Schools where admission is based on a single test?

[Altherion]

Most schools at the US (at any age level) are either based on where one lives or take a variety of factors as input. However, New York City currently has a curious set of top-tier schools where this is not the case: the so-called "specialized" high schools admit students based on a single exam (a mix of math and English with some logic puzzles thrown in for flavor) except for the artistic one where one has to do an audition or present a portfolio instead. That is, a student still has to graduate from eighth grade and there is a small edge given to the usual suspects (they need slightly lower scores), but for the most part, it's just this test. This leads to an interesting racial composition: the majority of those accepted are Asian, most of the rest are white and only a small number number are Hispanic or African-American. Predictably, this has lead to efforts to abolish the test though it's too early to know how far they'll get.

What do people think of such admission tests? On the one hand, it guarantees that the people who get in are very good at taking tests and these schools tend to send a disproportionate number of poor people and first generation immigrants to top-tier universities. On the other, like most multiple choice tests, it's relatively easy to do well on simply by spending a great deal of time practicing on similar tests. Adjusted for age, it's not as easy as the SAT, but it's nowhere near the difficulty of, say, even the first level qualifier for the math Olympiad. Is it worth it to have schools for a mix of people who are willing to spend the time and those who are smart enough to get by without that?

[Jo498]

What would replace the test? A harder/different test? A combination of the old style test with some other criteria?

I think one should keep distinct what would be a better admission/selection procedure and the question whether there should be selective schools at all.

There is one "dialectic" in education many people do not seem to be aware of. If we make (all kind/levels of) public schools less selective because we fear that otherwise we exclude some that are already disadvantaged, this will devalue these public schools. And the end result will be that the de facto selection criteria for the higher levels of schooling and attractive jobs will be even more class-dependent than before. Because if a degree/diploma/certain GPA does not imply some distinction (because almost everyone has such a degree and good grades), these distinctions will come from study abroad, unpaid internships, other types of "social capital" that usually is far more class-dependent than mere grades/performance at a selective test.

[Altherion]

6 hours ago, Jo498 said:

What would replace the test? A harder/different test? A combination of the old style test with some other criteria?

They have not finalized the criteria yet, but as it stands, there would be no different test -- they would simply take the better students from middle school districts all over the city. This would give them the diversity they want, but since the quality of these districts varies widely, it would also result in a diverse student body in the sense that some of them can barely read.

6 hours ago, Jo498 said:

There is one "dialectic" in education many people do not seem to be aware of. If we make (all kind/levels of) public schools less selective because we fear that otherwise we exclude some that are already disadvantaged, this will devalue these public schools. And the end result will be that the de facto selection criteria for the higher levels of schooling and attractive jobs will be even more class-dependent than before. Because if a degree/diploma/certain GPA does not imply some distinction (because almost everyone has such a degree and good grades), these distinctions will come from study abroad, unpaid internships, other types of "social capital" that usually is far more class-dependent than mere grades/performance at a selective test.

Yes, this is why there is considerable resistance to changing the admission process. For pre-college education in New York, the class-dependent solution is much less subtle than the means you list above: rich people simply send their children to private schools. The fight over the specialized high schools is mainly between immigrants too poor to do that, but with a strong cultural tendency towards education and the local poor as well as immigrants who lack such a tendency.

[Jo498]

Taking the better students without special tests is still the standard procedure in Germany for picking the students for the somewhat more academically oriented middle/high schools (although this is usually done already after 4th or 6th grade, i.e. with 10-12 year olds). But these schools usually do not have an explicit maths/science or language focus (they might still have in some regions), they are general, only on a higher level and with more options (i.e. more foreign languages). There is usually another option to change schools after 10th grade (so only the last 2-3 years and the final exam will be at the new school) and by then the differences can be considerable. This was almost 30 years ago but I recall that we got a new student after 10th grade who had been a B+ student or so in maths at his former school and barely got the passing grade in the first math class in 11th grade (some kind of elementary calculus) at our school.

Sure, private schools are the obvious "solution" for the rich. They will become more attractive (and they have been growing in a country like Germany where they were quite rare, partly because of the watered-down level of public schools). Still, I think the subtle means and the general mechanisms are important to note because they undermine the very purpose of "broadly accessible" higher ed.

[Iskaral Pust]

I am a fan of selective schools.  In fact, I’m a fan of “tracking” in education generally, even though it is officially anathema in the US and yet unofficially proxied in many ways; provided tracks remain open to flows as development levels naturally ebb and flow.  I think we should acknowledge that there is variation in student ability and motivation, for a large variety of reasons, and we cannot wish it away by confining all students to the same curriculum and pace. 

I do think that objective standardized tests — which should be constructed to be fair, accessible and nuanced (not just multiple choice) — are the best, or least worst, way of assigning selective spots.  I am suspicious of relying on subjective grades assigned by teachers with uneven standards, creating an arms race of grade inflation.  I don’t believe in quotas by race or other politically favored groups, which also extends to legacy admissions and athletic/music/performance scholarships to institutions not solely or primarily focused on athletics/music/performance. 

I fully acknowledge that this means that a large number of economically disadvantaged students will not reach those selective schools.  I think this means that we need to improve the capabilities of economically disadvantaged kids rather than pretending they aren’t actually at a lower standard (in general, individuals obviously vary).  Unfortunately I also believe that a large body of evidence suggests that no amount or quality of schooling can overcome the disadvantage of bad parenting, stress of poverty, and/or a culture unsupportive of academic pursuit.  So fixing the problem won’t occur in schools anyway.  

The growing significance of education in life outcomes means that education opportunities will be the source of increasing competition and political tension.  But no amount of tokenism or quotas can over the long term mask deficiencies in ability/merit, and so the realized outcomes will still balance as they would have anyway.

 

For NYC and Bill DeBlasio in particular, the current campaign for race quotas to reduce the predominance of Asian immigrants in selective schools is closely mirrored in the Ivy Leagues too, and looks like an ugly echo of the push back against Jewish immigrant kids ~50 years ago.  Once again it’s a way of keeping down an “upstart” ethnic group (where extra effort gets demonized with Tiger Moms) while trying to put a bandaid on the problems of politically favored groups. 

[Altherion]

Looks like the plan to get rid of the test entirely is on hold until at least the end of the summer (it requires approval from the New York State senate and they're in no hurry to grant it). However, the anti-test people are undeterred and, nationally, they seem to be winning more often than not. For example, the University of Chicago has recently stated that they will no longer require an SAT or ACT score for admission. It's not as famous as the coastal schools, but it's one of the best universities in the country and easily the best in a large region.

On 6/8/2018 at 1:08 PM, Iskaral Putsch said:

I am a fan of selective schools.  In fact, I’m a fan of “tracking” in education generally, even though it is officially anathema in the US and yet unofficially proxied in many ways; provided tracks remain open to flows as development levels naturally ebb and flow.  I think we should acknowledge that there is variation in student ability and motivation, for a large variety of reasons, and we cannot wish it away by confining all students to the same curriculum and pace.

Interestingly enough, this controversy has brought tracking back into the conversation. One of the main objections to de Blasio's plan is that all it does is redistribute the top 5% of public high school spots and possibly make bad middle schools somewhat more attractive. People pointed out that back when tracks were used, the racial disparities in specialized high school student body composition were far less severe. I doubt they'll come back into vogue soon, but in the medium term, it's quite possible.

[Iskaral Pust]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Interestingly enough, this controversy has brought tracking back into the conversation. One of the main objections to de Blasio's plan is that all it does is redistribute the top 5% of public high school spots and possibly make bad middle schools somewhat more attractive. People pointed out that back when tracks were used, the racial disparities in specialized high school student body composition were far less severe. I doubt they'll come back into vogue soon, but in the medium term, it's quite possible.

Yes, without tracking within schools, parents start clustering to achieve tracking via school selection, which makes students more segregated and, arguably, even leads to neighborhoods becoming more segregated.  DeBlasio might now create an incentive for some good students to parachute into bad middle schools to game the system to win an easy spot into a selective school, but only so long as the student body remains weak.  Funny how people keep evading attempts to control their behavior.

I’m kind of shocked that UofC (my alma mater for post grad) would no longer require the SAT/ACT.  They make such an issue of academic standards, plus they’ve resisted other recent politically correct pressure like safe spaces and trigger warnings. 

[Jo498]

Wasn't there this huge meta-study about elementary and secondary education a few years ago that basically claimed that hardly any of the hotly contested aspects (like (early) tracking) matter all that much?

Anyway, in Germany the "tradition" used to be almost no private schools but very early tracking for public schools. Children get "sorted" after 4 years of elementary school at about 10 yo (or more rarely after 6 years at about 12). There used to be three tracks: "Gymnasium" (not a gym but more like a prep school or a Lycée in France), "Realschule" and "Hauptschule" or "Volksschule". As the terms indicate until the 60s or so most people only went to the lowest form, left at about 14 (later 15-16 when another year was added) and entered an apprenticeship (while still going to some kind of trade school for about one day per week during the apprenticeship). The Gymnasium used to be mostly university bound people and the middle track was for lower level white collar jobs. These tracks still exist but a lot has changed. The lowest track nowadays is mostly for the bottom few, problem students with difficult backgrounds, poor command of German etc. The middle track (leaving at about 16 after 10 years) is for non-academically inclined who usually start an apprenticship as described above. Almost half of the students now graduate from the academic track (12-13 years, finishing at 18-19) so in theory they should be fit for college. Not all go there, there are still good options for white collar jobs that are accessed via an apprenticeship (like bank or insurance clerk) and these nowadays tend to require the "Abitur" (the diploma of the academic track school).

Anyway, a hot debate in Germany since I can remember (ca. mid 1980s) is that this early tracking is supposedly the root of all evil, especially of injustice. It is claimed that it is hardly possible to sort such young children and that many end up in the wrong kind of secondary school for social reasons. Apart from the fact that it is possible to change between tracks later on (albeit with some difficulty and it seems to happen more often in downwards direction), I have serious doubts about this claim. First of all, not enough people change (forced or voluntarily) tracks later. If the sorting was more often "wrong" than correct this would have to happen far more often. Secondly, anecdotal evidence from my own school time. I know that this cannot replace "studies" but from this experience I'd put the number of children who got sorted into the wrong track at around 5-10%, i.e. about two in a classroom of 25.

I think the German system was too rigid in former times but it was decent in the 1980s when I went to secondary school. I also don't quite see why early tracking should be so bad compared to tracking from, say 14/15 to the end of high school. With 14 many kids are still troubled by puberty and this will certainly act as a confounder when trying to evaluate capabilities.

Also, tbh or blunt, possible injustice because of "possibly wrongly sorted" kids is not the only aspect of justice in education. There is also the aspect that bright kids in their extremely receptive years before/around puberty lose two years or so of education because they are tied down to the average (or below average). Even worse, if they are not sufficiently challenged they could develop problematic habits, expecting to always be able to coast along without any effort (because that had worked so well for them from ages 10-16 or so... been there done that to some extent).

Of course one can always claim that we should have an integrated system without tracks but sufficient differentiation and options to keep the smart kids busy as well. I agree. But it has to be done and done well and I have my doubts that it is usually done well. Whereas with tracks this is roughly "built in" already. I am all for giving special support to those with tough backgrounds or special needs. But there are many ways how this can be done and I don't think that no tracking is the answer.

[Starkess]

Here's a story about the UChicago SAT/ACT decision.

There's also a big push in graduate admissions against the GRE. This has been especially prominent in astronomy, to stop requiring the Physics GRE. It has been officially adopted as the position of the AAS (American Astronomical Society) that "graduate programs eliminate or make optional the GRE and PGRE as metrics of evaluation for graduate applicants. If GRE or PGRE scores are used, the AAS recommends that admissions criteria account explicitly for the known systematics in scores as a function of gender, race, and socioeconomic status, and that cutoff scores not be used to eliminate candidates from admission, scholarships/fellowships, or financial support, in accordance with ETS recommendations."

Some schools won't even accept a PGRE score at all, while others have made it optional. (It is still required for UChicago for both the Physics and Astronomy & Astrophysics departments.)

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Is the physics GRE hard enough to be relevant for graduate physics programs?

[Altherion]

22 hours ago, Iskaral Putsch said:

I’m kind of shocked that UofC (my alma mater for post grad) would no longer require the SAT/ACT.  They make such an issue of academic standards, plus they’ve resisted other recent politically correct pressure like safe spaces and trigger warnings. 

I can't find it, but I read an article suggesting that this might be a clever ploy to increase their ranking. One of the variables used to rank schools is the ratio of those accepted to those who applied. If dropping this requirement convinces more people who did poorly on the SAT/ACT to apply and the university makes minimal changes to its selection process, this ratio will decrease.

14 hours ago, Jo498 said:

Wasn't there this huge meta-study about elementary and secondary education a few years ago that basically claimed that hardly any of the hotly contested aspects (like (early) tracking) matter all that much?

The study might have been huge, but I doubt it could be as big as all of the schools in the US where tracking was abandoned (I'd be surprised if it was larger than the New York City school system). In effect, the people who got rid of tracking conducted a massive social experiment on participants who had no choice and although there additional variables (there always will be with these social experiments) it's not unreasonable to draw conclusions from this experiment.

Also, keep in mind that the tracking in the US is very different from the German variety. All it means is separating students into different classes based on ability. In principle, any student from any school was able to apply to any university, it's just that the people in the better classes had better chances of getting in.

6 hours ago, Starkess said:

There's also a big push in graduate admissions against the GRE.

When I took the GRE and Physics GRE (this was back in 2005), the common wisdom was that they're used as a simple filter to screen people who clearly don't belong. That is, they can hurt you, but they can't help you (a perfect score doesn't mean much) and it doesn't make sense to be overly concerned with them. However, when I decided physics was not for me (roughly a year and a half ago) and started applying for non-academic jobs, I was really surprised to discover that some companies wanted GRE scores. This was really annoying because it's been more than a decade and I don't remember the exact numbers anymore so I had to dig through a large pile of documents to find them.

The GRE and the various subject tests for undergrads have the same problem as the SAT and the various subject tests for high school students and a similar one to the one of the specialized high school tests: they can be specifically studied for and they're all that predictive of future performance. On the other hand, the reason they're necessary is also basically the same: there needs to be some common standard because middle schools, high schools and colleges in the US are so different from each other that identical grades, class ranks, recommendations, etc. can imply something completely different depending on where they come from.

[Relic]

I went to one of the high schools in NYC, Bronx Science. I rocked the test but absolutely hated going to that school. To me the only thing they seemed concerned about was teaching students how to pass more tests. Boring as fuck. To answer your question, im against the idea of a single test being used as a measure of "worthiness". 

[RhaenysBee]

90% of public schools admit people based on a single test here. Or a standardized collection of tests that everybody in public education takes at the age of 14 and 18. I’m sure there are more complex admission processes for private schools but the general public knows very little about these as it doesn’t really concern anybody apart from the 1% of the local population, who put their kids in private education. Like any method, a single test has its upsides and downsides. Maybe more down than upsides. 

The graver issue is how much significance teachers and parents (and by proxy, kids too) attribute to these tests. Even here, the ex-communist and ex-Prussian education system is flexible enough to provide a great number of opportunities should a kid not perform on said tests as hoped. Yet, a large proportion of people act like futures depend on a test kids take at the age of 14 or 18. They don’t. But the belief is enough to completely distort how people look at the education system. Instead of utilizing the variety of options open to students and finding the most suitable road for the individual, families tend to see a one way road: study hard, perform well on the test, achieve a high score, because high admission score equals high level education. 

That’s probably the worst misconception, when it comes to high school education. Schools are ranked annually based on students’ test scores to indicate the excellence of the education they provide. While the ranking does include a satisfaction chart, it is only for informational purposes and doesn’t weigh in the ranking, as far as I know. Thus, when you flip through the ranking, you will find that the best schools are the ones with the highest scoring students. The result is an elitist attitude and the strengthening of the belief that tests are the one indicator to rule them all. 

Unfortunately many of the highest ranking high schools fail to provide anything beyond preparing excellent students, who chose the school because of its ranking to excel in tests and raise the ranking. Not one of them create a competitive, hostile and toxic social environment for students. And that brings us back to the question whether there’s more to choosing a school (or students) than academic excellency and whether we should take those factors into consideration, and take a look at extracurricular possibilities, sport facilities, social life, school culture when looking for the ideal student/school. 

Boy, can I ramble about this shit or not? (In my defense, I wrote a thesis on the pros and cons of quantified school ranking, so I’ve had practice) 

 

[baxus]

In Serbia after elementary school we enroll every school based on combination of grades in previous school and entrance exams.

After the eighth grade we enroll high school and we take tests in Serbian language and maths which make for 40% of our total score, with grades from certain subjects in grades 5-8 making up remaining 60%.

After high school, you enroll university based on your grades from high school (40%) and 2 tests that count for remaining 60%. Which tests you take is determined by what college you want to enroll. For example, for medical school you take biology and chemistry, for law school you take history and Serbian language, I took maths and physics for electrical engineering etc.