You seem to recognize throughout your article that your primary beef is with Higher Ed rather than the SAT specifically. You go so far as to recognize that the SAT might be the best way to evaluate the academic abilities of kids across different schools/incomes/locations/cultures. Your essay is an odd criticism; if you are so against the "university-based sorting machine", isn't the SAT one of the only tools with a proven ability to subvert this process? To rely on universities or companies to develop their own high-quality sorting mechanisms would only grow the university-recruiting-office apparatus and extend it into new sectors altogether.
I felt that the following point you made was interesting and worthy of expansion:
"And if we view the situation through the lens of signaling, then bifurcating the IQ testing and the assessments of other attributes helps to clarify the signal. Right now, the university’s brand and exclusivity are being used to signal IQ, and if we divorce those ventures, that should invite more competition, since sharp students can attend less fancy schools without fear that they’re undercutting their job market indicators."
I'll concede the essay is a bit mealy-mouthed, but that's kind of my point: that's what the topic requires; it's no place for ham-fisted convictions. But I think the SAT entrenches university-based sorting rather than subverts it--it's been a mainstay of that sorting mechanism throughout it's evolution into its modern pernicious form.
I think “SATs entrench the university based sorting” is a shakier assumption than any of those you question in the article.
Harvard will be just as prestigious and hard to access with or without the SAT - it’s just different kids will have access to that prestige.
And I think you deeply underrate the value of sorting, and of having objective criteria for measuring learning, in order incentivize learning rather than gaming (grade inflation, sports nonsense, class markers, etc.)
You seem to recognize throughout your article that your primary beef is with Higher Ed rather than the SAT specifically. You go so far as to recognize that the SAT might be the best way to evaluate the academic abilities of kids across different schools/incomes/locations/cultures. Your essay is an odd criticism; if you are so against the "university-based sorting machine", isn't the SAT one of the only tools with a proven ability to subvert this process? To rely on universities or companies to develop their own high-quality sorting mechanisms would only grow the university-recruiting-office apparatus and extend it into new sectors altogether.
I felt that the following point you made was interesting and worthy of expansion:
"And if we view the situation through the lens of signaling, then bifurcating the IQ testing and the assessments of other attributes helps to clarify the signal. Right now, the university’s brand and exclusivity are being used to signal IQ, and if we divorce those ventures, that should invite more competition, since sharp students can attend less fancy schools without fear that they’re undercutting their job market indicators."
I'll concede the essay is a bit mealy-mouthed, but that's kind of my point: that's what the topic requires; it's no place for ham-fisted convictions. But I think the SAT entrenches university-based sorting rather than subverts it--it's been a mainstay of that sorting mechanism throughout it's evolution into its modern pernicious form.
I think “SATs entrench the university based sorting” is a shakier assumption than any of those you question in the article.
Harvard will be just as prestigious and hard to access with or without the SAT - it’s just different kids will have access to that prestige.
And I think you deeply underrate the value of sorting, and of having objective criteria for measuring learning, in order incentivize learning rather than gaming (grade inflation, sports nonsense, class markers, etc.)