Charles Murray says abolish the SAT?

Via a Steve Sailer blog post, I came across an an article by Charles Murray in which he argues for the abolition of the SAT.

Has Charles Murray gone crazy? Perhaps a little. He's not arguing for the abolition of standardized testing, but for the replacement of the SAT with the SAT Subject Tests (which used to be called Achievement Tests when I took them).

The most interesting part of the article is the explanation of research which demonstrates that the Subject Test scores are very highly correlated with the SAT scores, and that when Subject Tests plus high school grades are used to predict college grades, the SAT offers very little extra predictive power. This is because the Subject Tests are doing the same thing as the SAT.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that the SAT is not an IQ test, but in fact it is, and my theory on this is that it's a much better IQ test that tests which name themselves IQ tests. This is a subject I addressed before. According to the Flynn Effect, IQ scores are rising, but if people were really getting smarter, they'd also be doing better on the SAT, but SAT scores are not rising. This tells me the SAT is really the superior IQ test. And the subject Subject Tests are also probably very good IQ tests.

There are several reasons why Subject Tests are highly correlated with g and therefore such great IQ tests. The first reason is that the tests don't merely ask for regurgitation of memorized facts, but rather they present problems which the test takers must solve by applying their knowledge of the subject matter to the problem. The second reason is that people with higher intelligence are better at learning the material in the first place. The definition of intelligence that I favor is "the ability to reason and learn," so the Achievement Tests are testing the learning aspect of intelligence in ways that a supposedly culture-neutral test like Raven's Progressive Matrices cannot.

Finally, the fact that test takers are allowed to prepare for both the SAT and the Subject Tests makes them--contrary to popular opinion--better tests, because preparation eliminates the element of surprise. If a person is just surprised with an "IQ test" they never studied for or prepared for, such a test favors test takers with a test-taking approach suited to that specific test. But when people prepare for a test by taking practice tests, they tailor their test-taking strategy to what's optimal for that test. This puts everyone taking the test on an even footing.

So I agree with Charles Murray that standardized subject-specific tests like the SAT Subject Tests are excellent ways to test people's suitability for advanced study. What I find weird about the article is Murray's naive assumptions about the benefits of getting rid of the SAT. If the SAT were eliminated, all the hatred people have for the SAT would simply be transferred to the Subject Tests. People would say the same things about the Subject Tests: they favor rich children whose parents can afford expensive review classes and they discriminate against minorities. The publisher of the tests would face heavy pressure to reduce the g-loading of the test by replacing problem solving questions with less g-loaded fact regurgitation questions. Also, Steve Sailer has an especially good point about the foreign language Subject Tests: rich parents can easily buy their children foreign language proficiency by placing them into private immersive foreign language instruction at a young age when foreign languages are most easily learned.

Comments

[Charles]

You are correct.

As far as the SAT goes, or whatever baseline test one comes up with - in the end it will have similar shortcomings because people are diverse.

The SAT is a test to select the most predictably good student. But why? It makes more sense (for a lot of obvious reasons) to select the most predictably good entrepreneur/professional/employee who will succeed after college.

Here's my 2 cents on what should be better:

• Each college sets threshold based on where a student graduates in existing class. (Top 5%, etc.)

• A panel interview with emphasis on one’s character. (I know, but this can work.)

• A written essay with randomly assigned subjects.

• Basic math test.

• Tough math test for only those entering appropriate math related fields.

• And finally, a current events test with a brief essay on the issue of the day…

The deep-seated qualities of success cannot easily be measured.
It will always be hard (if not impossible) to determine a young person’s true will power and ability to focus on goals during stressful times.

A more holistic admissions approach where parents will try to raise a well-rounded individual versus a test-taking phenom would serve our country well.

[dearieme]

The solution to the last problem you mention is to make the language exam be on Latin.

[Joshua Holmes]

The second reason is that people with higher intelligence are better at learning the material in the first place. The definition of intelligence that I favor is "the ability to reason and learn," so the Achievement Tests are testing the learning aspect of intelligence in ways that a supposedly culture-neutral test like Raven's Progressive Matrices cannot.

Knowledge of a particular subject (such as pre-calculus) is heavily influenced by environment. I went to a rather normal small-town public high school and took advanced classes, scoring well on my SAT IIs (Math, Physics, and Writing, IIRC). But if I had been trapped in a shitty school, the SAT IIs wouldn't have reflected my abilities. And if I had been somewhere like Central High School in Philadelphia, I might have done even better.

[Half Sigma]

Mr.Holmes, according to the article, Charles Murray found no disadvantage for economically disadvantaged youths that they didn't already face on the SAT. So your assertion isn't borne out by the evidence.

Kids who are motivated will study for the test, and kids who aren't motivated won't do as well in college anyway.

[David Alexander]

Finally, the fact that test takers are allowed to prepare for both the SAT and the Subject Tests makes them--contrary to popular opinion--better tests, because preparation eliminates the element of surprise.

Silly Question: Are memory skills linked to IQ?

Kids who are motivated will study for the test, and kids who aren't motivated won't do as well in college anyway.

I bombed the SAT I with scores in the 1060-1080 range the first two times that I took it with half-assed practice from a tutoring program run at the local commuter college. After buying a decent SAT book and using it, my score went to 1180. IIRC, in all three cases, I did better on the verbal than I did on the math.

As for the SAT, I did horribly on them, 560 or so for English and Biology, maybe 490 for math, but 780 on American History. I didn't really study for any of them and I barely looked at the practice materials before hand. At the time, I felt that I didn't need to do so since I had As in honour classes for those respective subjects, and that was when I felt "smart" and invincible" at a "selective" Catholic School.

BTW, for sample purposes, my cousin scored 980 on her first try and she graduated college before I did with a degree in psychology which admittedly isn't a rigorous degree, but she didn't have the same "issues" with finishing school that I had.

[Half Sigma]

David, you dropped out of Stevens Institute and still don't have a college degree. Your lack of motivation to do well on the SAT Subject Tests seems to have predicted your lack of motivation to complete college. Just as I hypothesized.

I assure you that I very sincerely want you to turn a new leaf and get your degree, and then a graduate degree, so you can get into a better career track.

[David Alexander]

David, you dropped out of Stevens Institute and still don't have a college degree. Your lack of motivation to do well on the SAT Subject Tests seems to have predicted your lack of motivation to complete college. Just as I hypothesized.

I was surprised in high school when my classmates who had lower grades than me and didn't take honors courses had achieved higher scores on the SATs tests. I had correlated grades with intelligence, thus, I believed that the SATs were bunk not because it was a "racist" test, but because my high grades didn't connect with my SATs scores. If the SATs were a good test, then my grades in the 90-95 range should have lead to a score in the 1200-1300 range. Interestingly, at the time, I never thought that I had a chance at an Ivy League school or any high ranking engineering school. I thought that the "intelligent" kids went to those schools.

In the end, my classmates who did better on the SATs completed school on time without any problems in their various majors, and they all lead happy successful lives with nice prestigious jobs that attract the opposite sex and luxury cars while I live in social exile working in a call centre and driving a seven year old Saturn.* I'm actually amazed that I haven't become an alcoholic or drug addict from this experience.

BTW, I was kicked out of Stevens. I ended up in a community college, bailed for Queens College, became massively frustrated there, and I'm back at that same college, except a few years older. I think at some point, I would have left Stevens since I was nearly suicidal at that point, and the classes were just frustrating to me.

*I love my Saturn, and it's fun to drive for a small car, but it's frustrating to see your old classmates in nicer better cars. It's still better than no car. It's still *my* fault for not being able to afford a nice car.

[SFG]

Isn't a lack of character more important to be successful in business? At least in a corporation...

[cuchulkhan]

Interesting points HS, considering you can prepare for them the SAT (to a certain extent) measures work ethic as well.

[DML]

What's the point of taking SAT tests at all when your future is determined by...how did you put it -"Barriers to entry, the Peter Principle, good ol' boy networks, decision biases, and winner-take-all markets." ? Perhaps we should just get rid of this farce of a test completely.

[Russ]

SAT scores are not increasing mostly because more people are taking the SAT. Too many people go to college.

[Nick]

Can't we just abolish Charles Murray?

DA,
Go to your local Ford, GM or Chrysler dealer. They are giving those cars away. Nice ones too, Caddies, SUV's, Mustangs, Buicks, Chargers, etc...I don't know if you consider a Mustang a nice car, but I do. American auto makers are dying for sales, you can go in there, drive a hard bargain and get a really sharp vehicle.

[David Alexander]

Go to your local Ford, GM or Chrysler dealer. They are giving those cars away. Nice ones too, Caddies, SUV's, Mustangs, Buicks, Chargers, etc...I don't know if you consider a Mustang a nice car, but I do. American auto makers are dying for sales, you can go in there, drive a hard bargain and get a really sharp vehicle.

Even on my call centre wages, had decided to work full time permanently, I would have purchased a Saturn Aura. I have enough saved up for a down payment, and my credit is decent enough to get a good loan, but the insurance would have been the killer. My driving record is too spotty and I'm under 25 which puts me in the "bad driver" segment.

Plus, I can think of better ways to spend limited funds...

[Alexander Richey]

I hate the SAT because I did poorly (M-550 V-700 W-670 [took 'em May '07]). I understand that there is a correlation between SAT scores and IQ... I mean, that just seems like common sense. But you shouldn't consider the SAT an all-encompassing assessment of intellectual quantity. Real IQ tests examen more than math and verbal skills, they examen spacial skill, classification, patterns etc.

I just wish colleges would use real IQ tests to discriminate applicants.

I can appreciate the dilemma with insurance. I live in NJ and the insurance here is no joke, but I am pretty sure we aren't at NYC levels.

[mondo]

Real entrance examinations should also include oral/spoken sections (tested only in standard English). It would require more proctors as well as skyrocket test costs, but you would get the added benefit of keeping more proles and the alienated nerds out.

"...keeping more proles and the alienated nerds out."

And the autistic.

[morgan]

HS: "According to the Flynn Effect, IQ scores are rising, but if people were really getting smarter, they'd also be doing better on the SAT, but SAT scores are not rising. This tells me the SAT is really the superior IQ test."

The SAT is not given to a stochastic sample of the population. One of the drivers of the rise in IQ has been an improvement at the low end (below average scores moving up, or fewer very low scores). Researchers have been unable to prove why IQ scores have increased, then leveled off in various industrialized countries. One theory is that the increase is related to heterosis. There was one paper arguing that as a possibility. Now there is a new idea. It is that the rise is due to a post WW2 trend towards smaller family size. As most here probably know, the old idea of first born children being smarter was abandoned a few years ago, but has now appeared again as the result of a recent (large) study. Assuming the first born observation is accurate and that family size has slowly decreased, much of (maybe all) the Flynn Effect can be explained. There is simply a larger fraction of the population in the first born category and a smaller fraction in later birth orders. This effect is consistent with the recent reports that the Flynn Effect has stopped or reversed in various nations.

HS: "Finally, the fact that test takers are allowed to prepare for both the SAT and the Subject Tests makes them--contrary to popular opinion--better tests, because preparation eliminates the element of surprise."

This is incorrect. Preparation is a form of teaching to the test. It has been clearly demonstrated that teaching to the test increases the specificity of the test and that necessarily decreases its g loading.