= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Stranger Than History - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (329)
I am still waiting for someone to be specific about what they consider to be better measures.
Raw grades have been demonstrated to be better, but still not good.
Link, please. Also, raw grade have been demonstrated to be better at predicting what?
When people talk about predictors of success in college, they're usually talking about how well they predict completion of a four-year degree and/or college GPA. The first non-paywalled source I've found is this one, though I haven't read it closely enough to vouch for its quality.
(Note that I'm agnostic on the object-level question here; this is not intended to be an endorsement.)
Yes, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about "measures of talent" which, even given the fuzziness of the term, is clearly not limited to college GPA.
Two people in this thread has asserted that the usual measures (which I understand to be IQ proxies like the SAT and the high school GPA) are "poor" or "horrible". I asked for better measures of talent and so far got pretty much nothing.
Raw grades are notorious for being subject to grade inflation and otherwise depending on the specific high school.
You'd think that, but when it's actually put to the test, they're found to be a much better predictor of academic ability than standardized methods. Grade inflation and the vagaries of the schools apparently all come out in the wash.
They're still subject to Goodhart's law.
Also, how were those tests measuring academic ability.