"I'd say being able to overcome adversity, i.e. being able to do more with what you've been dealt than others believe you can, is usually going to be a stronger indicator of future performance than is a test score."
Well you can say that, but I haven't seen any studies that would indicate as such. However, multiple studies have shown that logical reasoning, critical thinking, and mathematical aptitude all lead to better programmers. These are things the SAT attempts to select for.
"why not ask? The SAT and ACT both have an essay portion."
A much discussed and argued about section, precisely due to it's inability to be quantitatively and statistically analyzed.
Admissions officers at multiple schools indicated they gave the essay portion little to no consideration for precisely this reason.
"Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity?"
To colleges or jobs? For jobs, simply because it's a less efficient method.
"Also, how is asking interviewees how to solve a programming problem more quantitative than asking them how they've dealt with adversity?"
You can measure things about this. Candidate A took N minutes to solve the problem ideally, Candidate B took N + 5 minutes. All other things being equal, candidate A is superior to candidate B.
Furthermore, you can look at things such as programming fundamentals that are easily quantifiable, such as being able to correctly create a log(n) versus n search algorithm, or being able to correctly indicate why log(n) might be superior to n.
Finally, 'adversity' hasn't even been defined in this conversation, so I'm arguing against an ethereal concept. Please define it for me.
Adversity: a state, condition, or instance of serious or continued difficulty or adverse fortune (see adverse)[1]
One of the biggest problems with relying purely on quantitative data is that you bias the results to those who are better at achieving quantitative goals. EDIT: and your results are inevitably skewed by the test. Are you saying communication and writing capability are unimportant, simply because they're difficult to quantify?
What you're arguing for is, given a choice of bad quantitative tools and OK to mediocre qualitative ones, using the quantitative tools as they're the only way you can measure things. This is a similar argument as to why grades are more important than actual teacher feedback, despite some teachers giving 95% of the class an A, and others giving 20%.
The SAT has a history of discrimination, and, in addition, there are proven stereotyping effects: give self-identifying Asian women a math test, and they'll perform better when you make them identify with being Asian then when you make them identify with being a women[2].
Given how much energy has been spent recruiting me (having me fly out to interviews, organizing tech talks at my school, having employees at the company take me to lunch, etc.), and given that every company I interviewed with asked something along the lines of "tell me about a project you've done recently," which also is a subjective, non-quantifiable question, it hardly seems like an unreasonable burden to ask, as part of the regular interview questions, how a candidate has overcome adversity.
And admissions officers don't give weight to the SAT essay because they have their own essays with which to judge a candidate with. And the SAT just provides a quantitative essay score, whereas colleges can see and evaluate multiple written pieces. And they do often ask questions like how you've overcome adversity. Which makes sense, as they want students who won't give up when facing difficulties.
Well you can say that, but I haven't seen any studies that would indicate as such. However, multiple studies have shown that logical reasoning, critical thinking, and mathematical aptitude all lead to better programmers. These are things the SAT attempts to select for.
"why not ask? The SAT and ACT both have an essay portion."
A much discussed and argued about section, precisely due to it's inability to be quantitatively and statistically analyzed.
Admissions officers at multiple schools indicated they gave the essay portion little to no consideration for precisely this reason.
"Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity?"
To colleges or jobs? For jobs, simply because it's a less efficient method.
"Also, how is asking interviewees how to solve a programming problem more quantitative than asking them how they've dealt with adversity?"
You can measure things about this. Candidate A took N minutes to solve the problem ideally, Candidate B took N + 5 minutes. All other things being equal, candidate A is superior to candidate B.
Furthermore, you can look at things such as programming fundamentals that are easily quantifiable, such as being able to correctly create a log(n) versus n search algorithm, or being able to correctly indicate why log(n) might be superior to n.
Finally, 'adversity' hasn't even been defined in this conversation, so I'm arguing against an ethereal concept. Please define it for me.