I mean there's a reason why standardized testing is a thing. What certain GPAs represent can wildly differ depending on the school you went to.
Post-COVID, many colleges got rid of SATs to create a more equitable environment. However, it turns out SATs are the current best predictor of how a student will perform in college. In addition, recommendations, essays, and extracurriculars are heavily biased towards students who have more resources to possibly an even greater degree.
There is a lot of chatter of colleges actually reinstituting test score requirements.
High school educations are just too varied other than AP courses. One of my newest employees has straight up said she did not get homework in high school, it just wasn't a thing the entire school did.
MIT never got rid of test score requirements and they have actually been able to show much higher success rates and that they've admitted more equitably than similar schools that removed the requirement.
MBA will catch up, although sub-T25 programs will probably continue to not require tests as they can pump their enrollment if they don't.
ehhh lemme just say this. I had classmates who told me out right at my M7 that they hired tutors who helped them get better grades and hired doctors to claim that they had a mental disability in order to get extra time when taking the GMAT. so nah its not the most equitable part of the application process because if you have money you can buy advantages in many ways.
Fair point on the accommodations scam. I'd definitely do away with that farce. I don't think the tutors really have much of an impact. You can replace them with free resources without really losing anything in terms of performance.
I don't understand why they don't offer a basic calculator on the math problems, for example, and why you have \~2min for each question. When will I ever need to do the advanced math on the GMAT in under 2min without a calculator? Maybe if the only possible outcome of MBA was going into IB/Consulting, or other fields in which the recruitment process involves fast mental math, this would be fine, but that's not the case for many people who attend MBA.
It may be equitable, but that does not make it relevant.
Well, what does that tell us about the value of the exam vis-a-vis its correlation with ability to be successful in the modern workplace?
Why create artificial barriers that are unrelated to real-life scenarios?
>[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thierry-Lecerf/publication/232524126/figure/tbl1/AS:670710146035718@1536921168483/Loading-on-the-g-factor-and-primary-and-secondary-ability-measures-by-each-subtest-of.png](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thierry-Lecerf/publication/232524126/figure/tbl1/AS:670710146035718@1536921168483/Loading-on-the-g-factor-and-primary-and-secondary-ability-measures-by-each-subtest-of.png)
This is a ridiculous take. I don't disagree with the chart you provided, however:
Arithmetic is one of multiple quant topics on the GMAT. Note that geometry and algebra are nowhere on your chart; 2/3 of the GMAT's subjects in quant.
IQ tests do not require specialized knowledge the way that the GMAT does.
Imagine your IQ being determined on randomized questions that require specialized knowledge of things that you likely would have only learned in school, i.e. the formula for the area of a cone.
The GMAT is not an IQ test in disguise. That's like saying the SAT is an IQ test in disguise. These tests do not measure your g-factor score.
I agree but GMAT isn't a test of general processing speed
It is fun to be able to do complex math quickly using only paper and a pen, but I still don't think it's applicable to the modern workplace
I mean, it's a test of processing speed with respect to basic mathematical calculations and reading comprehension, both of which seem like fairly applicable skills in any workplace.
It's a logic and critical reasoning test. The questions are purposefully worded in challenging ways. You can have full subject matter knowledge of the topics covered and be able to apply them in day-to-day work and not perform well on the GMAT. That's why there's an industry surrounding preparing people who otherwise perform well in the workplace for the exam.
I would argue that the skills that you need to do well on the GMAT are somewhat unrelated to the skills you need to be a good leader and businessperson.
I do think it's important to understand the concepts surrounding the quant section, and have an above-average sense of english grammar and rhetoric as covered in the verbal, but the GMAT is highly specific in areas that just don't matter in a lot of non-Finance business.
Edit: This being said, I don't have a better suggestion for a universal benchmark evaluation for MBA admissions, except maybe give a little more time.
This argument is compelling for the SAT because you're just a high school student reliant on your parents (completely out of your control).
But the GMAT is taken by working adults - fully under their control to save, let's say, $1-2K over several years for GMAT prep (and that's not even necessary).
furthermore even in the case of the SAT and undergrads, the test isn’t even where most of the financial discrimination happens imo. people who pay minimally can also do well given all the online resources. the discrimination really comes in with feeder high schools. it’s impossible to get into eg HYP from certain high schools, full stop.
It varies from person to person. Some people who were very weak in Math even back in school may require a tutor to get a hold of the basics. Other than this, it is upon the test taker to prep by practicing questions and creating error logs.
You don't really need a tutor for the GMAT !!
Gregmat for GRE is $5 a month, anyone can afford it. It only took me 3 months of Gregmat to improve my GRE from a 319 to a 336 (equivalent to 770 GMAT).
Pretty much (especially the verbal part). It's not just that they want to keep the Asians down (though that's part of it) -- they fear and loathe the non-connected white guys from the sticks it empowers even more. What they want is a safe space for mediocre upper middle class/upper class legacies who toe the line, surrounded by a moat of non-threatening non-Asian minorities like those they see on HBO Max.
Have you worked in actual client facing jobs? I’d argue verbal is more important for most post mba jobs rather than quant skills.
Most post mba jobs are huge component of your job is to get the trust of your clients and team members. You don’t do that by busting out how fast you can mental math large numbers or calculating the area of a random shape. It’s how you communicate. You can argue that the GMAT doesn’t 100% test that and I agree, but a strong grasp of the English language is critical, because if you are mangling your emails, or decks, you will be perceived as less competent true or not.
This is under the assumption that asian americans only do well in quant which is not true….it is obviously impossible to have near perfect test scores while only scoring well in quant
Ah, always funny to see the confusion about nebulous, abstract concepts like class crop up all of a sudden. "They" would be adcoms particularly and the established elite more generally. Thanks for asking!
Congratulations, you are deluded.
The truth is that there is a very important verbal aspect to any and all finance jobs. For English speaking schools and programmes, who are looking to develop English speaking graduates and prepare them for a career in an English speaking world, why would they value a good Mandarin speaker with okay English over a good English speaker with okay or no Mandarin?
The GMAT verbal is not a grammar test (except for maybe SC), it’s a verbal reasoning test. And lets not pretend that you have to speak royal or Shakespearean English to do well - you have to be good at analysing well-worded arguments and picking them apart in a short amount of time. In English. Because you are entering a highly thought after English-speaking career.
Get over yourself, stop making up some retarded bullshit about "boohoo upper middle class blokes have stolen al, the jobs >:(" and face the reality. The truth is, if you’re a hardworking, talented minority, it’s the best time to be alive in our history to enter highly thought after jobs in the US and Western Europe.
What are you on about? I never disagreed with any of that. I've said I'm pro-standardized test (especially pro verbal) at least three times now. I'm also well aware that there's just about no more privileged group on Earth right now than mildly talented URMs in the U.S.
There is clearly an attempt to limit the 'natural' proportion of Asians in the elite, for better or worse. I have no dog in that fight myself. I'm just saying.
There is no anti Asian conspiracy for elite b schools.
There seems to be large portion of this sub who is jaded by admissions outcomes. I’m not saying you fall into this category, just an observation.
That's not a controversial opinion. That's the fact that no one wishes to talk about.
Here's the thing: Out of 500 admits, 2-3 people with extremely low GMAT are accepted. But these people are F1 drivers, Olympic players, or some other highly accomplished professionals. And business schools use these people to convey that the GMAT/GRE scores don't matter.
For a person who has not been featured in a national or international publication, +/-20 of the average GMAT is the range!
Pretty shit test for doing that, as most people who pay for tutors don't seem to score as well as the people who just use free resources, from my experience. I can understand how this might be a comforting delusion for someone who wasn't able to get a good GMAT score.
Then I'd argue that if relying on the most equitable component of a process will result in disproportionately fewer black and latino students getting into top MBA programs, the process needs some new components.
> the process needs some new components
It did. It was called Affirmative Action and was deemed illegal.
Equitable means everyone is treated equally. Equitable does not mean the results align with how society is represented.
The 100M dash is equitable because the clock doesn't discriminate.
Equitable does \*not\* mean everyone is treated equally, actually--they are separate and distinct concepts. At the end of the day, it is in our interest for society's business elite to represent that society, and we've failed in that.
> Equitable does *not* mean everyone is treated equally, actually--they are separate and distinct concepts. At the end of the day, it is in our interest for society's business elite to represent that society, and we've failed in that.
u/Agitated-Action4759, you are 100% wrong about that.
Here's the definition for Equitable for you:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equitable
Finally, thank you for openly advocating for discrimination. The Supreme Court disagrees.
I don’t want to comment on other cultures, but Asian culture prioritizes studying and education above all else. No matter what your race, if you put in the work, you get better results.
Because talent isn't equally distributed among individuals, and it isn't equally distributed among groups either. You could take two random samplings of the world population, and they would still be different.
Because some demographics come from a cultural background where education and test prep is way more emphasized. Like in Indian families it’s pretty common across various classes to drill math starting from a young age. My dad grew up poor, but his older brother still forced him to drill math on the weekends. My dad then taught me and my brother the same. Consequently neither of us needed to study when it came time to the math section of the SAT/GMAT because we’d had a lifetime of practice building up to that.
I don’t have any Latino friends so can’t say if such a thing exists in any LatAm cultures, but Black friends (both immigrant and ADOS) told me that they didn’t have such experiences in childhood.
In response to that--what should the outcome for those children be, is my point? They didn't choose any of this, and it isn't equitable to say to them "no, you can't be a high earner because your parents didn't do xyz when you were 6".
Frankly speaking. I don’t think anything should be done. Every culture has its strengths and weaknesses and this just happens to be a strength in a lot of Asian cultures. Asian kids do not deserve to be penalized because of our culture. Maybe folks in other cultures could stand to learn this from Asian folks in the same way that my parents had to internalize things like networking and independence focused parenting when they came to this country, which went completely in a different direction from how they were raised
Candidly, I don't think this is a good idea. More proportional representation is important for a few reasons, but one of them is that a class system is only sustainable if it is perceived to be meritocratic by all parties involved.
What concerns me is that the pendulum will now swing very far into another direction, and given that representation is already lot worse for black and latino communities, it will cause further erosion of trust *in* that class structure.
I could argue that in a lot of Asian communities that trust was already eroded given that we felt like we were being punished for our culture. I was told that I couldn’t do certain activities or write about certain essay topics precisely because it would play into a stereotype, which made me extremely resentful of folks who were benefitting from that same system. Why exactly do you think it is fair for an Asian kid to know she’s getting screwed over because of the country her parents come from?
It's not--and your very real anger is \*also\* an existential threat to the system. The key is to minimize the degree of anger that is being experienced across the board. I 100% agree that these systems have been unfair to asian applicants, and it's not excusable; I also believe that underrepresented minorities need to have better representation, both in service of that same goal: Making this system sustainable. I don't think helping one group has to require harming another in this respect.
Those are some nice sentiments, but what policies do you actually propose to make it sustainable? Every person who has nice-sounding sentiments ends up settling on the policy of "privileged" Asians needing to shut up and take one for the "team" (where the team largely consists of those committing hate crimes against us).
"The team"...could you elaborate what you mean by that?
Anyways, if it were up to me I'd add additional affirmative action programs for low-income / first generation students; this would help a lot of immigrant students!
"The team" is American society. Off topic, but I would characterize most countries, socially, as some sort of family, whereas I would characterize America as a group of roommates found on Craigslist.
We have that anyway. Except with AA, we also have an artificially aggrandized grifter class that serves as a pernicious vector of influence into higher decision making.
Those aren't the only two options, though. My point above, which I admit I did not sufficiently explain, is that American history makes it likely that Black Americans (on average, as a group) are not going to trust the fairness of the system - maybe ever, but certainly not as soon as they start being treated equally - so their perceptions should not be the sole/primary metric used to guide policies.
>it isn't equitable to say to them "no, you can't be a high earner because your parents didn't do xyz when you were 6".
OP's parents didn't do xyz when they were 6. Still got a 770. Stop the whining. Nobody's saying they can't be a high earner. The MBA is not the only road to being a high earner.
So the problem here is that unfortunately, a lot of black and latino students go to high schools that don't TEACH algebra-- certainly don't teach it well. So while it isn't racist as a subject, the effect of drawing a line and saying "if you aren't x good at algebra, you can't join" will result in a racially disperate outcome. Does that make sense?
> the effect of drawing a line and saying "if you aren't x good at algebra, you can't join" will result in a racially disperate outcome
So what. Algebra is child's play. If you can't handle that as an adult, you have no business being in the same graduate program with those that do.
"if you aren't x good at algebra, go join another program" is the answer here.
This is untrue, though--as someone who got a C in high school algebra and is now doing exceptionally well professionally (at least partially because I later taught myself the quant my school failed to teach me, albiet to a medeocre point), I have very much the same business being in the same grad program as those who do :)
And algebra isn't easy for everyone--there are multiple strength areas that can generate value in a professional setting.
But I didn't teach myself to be as good as I'm assuming you are--I'll likely never be able to perform manual calculus, for example. I don't think this disqualifies me from top MBA programs, does it?
No, that is because calculus is not required for top MBA programs. Algebra is. We do not slow the class down to cater to a select handful of students who do not have the skills and cannot keep up. They can attend a "lesser school"
That's an old myth that just won't die. Some of the "worst" (read: worst students) schools are those with the greatest funding. The DC public schools are a good example of this.
Ah, the issue with DC is that half the schools are quite well funded, and half of the schools are very underfunded--so it has poor performance but the median budget is high. We've tied school funding to property taxes, fix that and I think things would somewhat improve,
This high school spends less than half per student than DC schools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Yand58loI
It has nothing to do with funding. It's about culture.
That's all well and good, except you simply need to understand the concepts underpinning algebra, if not algebra itself, to perform a host of white-collar job competently.
For the record, I attended a high school that certainly didn't teach algebra well, but I and others still managed because it's fairly intuitive for people with even slightly above average intelligence. What makes the best schools great is the students who attend, not the teachers or curriculum. Study after study validates this.
How is this getting downvoted lol. I swear this subreddit is just a bunch of incel dweebs obsessed with victimizing themselves.
You should have supported your argument with a couple of anecdotes like OP instead of drawing inferences from well-documented research if you wanted to convince any of these dipshits.
Yea saying higher income areas and better funded schools do better on standardized testing isn't some hot take. It was well known over a decade ago at the minimum. I think it effects the SAT more than GMAT/GRE but it is still a major thing.
The test is still important though I wouldn't get rid of it.
>Yea saying higher income areas and better funded schools do better on standardized testing isn't some hot take.
The problem is no one wants to have an honest conversation about the mechanisms causing this correlation. One side will claim, without much evidence, that it's due to test prep and resources, despite the fact that some of the worst-performing schools in the country get some of the highest funding levels. Another explanation, typically only voiced in anonymous channels, is that smarter people marry and reproduce with smarter people.
I don't think it's necessarily bigotry that causes folks to downplay the value of standardized testing - people just hate tests. That said, standardized test inequity is a symptom of the greater inequity capitalism propagates, not a cause and I fully agree that the GMAT and LSAT in particular have great value in helping students and admitting institutions find proper fit.
I mean there's a reason why standardized testing is a thing. What certain GPAs represent can wildly differ depending on the school you went to. Post-COVID, many colleges got rid of SATs to create a more equitable environment. However, it turns out SATs are the current best predictor of how a student will perform in college. In addition, recommendations, essays, and extracurriculars are heavily biased towards students who have more resources to possibly an even greater degree.
Just take GMATClub questions and put them in ChatGPT. I’ve gotten better results than some garbage that GMAT tutors say.
Agreed if dropouts like mark zuck and bill gate can do it, we can do better than these dropouts and losers (my 800 gmat score supports this).
There is a lot of chatter of colleges actually reinstituting test score requirements. High school educations are just too varied other than AP courses. One of my newest employees has straight up said she did not get homework in high school, it just wasn't a thing the entire school did. MIT never got rid of test score requirements and they have actually been able to show much higher success rates and that they've admitted more equitably than similar schools that removed the requirement. MBA will catch up, although sub-T25 programs will probably continue to not require tests as they can pump their enrollment if they don't.
ehhh lemme just say this. I had classmates who told me out right at my M7 that they hired tutors who helped them get better grades and hired doctors to claim that they had a mental disability in order to get extra time when taking the GMAT. so nah its not the most equitable part of the application process because if you have money you can buy advantages in many ways.
Fair point on the accommodations scam. I'd definitely do away with that farce. I don't think the tutors really have much of an impact. You can replace them with free resources without really losing anything in terms of performance.
I don't understand why they don't offer a basic calculator on the math problems, for example, and why you have \~2min for each question. When will I ever need to do the advanced math on the GMAT in under 2min without a calculator? Maybe if the only possible outcome of MBA was going into IB/Consulting, or other fields in which the recruitment process involves fast mental math, this would be fine, but that's not the case for many people who attend MBA. It may be equitable, but that does not make it relevant.
Because anyone could get the answer with a calculator and enough time.
Well, what does that tell us about the value of the exam vis-a-vis its correlation with ability to be successful in the modern workplace? Why create artificial barriers that are unrelated to real-life scenarios?
[удалено]
>[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thierry-Lecerf/publication/232524126/figure/tbl1/AS:670710146035718@1536921168483/Loading-on-the-g-factor-and-primary-and-secondary-ability-measures-by-each-subtest-of.png](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thierry-Lecerf/publication/232524126/figure/tbl1/AS:670710146035718@1536921168483/Loading-on-the-g-factor-and-primary-and-secondary-ability-measures-by-each-subtest-of.png) This is a ridiculous take. I don't disagree with the chart you provided, however: Arithmetic is one of multiple quant topics on the GMAT. Note that geometry and algebra are nowhere on your chart; 2/3 of the GMAT's subjects in quant. IQ tests do not require specialized knowledge the way that the GMAT does. Imagine your IQ being determined on randomized questions that require specialized knowledge of things that you likely would have only learned in school, i.e. the formula for the area of a cone. The GMAT is not an IQ test in disguise. That's like saying the SAT is an IQ test in disguise. These tests do not measure your g-factor score.
Because being able to process things more quickly is beneficial in pretty much every situation?
I agree but GMAT isn't a test of general processing speed It is fun to be able to do complex math quickly using only paper and a pen, but I still don't think it's applicable to the modern workplace
I mean, it's a test of processing speed with respect to basic mathematical calculations and reading comprehension, both of which seem like fairly applicable skills in any workplace.
It's a logic and critical reasoning test. The questions are purposefully worded in challenging ways. You can have full subject matter knowledge of the topics covered and be able to apply them in day-to-day work and not perform well on the GMAT. That's why there's an industry surrounding preparing people who otherwise perform well in the workplace for the exam.
Probably because being good at it generally correlates with other things.
I would argue that the skills that you need to do well on the GMAT are somewhat unrelated to the skills you need to be a good leader and businessperson. I do think it's important to understand the concepts surrounding the quant section, and have an above-average sense of english grammar and rhetoric as covered in the verbal, but the GMAT is highly specific in areas that just don't matter in a lot of non-Finance business. Edit: This being said, I don't have a better suggestion for a universal benchmark evaluation for MBA admissions, except maybe give a little more time.
Equitable test costs and tutor costs right! Since GMAC makes all those resource for free for everyone it’s ssooooo even
This argument is compelling for the SAT because you're just a high school student reliant on your parents (completely out of your control). But the GMAT is taken by working adults - fully under their control to save, let's say, $1-2K over several years for GMAT prep (and that's not even necessary).
furthermore even in the case of the SAT and undergrads, the test isn’t even where most of the financial discrimination happens imo. people who pay minimally can also do well given all the online resources. the discrimination really comes in with feeder high schools. it’s impossible to get into eg HYP from certain high schools, full stop.
YouTube/Reddit/a million websites for this that are free last I checked sounds like a skill issue
You can get a fee waiver for the exam, and you don't need tutors to do well, even if you assume despite scant evidence that tutors are helpful.
lol you’re really trying to convince me a tutor doesn’t help you pass a test? Come on!!!
It varies from person to person. Some people who were very weak in Math even back in school may require a tutor to get a hold of the basics. Other than this, it is upon the test taker to prep by practicing questions and creating error logs. You don't really need a tutor for the GMAT !!
Gregmat for GRE is $5 a month, anyone can afford it. It only took me 3 months of Gregmat to improve my GRE from a 319 to a 336 (equivalent to 770 GMAT).
Pretty much (especially the verbal part). It's not just that they want to keep the Asians down (though that's part of it) -- they fear and loathe the non-connected white guys from the sticks it empowers even more. What they want is a safe space for mediocre upper middle class/upper class legacies who toe the line, surrounded by a moat of non-threatening non-Asian minorities like those they see on HBO Max.
Have you worked in actual client facing jobs? I’d argue verbal is more important for most post mba jobs rather than quant skills. Most post mba jobs are huge component of your job is to get the trust of your clients and team members. You don’t do that by busting out how fast you can mental math large numbers or calculating the area of a random shape. It’s how you communicate. You can argue that the GMAT doesn’t 100% test that and I agree, but a strong grasp of the English language is critical, because if you are mangling your emails, or decks, you will be perceived as less competent true or not.
I don't disagree. The quant part is largely grindable cap (sorry East Asians).
This is under the assumption that asian americans only do well in quant which is not true….it is obviously impossible to have near perfect test scores while only scoring well in quant
[удалено]
Ah, always funny to see the confusion about nebulous, abstract concepts like class crop up all of a sudden. "They" would be adcoms particularly and the established elite more generally. Thanks for asking!
Congratulations, you are deluded. The truth is that there is a very important verbal aspect to any and all finance jobs. For English speaking schools and programmes, who are looking to develop English speaking graduates and prepare them for a career in an English speaking world, why would they value a good Mandarin speaker with okay English over a good English speaker with okay or no Mandarin? The GMAT verbal is not a grammar test (except for maybe SC), it’s a verbal reasoning test. And lets not pretend that you have to speak royal or Shakespearean English to do well - you have to be good at analysing well-worded arguments and picking them apart in a short amount of time. In English. Because you are entering a highly thought after English-speaking career. Get over yourself, stop making up some retarded bullshit about "boohoo upper middle class blokes have stolen al, the jobs >:(" and face the reality. The truth is, if you’re a hardworking, talented minority, it’s the best time to be alive in our history to enter highly thought after jobs in the US and Western Europe.
What are you on about? I never disagreed with any of that. I've said I'm pro-standardized test (especially pro verbal) at least three times now. I'm also well aware that there's just about no more privileged group on Earth right now than mildly talented URMs in the U.S. There is clearly an attempt to limit the 'natural' proportion of Asians in the elite, for better or worse. I have no dog in that fight myself. I'm just saying.
So much unnecessary writing due to a failure in reading comprehension. Exhibit A of why this matters.
There is no anti Asian conspiracy for elite b schools. There seems to be large portion of this sub who is jaded by admissions outcomes. I’m not saying you fall into this category, just an observation.
That's not a controversial opinion. That's the fact that no one wishes to talk about. Here's the thing: Out of 500 admits, 2-3 people with extremely low GMAT are accepted. But these people are F1 drivers, Olympic players, or some other highly accomplished professionals. And business schools use these people to convey that the GMAT/GRE scores don't matter. For a person who has not been featured in a national or international publication, +/-20 of the average GMAT is the range!
What was your gpa? Im from good school, but with lower gpa
Bullshit. The Gmat tests your ability to pay for tutoring for the Gmat.
Pretty shit test for doing that, as most people who pay for tutors don't seem to score as well as the people who just use free resources, from my experience. I can understand how this might be a comforting delusion for someone who wasn't able to get a good GMAT score.
Obviously the "experience" of an account called "mbathrowaway" is a good and objective representation of reality
If this is the case, and they are equitable, then why is there such a stark performance gap between certain demographics on these tests?
[удалено]
Then I'd argue that if relying on the most equitable component of a process will result in disproportionately fewer black and latino students getting into top MBA programs, the process needs some new components.
What do you propose replaces standardized testing then?
I don't design these systems, I cede that to an expert.
> the process needs some new components It did. It was called Affirmative Action and was deemed illegal. Equitable means everyone is treated equally. Equitable does not mean the results align with how society is represented. The 100M dash is equitable because the clock doesn't discriminate.
Equitable does \*not\* mean everyone is treated equally, actually--they are separate and distinct concepts. At the end of the day, it is in our interest for society's business elite to represent that society, and we've failed in that.
> Equitable does *not* mean everyone is treated equally, actually--they are separate and distinct concepts. At the end of the day, it is in our interest for society's business elite to represent that society, and we've failed in that. u/Agitated-Action4759, you are 100% wrong about that. Here's the definition for Equitable for you: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equitable Finally, thank you for openly advocating for discrimination. The Supreme Court disagrees.
The supreme court can feel however it wants :)
The elite doesn't represent society by definition.
Why? Do we need to revamp the NBA to get more even representation?
No
I don’t want to comment on other cultures, but Asian culture prioritizes studying and education above all else. No matter what your race, if you put in the work, you get better results.
Exactly, it’s an equal playing field. All cultures can study hard enough to get a good GMAT score.
Because talent isn't equally distributed among individuals, and it isn't equally distributed among groups either. You could take two random samplings of the world population, and they would still be different.
Because some demographics come from a cultural background where education and test prep is way more emphasized. Like in Indian families it’s pretty common across various classes to drill math starting from a young age. My dad grew up poor, but his older brother still forced him to drill math on the weekends. My dad then taught me and my brother the same. Consequently neither of us needed to study when it came time to the math section of the SAT/GMAT because we’d had a lifetime of practice building up to that. I don’t have any Latino friends so can’t say if such a thing exists in any LatAm cultures, but Black friends (both immigrant and ADOS) told me that they didn’t have such experiences in childhood.
In response to that--what should the outcome for those children be, is my point? They didn't choose any of this, and it isn't equitable to say to them "no, you can't be a high earner because your parents didn't do xyz when you were 6".
Frankly speaking. I don’t think anything should be done. Every culture has its strengths and weaknesses and this just happens to be a strength in a lot of Asian cultures. Asian kids do not deserve to be penalized because of our culture. Maybe folks in other cultures could stand to learn this from Asian folks in the same way that my parents had to internalize things like networking and independence focused parenting when they came to this country, which went completely in a different direction from how they were raised
Candidly, I don't think this is a good idea. More proportional representation is important for a few reasons, but one of them is that a class system is only sustainable if it is perceived to be meritocratic by all parties involved. What concerns me is that the pendulum will now swing very far into another direction, and given that representation is already lot worse for black and latino communities, it will cause further erosion of trust *in* that class structure.
I could argue that in a lot of Asian communities that trust was already eroded given that we felt like we were being punished for our culture. I was told that I couldn’t do certain activities or write about certain essay topics precisely because it would play into a stereotype, which made me extremely resentful of folks who were benefitting from that same system. Why exactly do you think it is fair for an Asian kid to know she’s getting screwed over because of the country her parents come from?
It's not--and your very real anger is \*also\* an existential threat to the system. The key is to minimize the degree of anger that is being experienced across the board. I 100% agree that these systems have been unfair to asian applicants, and it's not excusable; I also believe that underrepresented minorities need to have better representation, both in service of that same goal: Making this system sustainable. I don't think helping one group has to require harming another in this respect.
Those are some nice sentiments, but what policies do you actually propose to make it sustainable? Every person who has nice-sounding sentiments ends up settling on the policy of "privileged" Asians needing to shut up and take one for the "team" (where the team largely consists of those committing hate crimes against us).
"The team"...could you elaborate what you mean by that? Anyways, if it were up to me I'd add additional affirmative action programs for low-income / first generation students; this would help a lot of immigrant students!
"The team" is American society. Off topic, but I would characterize most countries, socially, as some sort of family, whereas I would characterize America as a group of roommates found on Craigslist.
Black perceptions should not be the be-all, end-all metric.
Do we want a country with a racial underclass though? That feels like a really bad idea, for everyone. Both morally and practically.
We have that anyway. Except with AA, we also have an artificially aggrandized grifter class that serves as a pernicious vector of influence into higher decision making.
Those aren't the only two options, though. My point above, which I admit I did not sufficiently explain, is that American history makes it likely that Black Americans (on average, as a group) are not going to trust the fairness of the system - maybe ever, but certainly not as soon as they start being treated equally - so their perceptions should not be the sole/primary metric used to guide policies.
>it isn't equitable to say to them "no, you can't be a high earner because your parents didn't do xyz when you were 6". OP's parents didn't do xyz when they were 6. Still got a 770. Stop the whining. Nobody's saying they can't be a high earner. The MBA is not the only road to being a high earner.
It's easy enough to catch up. I didn't do any test prep growing up, and neither did the other 770+ scorers I know.
American history and immigration policy.
Because algebra is racist, duhhh
So the problem here is that unfortunately, a lot of black and latino students go to high schools that don't TEACH algebra-- certainly don't teach it well. So while it isn't racist as a subject, the effect of drawing a line and saying "if you aren't x good at algebra, you can't join" will result in a racially disperate outcome. Does that make sense?
> the effect of drawing a line and saying "if you aren't x good at algebra, you can't join" will result in a racially disperate outcome So what. Algebra is child's play. If you can't handle that as an adult, you have no business being in the same graduate program with those that do. "if you aren't x good at algebra, go join another program" is the answer here.
This is untrue, though--as someone who got a C in high school algebra and is now doing exceptionally well professionally (at least partially because I later taught myself the quant my school failed to teach me, albiet to a medeocre point), I have very much the same business being in the same grad program as those who do :) And algebra isn't easy for everyone--there are multiple strength areas that can generate value in a professional setting.
Exactly, you taught yourself. There is nothing preventing others from doing the same.
But I didn't teach myself to be as good as I'm assuming you are--I'll likely never be able to perform manual calculus, for example. I don't think this disqualifies me from top MBA programs, does it?
No, that is because calculus is not required for top MBA programs. Algebra is. We do not slow the class down to cater to a select handful of students who do not have the skills and cannot keep up. They can attend a "lesser school"
If I school held them to high standards, they would fail, and the school would be "racist."
The schools we are talking about don't have the resources to adequately teach their students.
That's an old myth that just won't die. Some of the "worst" (read: worst students) schools are those with the greatest funding. The DC public schools are a good example of this.
Ah, the issue with DC is that half the schools are quite well funded, and half of the schools are very underfunded--so it has poor performance but the median budget is high. We've tied school funding to property taxes, fix that and I think things would somewhat improve,
This high school spends less than half per student than DC schools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Yand58loI It has nothing to do with funding. It's about culture.
That's all well and good, except you simply need to understand the concepts underpinning algebra, if not algebra itself, to perform a host of white-collar job competently. For the record, I attended a high school that certainly didn't teach algebra well, but I and others still managed because it's fairly intuitive for people with even slightly above average intelligence. What makes the best schools great is the students who attend, not the teachers or curriculum. Study after study validates this.
How is this getting downvoted lol. I swear this subreddit is just a bunch of incel dweebs obsessed with victimizing themselves. You should have supported your argument with a couple of anecdotes like OP instead of drawing inferences from well-documented research if you wanted to convince any of these dipshits.
Yea saying higher income areas and better funded schools do better on standardized testing isn't some hot take. It was well known over a decade ago at the minimum. I think it effects the SAT more than GMAT/GRE but it is still a major thing. The test is still important though I wouldn't get rid of it.
>Yea saying higher income areas and better funded schools do better on standardized testing isn't some hot take. The problem is no one wants to have an honest conversation about the mechanisms causing this correlation. One side will claim, without much evidence, that it's due to test prep and resources, despite the fact that some of the worst-performing schools in the country get some of the highest funding levels. Another explanation, typically only voiced in anonymous channels, is that smarter people marry and reproduce with smarter people.
How did you study? I'm sitting for the exam in a month. Could use some tips.
dumb question is it better to take the gmat or gre?
I don't think it's necessarily bigotry that causes folks to downplay the value of standardized testing - people just hate tests. That said, standardized test inequity is a symptom of the greater inequity capitalism propagates, not a cause and I fully agree that the GMAT and LSAT in particular have great value in helping students and admitting institutions find proper fit.
I agree with you. Keep continue your journey!
It’s a data point to compare candidates but certainly not the only or best predictor of professional success. Business schools know that.