Discrimination of standardized tests against older applicants

[ashny]

I just came across this study about how standardized tests discriminate against older applicants. As a postgraduate in Psychology, I always knew that these tests discriminate as one of the fundamental principals of testing is that they should NOT test LEARNED knowledge but rather they should test an individuals POTENTIAL to succeed. For example, certain IQ test that make you fill in the missing pieces of puzzles are not based on prior learned knowledge but your skill in manipulating spatial information and therefore measure your potential. However tests like the GRE etc test LEARNED knowledge (specifically the maths) that younger students are 'fresh' at and have a lot more learned recent practice over MANY years, which is essential to getting competitive scores on the test. There is also no correlation between learning fancy vocabulary as required by the verbal section and one's success on graduate programs.

 Here is the article: (it is old but still valid)

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED113007

Why do older students accept this discriminatory system? As an immigrant I was shocked when I discovered I had to learn high school maths all over again for the GRE (and a lot of it I  have never seen in my life before). I have never experienced something so discriminatory in my life but I have no choice. I would leave the country if I could to study my Masters abroad but I am married here and have a family. I already have 3 degrees from abroad and have never heard about this system until I came to USA.

I understand that older applicants also struggle with other tests like the MCAT etc as they are based on high school knowledge that they have not practiced in a long time and as a result a lot of older students are discouraged from applying. 

What surprises me is that Americans are so vocal and fight for their rights but when it comes to this testing, many people complain about it but are not challenging the ETS or the universities on this? Why is this the case? Do older students not realize that are being discriminated against  and that these tests are not appropriate forms of measurement or do they just choose not to do anything about it? 

Edited January 23, 2017 by ashny

[abcde12345]

I agree that the GRE (and perhaps other standardized tests) is not the best indicator of future success. However, there are parts of the application that do show your potential to succeed, e.g. research, projects, work experience, project-based classes, and more. I think that these hold much more weight than GRE scores even if your GRE scores are slightly below average for the program. (Someone please comment if you know this to be untrue.)

[ashny]

4 hours ago, George Zhang said:

I agree that the GRE (and perhaps other standardized tests) is not the best indicator of future success. However, there are parts of the application that do show your potential to succeed, e.g. research, projects, work experience, project-based classes, and more. I think that these hold much more weight than GRE scores even if your GRE scores are slightly below average for the program. (Someone please comment if you know this to be untrue.)

I think that may depend on what program you are applying for. With competitive programs (such as the Masters in Speech Pathology) which leads to professional registration as a speech pathologist, the GRE is very important. There are far too many applicants for the number of seats available so the GRE serves as a screening device to cut down the numbers. An older applicant's GRE scores are likely to get tossed out without the application even being viewed, even though that older applicant may be more competent than a younger applicant with a higher GRE score. Maybe in programs where say, 20 slots are available and somewhere around that number applied, your theory may hold true. The universities for the course I am applying to all specify the GRE range and if you are below that, forget it, it does not matter how bright you are, you will be out - there are hundreds of other younger applicants who will have scores in the range they are seeking.

Furthermore, I am already very bitter right now because I have missed the deadlines for application because of the GRE. If I were in another country, say UK, I would have already enrolled on a program (be that an undergraduate or Masters as I already meet their requirements based on my academic record). At my age, in my 40's, missing a year AND not unfairly competing with younger applicants is a HUGE deal - it affects the rest of my life.  Had I known this about the US, I would have never come here in the first place. Unfortunately, I did not know and can't leave because of family commitments. I am scared that I may have to settle for a career that is less than I am capable of because of this situation, yet if I were in another country, I am confident that I would not have to compromise as I have always been good at academics and have never had issues with my scores meeting admissions criteria.

I see you got into some top universities George - congratulations. I am assuming you are a younger applicant.

Edited January 23, 2017 by ashny

[Robbentheking]

I think this is definitely worth talking about, but I don't think it's this is easily remedied. Maybe you know more about this type of thing, but it doesn't seem trivial to me to come up with a test that reflects pure learning potential and cannot be studied for. I suspect that the main problems for older test takers are not being around the material for years and not having time to prepare. 

It's also worth noting that in some cases, the learned knowledge is, if not directly important, highly correlated with important skills. For example, in mathematics/statistics, if you want to go to a top program and can't get near a 170 on the quant section, there are definitely some red flags that are raised, even though gre math has nothing to do with the math you'll end up doing in a grad program. 

Also, before you declare the system to be discriminatory, you should really do/find a study about whether or not adcoms really take gre scores at face value, i.e. hold all applicants to the same standards. After some of the reading I've done, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, but considering that it's no too hard to read up on the shortcomings of the test, it's something that would have to be verified. 

Regardless, I wish you all the best. The test is a pain in the ass for us college kids, so I can only imagine how much of challenge it is for you. 

[ashny]

6 minutes ago, Robbentheking said:

I think this is definitely worth talking about, but I don't think it's this is easily remedied. Maybe you know more about this type of thing, but it doesn't seem trivial to me to come up with a test that reflects pure learning potential and cannot be studied for. I suspect that the main problems for older test takers are not being around the material for years and not having time to prepare. 

It's also worth noting that in some cases, the learned knowledge is, if not directly important, highly correlated with important skills. For example, in mathematics/statistics, if you want to go to a top program and can't get near a 170 on the quant section, there are definitely some red flags that are raised, even though gre math has nothing to do with the math you'll end up doing in a grad program. 

Also, before you declare the system to be discriminatory, you should really do/find a study about whether or not adcoms really take gre scores at face value, i.e. hold all applicants to the same standards. After some of the reading I've done, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, but considering that it's no too hard to read up on the shortcomings of the test, it's something that would have to be verified. 

Regardless, I wish you all the best. The test is a pain in the ass for us college kids, so I can only imagine how much of challenge it is for you. 

 

I agree that in the case of students applying for say a math grad program, there may be a correlation as maths skills are an 'inherent requirement' to succeed in the  content of the math grad program. I guess that is why they have the GRE 'subject' tests.

However, for non-math grad programs like the one I am applying for, these tests do more harm than good and shut candidates with good potential out. This board is full of younger applicants too who are academically bright, have high GPA's but are just not good at standardized tests. In these cases too there is no correlation between their ability and potential to succeed in their grad school courses, especially since the type of content tested in the GRE is often different from what they are required to do in the grad school courses they are applying for.

[Robbentheking]

18 minutes ago, ashny said:

However, for non-math grad programs like the one I am applying for, these tests do more harm than good and shut candidates with good potential out. This board is full of younger applicants too who are academically bright, have high GPA's but are just not good at standardized tests. In these cases too there is no correlation between their ability and potential to succeed in their grad school courses, especially since the type of content tested in the GRE is often different from what they are required to do in the grad school courses they are applying for.

Granted the math example is not typical, but there's obviously some correlation. As you noted above, the verbal section sucks, but it doesn't suck to the degree that there are tons of people getting 140s who could walk into the best history departments in the country and be stars from day one. The question is whether the level of correlation is acceptable, and the answer varies from program to program. What you're saying makes sense to me if you are in a field where the correlation is low, but then you should also be pointing fingers at the adcoms. I've read some crazy stuff about how little professors know about the test. That seems like as big of a problem as the test itself. 

[ashny]

13 minutes ago, Robbentheking said:

Granted the math example is not typical, but there's obviously some correlation. As you noted above, the verbal section sucks, but it doesn't suck to the degree that there are tons of people getting 140s who could walk into the best history departments in the country and be stars from day one. The question is whether the level of correlation is acceptable, and the answer varies from program to program. What you're saying makes sense to me if you are in a field where the correlation is low, but then you should also be pointing fingers at the adcoms. I've read some crazy stuff about how little professors know about the test. That seems like as big of a problem as the test itself. 

Agreed.

[DiscoTech]

8 hours ago, ashny said:

However tests like the GRE etc test LEARNED knowledge (specifically the maths) that younger students are 'fresh' at and have a lot more learned recent practice over MANY years, which is essential to getting competitive scores on the test. There is also no correlation between learning fancy vocabulary as required by the verbal section and one's success on graduate programs.

I understand that older applicants also struggle with other tests like the MCAT etc as they are based on high school knowledge that they have not practiced in a long time and as a result a lot of older students are discouraged from applying. 

I am an older applicant and I would strongly encourage you to quit whining and study for the GRE. 

(a) The fact that the GRE  involves "LEARNED knowledge" means you should be able to study for it and get a competitive score. 

(b) Count yourself lucky for appreciating the value of the GRE. A majority of students (not the subset on this forum) study for a couple days, take the test, and accept whatever score they get. You know it is important. You know you can improve your score.

(c) I have not heard of a school using the GRE in a manner where they nitpick the difference between a 161 and a 163. They look for basic competence and then use the more predictive parts of the application - GPA, LORs. If someone can't crack on a 150 on the quantitative section, they have no business in a graduate engineering program, for example.

(d) Schools need a way to compare applicants. Without standardized tests schools would rely on soft indicators like the prestige of one's UG institution to compare applicants from different schools. In a world without standardized tests, can you really picture a school picking a 3.8 from No Name State U over a 3.5 from Princeton? The GRE lets that student from No Name State U make admissions committees think twice before discarding their application in favor of someone from a brand name school.

(e) The MCAT is based on college-level sciences. If you want to get a good score on the MCAT pick up some college textbooks. If someone can't be bothered to learn basic biology, chemistry, and physics, I am glad that medical schools reject them. 

(f) Even if the GRE is dumb and irrelevant to your program, suck it up and prepare for it. Do you really thinking there are no other BS hoops you're going to have to jump through in your new career? Graduate school is one of the more ridiculous bureaucracies out there. 

(f) You're on this forum. You're already ahead of a lot of your peers. Press your advantage and do the work you need to do to get where you want to go. 

 

[ashny]

28 minutes ago, DiscoTech said:

I am an older applicant and I would strongly encourage you to quit whining and study for the GRE. 

(a) The fact that the GRE  involves "LEARNED knowledge" means you should be able to study for it and get a competitive score. 

(b) Count yourself lucky for appreciating the value of the GRE. A majority of students (not the subset on this forum) study for a couple days, take the test, and accept whatever score they get. You know it is important. You know you can improve your score.

(c) I have not heard of a school using the GRE in a manner where they nitpick the difference between a 161 and a 163. They look for basic competence and then use the more predictive parts of the application - GPA, LORs. If someone can't crack on a 150 on the quantitative section, they have no business in a graduate engineering program, for example.

(d) Schools need a way to compare applicants. Without standardized tests schools would rely on soft indicators like the prestige of one's UG institution to compare applicants from different schools. In a world without standardized tests, can you really picture a school picking a 3.8 from No Name State U over a 3.5 from Princeton? The GRE lets that student from No Name State U make admissions committees think twice before discarding their application in favor of someone from a brand name school.

(e) The MCAT is based on college-level sciences. If you want to get a good score on the MCAT pick up some college textbooks. If someone can't be bothered to learn basic biology, chemistry, and physics, I am glad that medical schools reject them. 

(f) Even if the GRE is dumb and irrelevant to your program, suck it up and prepare for it. Do you really thinking there are no other BS hoops you're going to have to jump through in your new career? Graduate school is one of the more ridiculous bureaucracies out there. 

(f) You're on this forum. You're already ahead of a lot of your peers. Press your advantage and do the work you need to do to get where you want to go. 

 

Can the GRE seriously be learned? I mean, if everyone were given a subject to study and had to take the same test based on our study of the material, I have no problem with this as we are all competing on equal footing. However, in the case of the GRE older applicants are not competing on equal footing in my opinion and THAT is the issue here. Someone who is out of high school recently has had MANY years manipulating all kinds of maths problems. How could a 40 something applicant like me who has never seen many of the concepts tested (I am an immigrant AND older) and is starting to learn maths from scratch compete on equal footing with these younger applicants. I can't even remember what 7 times 12 is without checking it on my calculator or taking time to think about it.......in my younger days I knew my multiplication tables by heart.

Now if the GRE is "learnable" as you say, then the situation is not as dire as it seems. However, my impression is that it is only learnable to the extent that you understand the theory behind the math. Please explain to me how someone who has been repeatedly doing math  for years, practicing thousands of math questions and been taught in this country can compete with someone like me who doesn't remember maths which I studied over 25 years ago. I see you are an engineering student and I ask that you be objective as engineering students are good at and often experienced with Maths so it would be harder for you to understand this from my perspective. My impression is that you either have to be good at Math or not and that not all kinds of math problems can be learned. If I am wrong, then maybe I can take a few years off to study maths and compete with younger students but at my age it would not be worth spending years on learning math! 

If there are any older/non traditional applicants here, please give your opinion as you would understand how much of a hurdle the GRE is, more than anyone else.

ETA: I see you are an older student DiscoTech. May I ask how old you are and how long it took you to study for the GRE. I mean if you are older and you can be so positive about it, maybe there is something I am overlooking that can make me feel the same and conquer it. Thank you

Edited January 23, 2017 by ashny

[Robbentheking]

9 minutes ago, ashny said:

My impression is that you either have to be good at Math or not and that not all kinds of math problems can be learned. If I am wrong, then maybe I can take a few years off to study maths and compete with younger students but at my age it would not be worth spending years on learning math! 

 

The math on the GRE is definitely learnable, but certainly someone who hasn't had to engage in this type of thinking in decades would have to study much longer to master the material. 

[ashny]

7 minutes ago, Robbentheking said:

The math on the GRE is definitely learnable, but certainly someone who hasn't had to engage in this type of thinking in decades would have to study much longer to master the material. 

Thank you, that gives me hope then as I have always been bad at math - even in high school.  However, if this is the case, then it means that with enough practice, I can get a competitive score, even though my mind is bad at figuring out math problems?

I have always done well academically as my other subjects pulled up my math scores and I used to get an overall "A". I am hoping that someone as bad at math as I was really can learn enough to get a competitive score. I don't know about the verbal section yet as I have not studied at but generally I am better at language than math.

I think the most frustrating part is that I don't even need a knowledge of math for the grad program I am applying to. I have already proven myself as I have another Masters degree, significant experience, great scores through my academic career etc. I know I am competent enough to pass this grad program without a doubt, the problem is getting in.

Edited January 23, 2017 by ashny

[DiscoTech]

7 minutes ago, ashny said:

Can the GRE seriously be learned? I mean, if everyone were given a subject to study and had to take the same test based on our study of the material, I have no problem with this as we are all competing on equal footing. However, in the case of the GRE older applicants are not competing on equal footing in my opinion and THAT is the issue here. Someone who is out of high school recently has had MANY years manipulating all kinds of maths problems.

YOU implied the GRE can be learned: "However tests like the GRE etc test LEARNED knowledge." 

Also, you cannot reasonably expect to be on "equal footing" for any test. Take, for example, a course in graduate school. You will likely be competing for a grade with students who have research experience in the subject matter or have taken a similar class previously. What will you do then?

Things are harder for older students. I know that personally. Switching careers, providing for your family, etc ... However, that is not really the school's problem. They want the best fit for their program. 

Honestly, I think your attitude is going to hurt you more than the actual GRE. Almost all your posts are complaints about it. This is really odd because the GRE is meant to help people exactly like you - people with grades from schools that cannot be easily measured against well known programs in the US. If none of your degrees are from the US and are over 10 years old, can you see how programs would have a hard time assessing the rigor of your prior academic experience without a standardized test?

 

 

[.letmeinplz//]

10 minutes ago, ashny said:

Thank you, that gives me hope then as I have always been bad at math - even in high school.  However, if this is the case, then it means that with enough practice, I can get a competitive score, even though my mind is bad at figuring out math problems?

I have always done well academically as my other subjects pulled up my math scores and I used to get an overall "A". I am hoping that someone as bad at math as I was really can learn enough to get a competitive score. I don't know about the verbal section yet as I have not studied at but generally I am better at language than math.

I think the most frustrating part is that I don't even need a knowledge of math for the grad program I am applying to. I have already proven myself as I have another Masters degree, significant experience, great scores through my academic career etc. I know I am competent enough to pass this grad program without a doubt, the problem is getting in.

If you have substantial other evidence that you would do well in a graduate program, the GRE isn't going to break you unless you score really low. I have an invite to an interview weekend at a pretty great (rank/rep/etc) university and I've seen people here refer to my GRE and GPA ranges as 'mediocre' and even 'bad', yet here I am preparing for the last obstacle for getting into a top-tier university.

Just spend an hour doing flashcards on a GRE app on your phone, do math problems during lunch, and do whatever else people recommend (Magoosh has a good study guideline for certain amounts of time you have to study, 6 months, 1 month, 1 week, etc) and you should be fine. Your experience will weigh much more than the GRE in the eyes of the committees.

[Robbentheking]

22 minutes ago, ashny said:

Thank you, that gives me hope then as I have always been bad at math - even in high school.  However, if this is the case, then it means that with enough practice, I can get a competitive score, even though my mind is bad at figuring out math problems?

Well it depends on what a competitive score is for you, where you are now, how much will power you have, and how much time you have. If you were bad at math in high school, you probably have some work cut out for you. Just practice practice practice. There's tons of advice on this forum and elsewhere, but the biggest key is to figure out how to make math practice not feel like a chore. The best mathematicians in the world do math because it's fun for them. They would never be where they were if they dreaded sitting down to do math. Think of the quant section as a puzzle solving section. 

For the verbal, you should be okay if you read a fair amount already. But as another user mentioned, I found that making flash cards on my phone of the strange vocab words and just studying them whenever I was on the bus or had an odd few minutes really helped get a few extra points out.