Colleges should require scores if test is taken

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Guess what? my kid knows how to play the game and is at a top school by dcum standard. I just laugh at all those of you who claim that your DC is a straight A student but is not a good test taker. Yeah right! Pretty sure that many of these kids have also prepped like crazy but couldn't hack a decent score because guess what? not everyone has the ability to get to 1500s. For all those who argue that GPA is a better indicator of college success, I guess you've never heard of grade inflation and unlimited retakes until students get an A. I'm in a parents facebook group for DC's college, and there are so many parents complaining about their previously straight A students struggling or failing their intro classes.

Oh no- grade inflation! Do you think you’ve uncovered some great secret that college admissions offices are blind to? You don’t think they track everything? Good grief - if you think colleges are this inept, including the “top” college your child attends, then you should have sent them abroad.

And all of those supposed straight A students failing intro classes could also have had test scores - unless you expect us to believe the parents are posting “my straight A test optional student is failing - oh how I wish they took the SAT since it’s a curb against grade inflation”

No college admission can't track everything. When 60-70% of the class has an A, how are they going to find out who is ready for college rigor and who is not? And I can guarantee some of these kids are not ready, but no one will know until they matriculate. GPA can be gamed very easily and are absolutely not good indicator of college readiness. AP/IB scores yes, GPA no.

By the way, if any of the straight A student failing intro classes had a high SAT score, their parents would have screamed about it at the top of the lungs, so no I don't know if these kids were test optional, but I'm pretty sure they were not top SAT scorers or their parents would have mentioned it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Guess what? my kid knows how to play the game and is at a top school by dcum standard. I just laugh at all those of you who claim that your DC is a straight A student but is not a good test taker. Yeah right! Pretty sure that many of these kids have also prepped like crazy but couldn't hack a decent score because guess what? not everyone has the ability to get to 1500s. For all those who argue that GPA is a better indicator of college success, I guess you've never heard of grade inflation and unlimited retakes until students get an A. I'm in a parents facebook group for DC's college, and there are so many parents complaining about their previously straight A students struggling or failing their intro classes.

Oh no- grade inflation! Do you think you’ve uncovered some great secret that college admissions offices are blind to? You don’t think they track everything? Good grief - if you think colleges are this inept, including the “top” college your child attends, then you should have sent them abroad.

And all of those supposed straight A students failing intro classes could also have had test scores - unless you expect us to believe the parents are posting “my straight A test optional student is failing - oh how I wish they took the SAT since it’s a curb against grade inflation”

No college admission can't track everything. When 60-70% of the class has an A, how are they going to find out who is ready for college rigor and who is not? And I can guarantee some of these kids are not ready, but no one will know until they matriculate. GPA can be gamed very easily and are absolutely not good indicator of college readiness. AP/IB scores yes, GPA no.

By the way, if any of the straight A student failing intro classes had a high SAT score, their parents would have screamed about it at the top of the lungs, so no I don't know if these kids were test optional, but I'm pretty sure they were not top SAT scorers or their parents would have mentioned it.

None of what you said is remotely helpful to your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Guess what? my kid knows how to play the game and is at a top school by dcum standard. I just laugh at all those of you who claim that your DC is a straight A student but is not a good test taker. Yeah right! Pretty sure that many of these kids have also prepped like crazy but couldn't hack a decent score because guess what? not everyone has the ability to get to 1500s. For all those who argue that GPA is a better indicator of college success, I guess you've never heard of grade inflation and unlimited retakes until students get an A. I'm in a parents facebook group for DC's college, and there are so many parents complaining about their previously straight A students struggling or failing their intro classes.

Oh no- grade inflation! Do you think you’ve uncovered some great secret that college admissions offices are blind to? You don’t think they track everything? Good grief - if you think colleges are this inept, including the “top” college your child attends, then you should have sent them abroad.

And all of those supposed straight A students failing intro classes could also have had test scores - unless you expect us to believe the parents are posting “my straight A test optional student is failing - oh how I wish they took the SAT since it’s a curb against grade inflation”

No college admission can't track everything. When 60-70% of the class has an A, how are they going to find out who is ready for college rigor and who is not? And I can guarantee some of these kids are not ready, but no one will know until they matriculate. GPA can be gamed very easily and are absolutely not good indicator of college readiness. AP/IB scores yes, GPA no.

By the way, if any of the straight A student failing intro classes had a high SAT score, their parents would have screamed about it at the top of the lungs, so no I don't know if these kids were test optional, but I'm pretty sure they were not top SAT scorers or their parents would have mentioned it.

None of what you said is remotely helpful to your point.

ok if you say so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Guess what? my kid knows how to play the game and is at a top school by dcum standard. I just laugh at all those of you who claim that your DC is a straight A student but is not a good test taker. Yeah right! Pretty sure that many of these kids have also prepped like crazy but couldn't hack a decent score because guess what? not everyone has the ability to get to 1500s. For all those who argue that GPA is a better indicator of college success, I guess you've never heard of grade inflation and unlimited retakes until students get an A. I'm in a parents facebook group for DC's college, and there are so many parents complaining about their previously straight A students struggling or failing their intro classes.

Oh no- grade inflation! Do you think you’ve uncovered some great secret that college admissions offices are blind to? You don’t think they track everything? Good grief - if you think colleges are this inept, including the “top” college your child attends, then you should have sent them abroad.

And all of those supposed straight A students failing intro classes could also have had test scores - unless you expect us to believe the parents are posting “my straight A test optional student is failing - oh how I wish they took the SAT since it’s a curb against grade inflation”

No college admission can't track everything. When 60-70% of the class has an A, how are they going to find out who is ready for college rigor and who is not? And I can guarantee some of these kids are not ready, but no one will know until they matriculate. GPA can be gamed very easily and are absolutely not good indicator of college readiness. AP/IB scores yes, GPA no.

By the way, if any of the straight A student failing intro classes had a high SAT score, their parents would have screamed about it at the top of the lungs, so no I don't know if these kids were test optional, but I'm pretty sure they were not top SAT scorers or their parents would have mentioned it.

None of what you said is remotely helpful to your point.

ok if you say so

You’re pretty sure of something you have no evidence to support. How amazing that you can infer the truth from a complete lack of facts. color me convinced.

And if you think selective colleges don’t track performance of admits you’re delusional. They have records about schools going back years. Only a blindly arrogant person could think you have better information than people who do this for a living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s my take. Some people are obsessed with limiting access to the most elite institutions: schools, neighborhoods, jobs. It’s comforting to know that whatever position you’ve secured in life is ultra competitive and off limits to the masses. But here’s the thing: many people go to college, most people succeed at work and there are a zillion different ways to measure brilliance, creativity, drive, etc that certainly can’t be captured in a standardized test score. I’d argue grades are modestly better as an assessment. And while I agree that TO takes away one of many arbitrary measures, it’s beyond me why any parent of a good test taker cares. Your 1560 score will still serve you. But the reality is that many many kids can thrive at these institutions … yes including many poor test takers. But for some reason that threatens you. Are you the same person who feels threatened when your investment bank hires a (gasp) state school graduate?

Of course. Once you start letting the dummies in, it hurts the brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s my take. Some people are obsessed with limiting access to the most elite institutions: schools, neighborhoods, jobs. It’s comforting to know that whatever position you’ve secured in life is ultra competitive and off limits to the masses. But here’s the thing: many people go to college, most people succeed at work and there are a zillion different ways to measure brilliance, creativity, drive, etc that certainly can’t be captured in a standardized test score. I’d argue grades are modestly better as an assessment. And while I agree that TO takes away one of many arbitrary measures, it’s beyond me why any parent of a good test taker cares. Your 1560 score will still serve you. But the reality is that many many kids can thrive at these institutions … yes including many poor test takers. But for some reason that threatens you. Are you the same person who feels threatened when your investment bank hires a (gasp) state school graduate?

Of course. Once you start letting the dummies in, it hurts the brand.

So when they didn’t let you or your kids in, you should be happy they preserved brand value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Yeah, we get it. You love the TO revolution. It allows your kid to cloak a critical area of weakness, and unlocks accessibility to prestigious educational opportunities that they would never have been considered eligible for in the past. Just say "Works for me!" and save all of us the time wondering whether you had these hardened views before or after the TO era began.

There it is: You somehow think that the SAT is this amazing window into which kids are smart and which kids aren’t. It is this all-knowing decider between which kids can handle a prestigious school and which kids can’t. You don’t believe there are any biases or flaws with this test. And the best part is that kids who have enough money can pay one of the hundreds of test prep programs and personal tutors to help them uncloak their critical area of weakness.

Got it.

The actual issue is that YOU think that a student's GPA and class ranking, which are both subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure - specifically, grading variability and manipulation by students, parents and teachers, alike - from school to school, etch that student's achievement capacity in stone. They clearly don't.

There is so much unregulated jockeying for grades that occurs at the HS level these days. That's why the GPA is only directionally helpful, and barely so. And that's why a better method of assessing students during college application season would be to establish broader ranges of achievement / thresholds that directionally indicate how well an applicant is likely to do in college.

Everyone seems to want to say a 1540 is essentially the same as a 1600, but I don't hear anyone saying that a 3.8 is essentially the same as a 4.00 unweighted GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Yeah, we get it. You love the TO revolution. It allows your kid to cloak a critical area of weakness, and unlocks accessibility to prestigious educational opportunities that they would never have been considered eligible for in the past. Just say "Works for me!" and save all of us the time wondering whether you had these hardened views before or after the TO era began.

There it is: You somehow think that the SAT is this amazing window into which kids are smart and which kids aren’t. It is this all-knowing decider between which kids can handle a prestigious school and which kids can’t. You don’t believe there are any biases or flaws with this test. And the best part is that kids who have enough money can pay one of the hundreds of test prep programs and personal tutors to help them uncloak their critical area of weakness.

Got it.

The actual issue is that YOU think that a student's GPA and class ranking, which are both subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure - specifically, grading variability and manipulation by students, parents and teachers, alike - from school to school, etch that student's achievement capacity in stone. They clearly don't.

There is so much unregulated jockeying for grades that occurs at the HS level these days. That's why the GPA is only directionally helpful, and barely so. And that's why a better method of assessing students during college application season would be to establish broader ranges of achievement / thresholds that directionally indicate how well an applicant is likely to do in college.

Everyone seems to want to say a 1540 is essentially the same as a 1600, but I don't hear anyone saying that a 3.8 is essentially the same as a 4.00 unweighted GPA.

Kid in our neighborhood took the SAT in August, September and November and scored a 1540, a 1390, and a 1510. The test is a moment in time and everyone should recognize that.

But the GPA shows how they perform over time. Why would anyone discount that? If the school inflates grades as a matter of course it is seen. The school's datasheet shows that. The AOs plug it all into their algorithm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Yeah, we get it. You love the TO revolution. It allows your kid to cloak a critical area of weakness, and unlocks accessibility to prestigious educational opportunities that they would never have been considered eligible for in the past. Just say "Works for me!" and save all of us the time wondering whether you had these hardened views before or after the TO era began.

There it is: You somehow think that the SAT is this amazing window into which kids are smart and which kids aren’t. It is this all-knowing decider between which kids can handle a prestigious school and which kids can’t. You don’t believe there are any biases or flaws with this test. And the best part is that kids who have enough money can pay one of the hundreds of test prep programs and personal tutors to help them uncloak their critical area of weakness.

Got it.

The actual issue is that YOU think that a student's GPA and class ranking, which are both subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure - specifically, grading variability and manipulation by students, parents and teachers, alike - from school to school, etch that student's achievement capacity in stone. They clearly don't.

There is so much unregulated jockeying for grades that occurs at the HS level these days. That's why the GPA is only directionally helpful, and barely so. And that's why a better method of assessing students during college application season would be to establish broader ranges of achievement / thresholds that directionally indicate how well an applicant is likely to do in college.

Everyone seems to want to say a 1540 is essentially the same as a 1600, but I don't hear anyone saying that a 3.8 is essentially the same as a 4.00 unweighted GPA.

Plenty of colleges don’t agree with you and they see more data than you could ever imagine. Why do you think your amateur views should prevail?

[Anonymous]

June / August / October

Oops - but someone will jump all over that that some kind of argument winning "GOTCHA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Yeah, we get it. You love the TO revolution. It allows your kid to cloak a critical area of weakness, and unlocks accessibility to prestigious educational opportunities that they would never have been considered eligible for in the past. Just say "Works for me!" and save all of us the time wondering whether you had these hardened views before or after the TO era began.

There it is: You somehow think that the SAT is this amazing window into which kids are smart and which kids aren’t. It is this all-knowing decider between which kids can handle a prestigious school and which kids can’t. You don’t believe there are any biases or flaws with this test. And the best part is that kids who have enough money can pay one of the hundreds of test prep programs and personal tutors to help them uncloak their critical area of weakness.

Got it.

The actual issue is that YOU think that a student's GPA and class ranking, which are both subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure - specifically, grading variability and manipulation by students, parents and teachers, alike - from school to school, etch that student's achievement capacity in stone. They clearly don't.

There is so much unregulated jockeying for grades that occurs at the HS level these days. That's why the GPA is only directionally helpful, and barely so. And that's why a better method of assessing students during college application season would be to establish broader ranges of achievement / thresholds that directionally indicate how well an applicant is likely to do in college.

Everyone seems to want to say a 1540 is essentially the same as a 1600, but I don't hear anyone saying that a 3.8 is essentially the same as a 4.00 unweighted GPA.

Kid in our neighborhood took the SAT in August, September and November and scored a 1540, a 1390, and a 1510. The test is a moment in time and everyone should recognize that.

But the GPA shows how they perform over time. Why would anyone discount that? If the school inflates grades as a matter of course it is seen. The school's datasheet shows that. The AOs plug it all into their algorithm.

1390/1510/1540 are all very good scores, from 93rd to 98th percentile of college test takers. If it had been something like 750/1140/1590 that would indicate that the score was a "moment in time" vs a pretty accurate measure of what a kid knows. I think kids should get two tries; the odds of two scores that aren't representative of what the kid knows is pretty low. The problem with GPAs is that they've become so inflated that the predictive power has gone down quite a bit. Nobody reasonable is discounting grades; they're just saying that test scores also add value and should be continued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Well my Kid with learning issues, anxiety driven, and no EF simply doesn't test well. Was a 3.5UW kid in HS and almost 3.5 in college (had bad first year in premed courses). Did 35+ hours of tutoring for SAT/ACT and none of it really helped. Score on each test never went up more than 1 point ACT and 30 points SAT, despite all the studying and prepping. Every test resulted in the same damn result.

However, that kid attended a T80 school, graduated in 4 years despite a major change, had almost a 3.5 in college (after ruining gpa freshman year that was a huge accomplishment). Had a job starting 2 weeks after graduation at a good company. In the top 25% of new workers at said company (based on first and 2nd year raises and performance reviews which rank them). Kid is doing well at their job and life. I'd say their SAT/ACT ability has nothing to do with their success in life. And am thankful that colleges outside the T50 recognize that and don't care. Life is about much more than a 4 hour standardized test!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

Agree. Plus parents with resources (like me) are able to get extra time and other accommodations for their kids. Going through that process I just felt so bad for other kids whose parents did not know or have the means to provide that level of support.

And plenty of parents get their kids accomodations/extra time who really do NOT have a reason to---many easily game the system and get their kids "diagnosed" in 9th/10th grade so they can have the extra time for SAT/ACT specifically. If you have enough money, you can easily accomplish this.

And that takes away from those whose diagnosis is real and actually need the accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Well my Kid with learning issues, anxiety driven, and no EF simply doesn't test well. Was a 3.5UW kid in HS and almost 3.5 in college (had bad first year in premed courses). Did 35+ hours of tutoring for SAT/ACT and none of it really helped. Score on each test never went up more than 1 point ACT and 30 points SAT, despite all the studying and prepping. Every test resulted in the same damn result.

However, that kid attended a T80 school, graduated in 4 years despite a major change, had almost a 3.5 in college (after ruining gpa freshman year that was a huge accomplishment). Had a job starting 2 weeks after graduation at a good company. In the top 25% of new workers at said company (based on first and 2nd year raises and performance reviews which rank them). Kid is doing well at their job and life. I'd say their SAT/ACT ability has nothing to do with their success in life. And am thankful that colleges outside the T50 recognize that and don't care. Life is about much more than a 4 hour standardized test!

3.5 with 30 ACT sounds like a good fit for a T80 and indeed it all worked out really well. Congrats!