>we should sort kids into classes purely by age, and that any other method of sorting is inequitable
Can you maybe explain to a non US person why a system merit based is not used(or if it was used in the past was dropped) , I understand there are limitation with this system, I will describe next:
1 there is national/state level exam with super strong security to prevent cheating
2 highschool/universities will be placed on a list with all the classes they offer
3 candidates will fill an ordered list with their preferences. In practice this means you put on the top the "good" high schools and the classes/profiles that interest you , like if you hate Math you will avoid science/math stuff and go to art/literature/languages profiles. How I personally ordered the schools was by checking the results of their students at the national exams.
The result is that students that are very smart or that are OK smart but worked hard are concentrated on 3 hghschools in my region. This seems OK sincee the kid that is a really jerk, never liked school or failed the exam will be at a different highschool and not drag down the working hard students.
I moved to the US only 2 years ago, so am still learning about the system. As far as I can tell, the reasons for not using standardized test scores (such as the SAT and ACT) are that:
1. Using only these scores would boost the proportion of elite university places awarded to Asians, who are already 'overrepresented' relative to their share of the population. Propel state various reasons why this is undesirable (equity/diversity, don't want everyone on campus to be 'the same') and unstated reasons (racism against Asians).
2. Blacks and Hispanics are 'underrepresented' at elite colleges relative to their respective shares of the population. The argument here is that these outcomes are prima facie due to 'systemic racism', i.e. not necessarily overt racist acts, but things in the system that together result in worse outcomes for certain ethnic groups.
If you want to read more about these topics, a few starting points:
1. Recent news (and Twitter discussions) about the University of California dropping the SAT.
2. Recent news about Lowell High School switching from partially-merit-based admission, to lottery-based admission. (And the court order from a few days ago, declaring this switch null and void.)
3. Thomas Sowell's books 'Economic facts and fallacies' and 'Charter schools and their enemies'. One of the points in these books (which include data) is that, when you adjust for things like parental educational level, number of parents in home, differences in outcomes between ethnic groups' career success often lessen or disappear altogether.
Makes sense that racism and poverty would reflect in the national scores , I would have put some effort into fixing this too.
Asians having high scores and taking the sits of rich white kids feels to me as a more plausible reasons politicians are addressing the problem like this and not fixing the actual cause of poverty and racism. A solution would be to make all school good enough, so even if you have to go to a middle level school it will still be enough t get your dream job.
And the problems would have worsen without standardised test. Most of the other common entrance criteria, eg write an essay, would favour the rich who can seek a lot of outside help to "proofread" their essay. With standardised tests at least you have to do it on your own.
Sounds like china's gaokao? It might be mericratic, but it's also very high stakes and just leads to your entire high school being devoted to test cramming.
It can be high stakes exams, the admit ion grade is 75% the grade of the national exam. For addition in high school there is always a possibility of transfers if you maybe had a super bad day and got a low grade , for university you can wait 1 year and try again.
> and just leads to your entire high school being devoted to test cramming.
This is a better measure on how competent you are then some lottery or interview.
To prepare for tests like mathematics implies you actually need to learn and solve problems, it is not an exam that measures your instincts or if you are gifted.
I am from Romania btw, and when IO was a child there was no national exam, I had to chose 1 highschool then go there and take an exam with the other kids that chose the same highschool , if I overestimated my abilities then I would have been screwed for at least 1 semester or year.
In present with a national exams the kids have it much better
- it is clear exactly what areas are covered by the exam so you can ignore stuff that is not needed
- models of subject exams are published and you can try and evaluate your level
- you can check the previous years subjects, grades, admision numbers and you can have a good idea what grade you need to get at your proffered high school.
Also as I mentioned high schools here are specialized, so you have 2 that are specialized in math, physics ad informatics , 1 that is art , 1 focused on economics, 1 focused in pedagogy,literature and languages , 1 focused in chemistry and we have professional school that are for kids that hate books and just want a job, here they can learn to be a car mechanic, construction, cooks etc. So you could not randomly distribute children around and ignore their preferences, you could put a child that hates math in the math highscool and a child that hates art in the art school.
> So you could not randomly distribute children around and ignore their preferences
I believe SJ activists care only about class conflict and don't have any respect for individual choice. Like feminists criticising women who choose to be housewives. They know what's better for everyone.
Can you maybe explain to a non US person why a system merit based is not used(or if it was used in the past was dropped) , I understand there are limitation with this system, I will describe next:
1 there is national/state level exam with super strong security to prevent cheating
2 highschool/universities will be placed on a list with all the classes they offer
3 candidates will fill an ordered list with their preferences. In practice this means you put on the top the "good" high schools and the classes/profiles that interest you , like if you hate Math you will avoid science/math stuff and go to art/literature/languages profiles. How I personally ordered the schools was by checking the results of their students at the national exams.
The result is that students that are very smart or that are OK smart but worked hard are concentrated on 3 hghschools in my region. This seems OK sincee the kid that is a really jerk, never liked school or failed the exam will be at a different highschool and not drag down the working hard students.