The problem is as never the tests. It was pretending that the difference between a 600 and 625 (or whatever) really predicted anything.

It was the silly idea that with tests you could produce a fair ordering of students based on potential to succeed.

▲

scarmig 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You can absolutely make a bet on who's more likely to succeed based on a 100 point difference, though. It's not absolute, but it's highly predictive. And the reason the SAT was dropped wasn't because admissions were being forced to blindly accept 620 over 610 (they never were), but so that people who scored hundreds of points below the mean could be admitted (in the pursuit of other institutional goals).

	▲	lokar 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We have decades of data (test score vs grades and degree completion). They should gather it up and calculate the answers. Flip answer: the bucket width should be 2.5 times the score improved of a prep course.

▲

raincole 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any working system has to rely on some arbitrary rules. Drawing a line between students who scored 600 and 625 is still infinitely better than drawing it based on the decision-makers' moods.

	▲	lokar 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Or, treat 600-625 as a tie, and use a lottery.

▲

chaostheory 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As imperfect standardized tests are, they are still more fair and less biased than using arbitrary judgement on extra curriculars

	▲	lokar 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Bucket to the observed predictive power of the score, resolve ties with a lottery .

▲

jpadkins 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

who uses SAT scores as "potential succeed"??

	▲	lokar 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The original argument for standardized tests was to pick based on how well you would do in university (vs who your parents know).