-
“We live in a society obsessed with maximum performance. Think of exams like the SAT and the GRE. Though these tests take only a few hours, they’re supposed to give schools and companies a snapshot of an individual’s abiding talents.
Or consider the NFL Scouting Combine, in which players entering the draft perform short physical and mental tasks, such as the 40-yard dash. The Combine is meant to measure physical ability; that’s why teams take the results so seriously.
It’s easy to understand the allure of such maximal measures. They don’t take very long, so we can quantify many people. Also, they make assessment seem relatively straightforward, reducing the uncertainty of selecting a college applicant or football player.
But as Mr. Sackett demonstrated with those supermarket cashiers, such high-stakes tests are often spectacularly bad at predicting performance in the real world.”
-
“A special panel on Thursday proposed an overhaul of the Medical College Admission Test — including changes that could encourage would-be doctors to take more social science courses as undergraduates and that might result in some minority and disadvantaged students having better tools to highlight their strengths.
Many parts of the MCAT wouldn’t change, including the centrality of sections on the biological and physical sciences. But other changes could be significant enough, several experts said, to change the behavior of undergraduates and the advising that colleges give those seeking to attend medical school.”
1 comment
Comments are closed.
So, regarding your first item (SATs, GREs, etc.), if grit is very important, how might we efficiently measure it? By its nature, it is a quality that reveals itself only over time, but how much time do we need? Would an arduous test lasting a week suffice? A month, perhaps?
Now, that would be a different society… We could hold a month-long foot-race over rough terrain, with the top 5% getting admitted to the fast track in major corporations and prestigious government departments.