score because of superior test taking 'form.'

<comment><USER66> I'm not sure this take comports with the facts. Test prep materials are readily available at most public libraries, and even professional prep courses produce marginal gains (smaller than the test-retest measurement error).

The claim that rich white people are leveraging their wealth to buy a secret "one weird trick" that instantly boosts their scores is simply false.

I am happy to provide citations if you're interested.

<comment><USER20> The idea that wealth won't buy other methods of access, now with no embarrassingly low test score - is hard to beleive. The rich private school WILL give donor kids X all A's. At least in the past the SAT score filtered out the super lazy donor brats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Giving even more incentive for high schools to inflate their students grades. Give them all straight As so they have a good shot at the UCs.

I don't see how you can eliminate having some sort of admissions test. It's too easy to fake most of the other criteria they want to use for admissions.

</comment><comment><USER68> PDF of the decision: [https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may20/b4....](https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may20/b4.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER69> They're trying to reduce the number of Asians at the school, plain and simple.

<comment><USER42> Even more ironic is that Asian students from the _exact same_ income levels and neighborhoods are still outperforming their peers.

Maybe there's another solution besides blatant racism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Preparing for the SAT, I have to say that it was one of the weirdest tests I've ever taken. I don't think it does a good job at predicting future outcomes for students, compared to how they did in their school work.

For most people outside of the US system, who want to go to US universities, it is an extra (and expensive) hassle when you've already taken internationally accredited qualifications like the A-Levels or the IB. I'd much rather trust something that has assessed you over a couple of years over something that just asses how well you can cram for something.

<comment><USER30> I'll give an alternative perspective from someone who just did the whole college admissions thing. While measuring ability to cram isn't perfect, I'd hate to be measured purely based on performance over the years. While I did well and pulled straight As in some very hard classes, just knowing I was under such a microscope from day one in high school would be pretty brutally stressful and might prevent me from participating in as many extra- curriculars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I hope they don't replace one standardized test with another standardized test. Although, that's exactly what may happen. It is not far fetched to create a more personalized project based testing that factors in race, ethnicity, socio economic status, gender, etc.

Also, if all colleges are created equally, endowed similarly, we may not need a test and follow the K12 model of going to your local college because it is as good as any other college. It is about time we solve education along with healthcare and create equity in the system.

</comment><comment><USER72> It'll probably come back in some form. Totally agree that too much emphasis was on the test score and that it didn't actually represent the student and their likelihood for success at the university. This is just Goodhart's law in effect, "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

However, the reason it'll be back in some form later is because you need quantitative measures to help sort the stack of applications otherwise the overhead becomes too much to deal with.

</comment><comment><USER73> Is there any way that it could make sense to require reporting the # of hours a student spends in SAT/ACT tutoring, whether it be private, through your school, or other?

As a required field on the common app, this could help in making admissions decisions. There are so many reasons using standardized tests for admissions isn't fair across the board, but perhaps understanding how much prep went into the test would provide useful data for admissions offices, and also at the macroacademic (lol) layer.

<comment><USER74> I can't see how that makes anything more fair?

Some people are just bad test takers. What good does it make to penalize them for studying and trying to do the best they can do? Someone with a learning difference would be at a disadvantage.

Also, why wouldn't I just lie?

<comment><USER73> I was thinking less about penalization or individual application decisions, and more about aggregate or anonymized datasets for institutions and governing bodies (College Board, Common App, etc.) to inform their policies.

And yeah, you could certainly lie, but I feel that's true for a lot of fields on college apps? Perhaps it could be reasonable to have your school validate or sponsor the answer?

It's well researched that private tutoring (among many other socio-economic factors) gives you a huge advantage on these tests. Having one of these bodies come out and say by how much could be a wake up call, and maybe spur more decisions like this one in the original post. Totally agree with your points, but also think tutoring != independent studying, the latter of which could not effectively be reported.

<comment><USER74> That's a good point. Having those numbers would be interesting, and hopefully help us employ better use of funding.

Having an anonymous survey portion that you ripped off from the main test and is collected separately could be beneficial, I think. I would want to also ask questions about their parents backgrounds, if they had a connection with a teacher in high school, internet access, and general questions about social media usage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Anecdote. I did HORRIBLE in high school. I somehow still graduated with less than the required GPA. I think they called it close enough because they didn't want to continue dealing with me. When I stupidly thought college would be a good idea, I got in based on my SAT score as my GPA wasn't high enough. Of course, I failed out of college too. ;)

</comment><comment> frosted-flakes As a Canadian who moved to the US for a year in my early 20s and had friends entering university, I had no idea what the SAT or ACT was, and I couldn't hear the difference between them when they talked about it. Did you know that SAT and ACT are near-homonyms? When said quickly as in regular speech, they sound almost the same. Talk about confusing.

</comment><comment><USER76> Personally, I would like to a see a government sponsored test where the study materials are provided for free. I feel like that would help decrease the amount of people who couldn't afford the prep courses or tutors. Not ideal, but better than the current system where wealthy parents pay for the best tutors and materials.

<comment><USER77> Today, the official preparation materials for the SAT are provided for free to anyone with internet access through Khan Academy, and others in this thread have claimed they are as good as privately available tutoring. I suspect that no matter how effective the publicaly available test prep is, somebody will always be able to convince parents to pay them to do better, whether or not that actually works. For strong cultural reasons, having the police enforce a ban on all nonfree activities intended to prepare students for the test is not viable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> For the best schools, like Berkeley, I don't think this should matter much. At that level, SAT/ACT scores are pretty much just a threshold used to whittle down the number of candidates. Once you're over say 1500 on the SAT there's diminishing returns on trying to close the gap to 1600.

</comment><comment><USER79> The real reason for the change is to exclude more Asians.

History is a circle.

[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish- proble...](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem)

</comment><comment><USER80> Does this mean they will not _require_ the exams, or that they will not consider them in admissions at all? I'm guessing the latter but couldn't be sure from the article.

</comment><comment><USER81> I think this is a good move overall. Remember, they're not phasing out tests entirely, it's over a 5 year period before they can develop alternative tests.

I think US college exam systems are horribly flawed.

For one, why are they run by a private non-profit rather than the government?

They're also clearly not difficult enough, when at elite universities it's more a qualification than a determinant. In other nations, they're hard enough that the bell curve doesn't clip at the end.

The tests should be free, or at least free for, say, 2 tests per year per student. They should be harder. And they shouldn't be held in the hands of a third party.

<comment><USER82> What are the odds that the UC system will make a _harder_ test, and secondly, will actually get good applicants to take it?

<comment><USER51> Whatever test the UC system comes up with will be taken by a huge fraction of college applicants, _especially_ the good ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> This is extremely exciting news. Here's to hoping that the UC system can create an unbiased exam-free admissions process that increases access to college.

</comment><comment><USER84> There is going to be a massive market for extracurricular consultants in a little while as when everyone gets As, that's what will be the deciding factor.

</comment><comment><USER85> Does this mean the UC system will leave it up to the individual universities or departments within? Or is this an outright ban they're going for?

</comment><comment><USER86> Abolish entrance exams entirely. Replace them with the exams at the end of first semester coupled with some rudimentary requirement that e.g. if you want to do math your high school math grade is OK. Make the first semester de-facto "remedial education" oriented and vastly reduce fees. Basically start with a giant, relatively inexpensive MOOC (possibly joint with other schools to reduce overhead) and then filter that down to people who are going to be able to pull their weight.

<comment><USER87> is your scenario not already currently adequately served by going to a community college and transferring to a state college?

<comment><USER86> Such a path has significant stigma associated with it, so no.

<comment><USER55> Doesn't the current system already accomplish what you want? Why does berkeley need to do this "remedial education"? How would you determine who goes to where?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> There is no SAT in Canadian school admissions. What would make it difficult fo the US to adopt a similar policy?

<comment><USER58> It wouldn't be difficult, the question is, does it have merit or not.

Canada has far fewer wealthy people, far less extreme poverty, far fewer private schools and essentially no private universities.

Even the relative quality of universities is flatter. The top schools are pretty good, the mid-tier schools not hugely different. Whereas Harvard can offer something considerably more substantial than most state schools, on average. (It always depends on many factors, especially the student)

Very different landscape as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> <quote>dealing a significant blow to the multibillion-dollar college admission testing industry.</quote>

You mean those tests are privately done? It's not some standard high school end test administered by the state like the baccalaureate exam?

Sheesh.

<comment><USER90> In between. They're run by not-for-profits.

<comment><USER89> Multi billion dollar not-for-profits? :)

<comment><USER90> Yes. ETS, ACT, College Board, etc. are all not-for-profits.

The not-for-profits means individuals can't get limitlessly rich off of it, and there is no fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. They're not perfect -- plenty of people make multimillion salaries at not-for-profits -- but you don't get hundreds of millions or billions of personal profit from a not-for-profit.

There are plenty of many-billion-dollar not-for-profits, especially in education and in medical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> Non paywall version (different site but same topic): [https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/05/21/...](https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/05/21/university- of-california-eliminates-sat-act-requirement-1285435)

Is there any objective evidence that SAT favors wealthy people. I mean, I am sure it does to some extent. But how much? Even if there is a bias towards richer kids, the disparity could be due to other reasons as well - <USER2> schooling, better parenting, better social network etc. How are these other reasons eliminated?

</comment><comment><USER92> Well, does IQ matter for academia? Some latent ability to think quickly matters. That's the point of the SAT.

<comment><USER93> The SAT stopped correlating with IQ in 1994.

<comment><USER92> I have taken both IQ and SAT tests, and the sorts of questions are very similar. I am doubtful there is no significant correlation.

The GRE, on the other hand, is more busywork and knowledge based than IQ insight based, in my experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> To help minorities... sure Jan.

</comment><comment><USER95> welcome to socialism/communism, where equal opportunities are nothing, only equal results matter.

the left is absolutely brain dead, the road to hell is paved with their "good" intentions.

</comment><comment><USER96> Paywall. What is the proposed solution to replace it?

<comment><USER97> They're creating their own test.

> The unanimous 23-to-0 vote ratified a proposal put forward last month by UC > President Janet Napolitano to phase out the exams over the next five years > until the sprawling UC system can develop its own test.

<comment><USER98> If they _were_ to implement a new test, I can pretty much guarantee applications would drop like a rock; it would have the essential effect of limiting the applicant pool to Californians who don't want to go out-of-state for college--'cause when anyone else is applying for colleges, do you really think they'll want to take _another_ big test just to add the UC system on to the big list that they can already apply to with an SAT or ACT?

<comment><USER42> Maybe the University of California system should primarily serve the people of California.

<comment><USER98> Maybe it should, but there is no indication that they have actually made a purposeful choice to go that route.

<comment><USER42> Except, you know, the news story we're commenting on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> I attended an elite private high school ($30,000 a year). The school gamed everything for them. It wrote their essays, created leadership positions for everyone, and made sure to spread the applications around so that every student in the references could be "once in a generation."

One guy who went to Princeton used a flagship story of "building a forest". The school was redoing its grounds and hired a bunch of homeless people to do it as they worked for cheap cash. They let him "oversee" it as a social initiative.

Another kid got into Columbia by creating a "nationwide startup innovation movement." His parents paid the school to book all these convention centres and they flew him out to chill at these fictional events. They claimed all the funds from the events went to startups. They claimed to find over 50 startups and sent each a small check for $30. They sent random startups $30 and used it as a claim to funding innovation.

With grades, they had an internal grade to allow for actually rigorous education, but then they would multiply the grade by 1.2 to get your "public school grade." That's the grade reported to universities.

Oh and the teacher left the room for AP tests and we were taught how to efficiently "come to group conclusions."

The only thing that kept them from doing that kind of stuff for everyone was the SAT as plenty of AP National Scholars couldn't crack 1800 on the damn thing.

We won over a million dollars in our 60 person class in scholarship money off these absurdities as most of them don't ask about the SAT.

</comment><comment><USER100> Entrance will now be solely based on how much money your parents bribe admissions with.

</comment><comment><USER101> A large fraction of the value of a degree is as a hiring signal of employee quality. That signal is degraded by anti capitalist training, by merit hiring equated with white nationalism, by academic grounding diverted to activism, and now by the removal of objective admission standards. As an economic transaction college is being made less attractive, to its long term peril.

If not for the evident sincerity of their academic advocates I'd suspect that these policies were carefully crafted by enemies of higher education.

</comment><comment><USER102> Higher education is an absolutely shameful industry. They work hand in glove with public and private financiers and textbook cartels to sell 18 year olds on a highly speculative "investment" that very frequently turns out to be worthless from an economic standpoint. This is jus another way to further push open the floodgates.</comment>


Didn't Get the Job? You'll Never Know Why - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324423904578523683173841190.html

<comment><USER2> In the UK (or any other country with data protection laws): a Subject Access Request will get you all interview notes and internal emails, the company has no choice in the matter.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't this law mean that companies will go to great lengths to avoid generating anything that can be tracked or demanded? All decisions verbal, etc...?

<comment><USER2> most employers keep written records to avoid any possibility of a discrimination suit.

the government has very strong guidelines on this sort of thing, and if you're a large company with an HR department, the Information Commissioner is likely to not believe you if you state that you don't keep written records about job applicants, and destroying the information is a criminal offence.

example of an organisation's policy: [http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools- departments/records-management-s...](http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools- departments/records-management-section/data- protection/2.14480/2.14489/subject-access-request-practitioner)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are legal risks involved with sharing anything in the US. As a result, you need a deep personal connection with the recruiter (usually predating the interview) to get any kind of feedback.

The EEOC push has benefits, but the danger is it reduces the efficiency that feedback could provide.

It's worth noting that headhunters can fill this role. Since they're only an intermediary, they frequently can get away with giving direct feedback.

</comment><comment><USER5> This always bothers me when I'm interviewing. I've gotten the "better suited candidate" as well as the "lack of experience" and "not right at this time" excuses. How does that help me in any way as a job seeker? I am, in some way, "not right" for the position. How? Too shy, or too forward? Too young or too old? Experienced in the wrong technologies, or not experienced enough in the right ones? Or both?

This just leads to depressing frustration. I want to improve and be the right candidate, but I don't know how and no one will help me figure out how.

Luckily, I have a job now. But God forbid when I have to start the interviewing process again.

<comment><USER6> The companies you are applying to are not trying to help you as a job seeker. They are interested in satisfying their own requirements.

If companies provided fine-grained feedback on specific deficiencies, it would inevitably create an opening for an argument about those items, which they have no interest or motivation to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The hassle of job seeking can actually be a pretty good motivator for entrepreneurship. Why would one want to play the game of crafting CVs, studying for interviews and playing the interview game when all that isn't actually relevant to the work you want to and will be doing? You could be spending that time trying to develop or sell a product you actually do care about and if successful, will see decent return on your investment of time. And it's not like the interview game even matters, when in the end a nephew of the head of another department gets the job, no matter his 2.7/5.0 GPA.</comment>