 Ivy League schools are no longer requiring an SAT score in order to apply. Does this mean that meritocracy is crumbling or does it just mean that test scores were maybe a little bit overrated? Yeah, this is going viral in a lot of corners of the internet right now. Columbia University, Andrew, is the first Ivy League school to indefinitely say they are no longer requiring an SAT or ACT test score to have their application taken a look at. For example, previously Andrew, they would throw you out of the pool if you didn't have the SAT or ACT. Nowadays, they'll still look at it. Right, so it doesn't mean that they're just letting in anybody, but they are just gonna take a look at your resume and application if you didn't have the test score. Guys, this obviously produced a multitude of reactions which we're gonna go over. Please hit that like button right now and check out other episodes of the Hot Pop Boys. David, before we get into the first response, generally this policy is supposed to help kids who come from families or come from backgrounds where they were not able to prepare for the SATs in the same way. Nontraditional, unconventional, definitely not like a typical overachiever from an upper middle class or wealthy household. Right, because there are a lot of SAT prep classes. Even I took some growing up that you can study for and build your muscles just to take this test. And who is- It is true right now, the majority of Columbia's incoming freshman class are white or Asian. So obviously it may be designed to help a more underrepresented group specifically black or Latino. Yeah, so I guess who is it going to hurt? Well, it's kind of up for debate, but a lot of people feel like initially it's gonna hurt Asians who generally score very high on the SATs who put extra work into taking that test. Right, because theoretically, a lot of the legacy whites that are very connected from wealthy families, they're not gonna take their spots away because they're like building the library or whatever. So I don't know guys, it's very complicated, but we are gonna get into as many of the responses that we can in our own takeaways. The first one is, man, that's not saying the MBA should have no talent. Regulations, what about that? The talent for going to Ivy League is the test scores. The talent for going to the MBA is being good at basketball. All right, all right, I don't like this comment because you cannot compare sports and education. You gotta more likely compare sports to the military. That's more of how it works, guys. And also if America was such a strong meritocracy, why are we still picking on the math geeks and the scientists? Right, I mean, I think it's taking a look at sports, like that's an end product industry, whereas education should be for building up the country and building up different groups. I don't know guys, like we said, different people are gonna perceive things differently. Somebody said, man, these low-word standards are ruining America. Obviously it depends because using their new criteria, Andrew, somebody could be good at everything except the test scores. So that could make them a great individual. For example, Andrew Malala, like maybe if she wanted to go to Columbia, she would have great everything, everything she's accomplished in her life, but not the SAT scores. She should be allowed in. Yeah, for sure. And I don't think applications to colleges were ever solely based on test score. Like very few of them were, you know what I'm saying? So it's always based on your holistic resume. Obviously the test scores is part of it, but I guess Columbia's, I mean, they're gonna test out this program. Yeah, it obviously depends on their implementation and how they weight things and different impacts. Somebody said, why not hide the name and ethnicity then just make it completely fair and totally blind of everything? Yeah, I mean, I think the other argument against this is like, well, why don't you more heavily weight economic status? Like if they come from a lower socioeconomic level and they can prove it, then maybe you give them a little bit of a boost because they're coming from a more struggling background. I think with a lot of advanced technology nowadays, and I know that in Boston, they were trying to do that with their selective public school system. You can really segment things by geography, family situation, income ranges, like a lot of things that in previous years, Andrew, there was not the information or the computing power to process. So I'm just saying, I'm just recommending people look at using more modern technology. Somebody said, man, this is so stupid. This whole thing was caused by rich legacy white kids because now the minorities gotta be pitted against each other and fighting for a few reserved spots because of course the rich kids, they're always gonna have their spots no matter what because their dad built the library or built this wing of the building. So now you're just pitting minorities against each other. I mean, again, I do wanna remind people that they're not just letting in anybody. They're not just letting in anybody but they are just going to take a look at applications that do not have an SAT score. Of course, to get into Columbia, I'm sure your resume is still gonna have to be stellar to get in. Yeah, and I think you're gonna have to see the applicant percentages of like that came out of the pool that didn't take the SAT or ACT. And who knows, maybe they're only taking the most amazing people on planet Earth but they're just from like a different planet, you know, a different very non Ivy League upbringing. Somebody just said, you know, the Ivy Leagues, they're just not what they used to be. And actually interestingly enough, Andrew, I have a friend at Google who does hiring and he said that it's less sure fire than it used to be. And that's why they test everybody at Google for just execution ability, regardless of what school they went to. Yeah, but maybe that's not a bad thing either because I think if privately private companies have their own tests that they wanna put on to people, then that's their choice. They can totally do that. And I'm like totally for that, if that's how you feel. But I do feel like back in the day, people used to just get jobs just cause they went to a college. Right, because they have the name brand recognition. Yeah, you would see U-Pen or you see Columbia or Cornell or something, some other pretty good school. And then all of a sudden you're like, they get the job. Yo, I used to, I remember I used to see people with the team bank Andrew Colorways of Nikes. If you had a team bank Colorway of like the shocks, BB4s, I was like, yo, you gotta be nice at ball to get those Dukes because there was no way to get them. Nowadays, Andrew, anybody can just buy any sneaker in any color. Yeah, I guess David, so I can tell that this is a very emotional thing for a lot of people because I think a lot of Asians immediately jump to the fact that this is gonna hurt Asian applicants. And then also a lot of like people who are like very, you know, traditional American are like, ah, the American meritocracy it's going down the drain. This is the beginning of it. To be honest, I think Asians are more split on it because we see the logic behind it. But then of course, you're like more looking for the self incentive in it, right? I guess I definitely know that a lot of conservative whites definitely do not like this. Yeah, and here's my general takeaway. We got a bunch of takeaways here. So please hear us out and finish the rest of the video. I think first of all, man, a lot of these people who are mad, they're saying that America's this meritocracy that's crumbling. I'm like, I don't know if America was ever a meritocracy to be honest, in my opinion. Are you sure it wasn't? Because that's what I thought it was. That's why things were stacked the way they were. That's how it played out because it was a meritocracy. Because being successful in America as an Asian guy of all people, I feel like Asian men and Asian people should understand this that we know that no matter what you do, it doesn't mean you're gonna live a happy and successful life in America. Yeah, it doesn't mean you're gonna be completely oppressed either, but it's somewhere like, it's in the middle, it's in the gray zone. But I'm saying success was never always predicated on your test scores because as Asian people, we've always generally as a mass, have done well on tests, but how come we're still hitting bamboo ceilings? How come we're still getting treated this way? Right, we're stuck in middle management. So clearly it's not a meritocracy, guys. And then clearly we still pick on the scientists. We still pick on the math geeks. And then we elected a president who didn't have any prior political experience. I would say for me that I absolutely see the pros and the cons of Columbia getting rid of the SAT requirement. But at the end of the day, I guess if they're trying to do something and they're missing out right now on some great applicants that just didn't take the SAT or have really bad SAT scores, then by all means they should review those applicants against the other pool. Because otherwise it's gonna be so homogenous. It's either gonna be all either upper middle class Asians who studied super hard every day of their life or really rich legacy whites that kind of study a little bit hard and they're all just gonna go in a finance or tech. You know what I mean? Like it's gonna be too homogenous of a student body population to be like fully edifying. Possibly, yeah. I mean, I think that's an argument for it. David, what are some like, I guess middle of the road solutions, solutions that maybe people from the both sides can. They're not politicized. I have not seen any of these from any party. I'd say, man, what if they kept the test requirement but they just cut the weight and the impact of that pie slice by 50%. Okay, so just weighted the test score less but still kept the requirement. And what if they said that what about every student should get evaluated every year? So it's not like you're making that big of a commitment to a student by letting them in for four or five years. What if every year they had their status at the school reevaluated everybody? That would keep everybody working so hard, almost like a one year contract in the MBA. Okay, I think they have some type of probation system in college, right? Yeah, but I'm talking about even ramp that up or make it more advanced. Okay, okay. What do you think about an app that like even develops youth development even earlier that has some built-in incentives. So people from certain groups, like they can learn the skills earlier rather than trying to re-correct this at a college stage. Yeah, I mean, I think this is an interesting idea. Like the app could reward you or maybe pay you or something if you learn certain things because I think maybe like classroom learning it's not always fit for everybody or people got to learn some other way too, you know because not all classrooms are created equal. So we all know that. But anyways, also I think that, you know Columbia University said indefinitely they can always change this policy back. They might take the results and the data that they get over the next five years they'll take a look at it and be like, you know what maybe these kids are not really graduating or whatever. I don't know whatever happens whatever is considered bad results they can always turn it back but I do think it's important to give it a shot. At the end of the day I do not blame Columbia University at all. I think that things were looking really homogeneous on campus and I just think the process to try to fix these historic injustices is super clunky though. Like on the other side I could see valid arguments on both sides is what I'm trying to say I'm just like, I don't know somebody should try something I guess I mean, I don't know like it'd be much better to try to implement free SAT learning or free different classes at a more structural level but I just know that that's gonna be like too difficult to execute. Yeah, as far as what one college can do I think that giving it a trial run is worth it. You gotta try these things out. And a trial run is not just three years right because it's that might be too little to like get a full rep in. Yeah, for sure. But ultimately I think we all agree that education or some type of opportunities at a younger age are much more helpful because you can't always change people's families you have no control over that but at least if you give them more opportunities at a young age or give them some type of extra learning like a fun app where they can get rewarded on or whatever it is like that can actually help a lot. So. Yeah, I think people deserve extra help but obviously if they don't make full utilization or they're taking that help for granted then it's also okay to make that help like come with some prerequisites. And remember they still have to have a super sick resume to get in like the rest of the resume if the resume is amazing and they just don't have an SAT score sure why not? Right. Anyways guys, let us know in the comments down below what you think is America truly a meritocracy what are some possible other solutions that could help or do you agree? Do you disagree? Should Columbia and other schools just try this out and just see how it goes because it could possibly break the cycle for a lot of people and help a lot of people out and you know, you let us know in the comments down below we are the hot pop boys always just trying to put thoughtful videos out there guys so thank you so much for watching and until next time we out. Peace.