What if Colleges Truly Required Test Scores

[Anonymous]

The only people that like TO are those with kids who have low scores. Gosh forbid their snowflake is entitled to apply to T10, because they "deserve" it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only people that like TO are those with kids who have low scores. Gosh forbid their snowflake is entitled to apply to T10, because they "deserve" it.

The people who run the schools also like TO. Because it makes it a lot easier for them to find enough kids who will pay full price without messing up their profile and ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I agree. I think it’s the parents of high scorers who can’t believe a student can show intelligence/ talent/ potential/ ambition/ drive in another way. Test blind has worked out just fine for California schools

ROTFLMAO

It’s meeting the priorities of the state. They are ROTFLTAO if you think that they care one bit about your priorities.

More accurately, it’s meeting the ideological priorities of the state.

Political priorities. The UCs admissions process is designed to achieve statewide representation at every campus as opposed to just serving the Bay Area and SoCal suburbs. Makes complete sense as a public institution. It has always been that way, it just gets more attention now with the predictable results for the talent dense Bay Area.

Tax Fraud.

This has to be one of the stupidest things that I have seen on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people that like TO are those with kids who have low scores. Gosh forbid their snowflake is entitled to apply to T10, because they "deserve" it.

The people who run the schools also like TO. Because it makes it a lot easier for them to find enough kids who will pay full price without messing up their profile and ranking.

Pretty sure that isn't teh case at any T20 school University or SLAC.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The only people that like TO are those with kids who have low scores. Gosh forbid their snowflake is entitled to apply to T10, because they "deserve" it.[/quote]
The people who run the schools also like TO. Because it makes it a lot easier for them to find enough kids who will pay full price without messing up their profile and ranking. [/quote]

Pretty sure that isn't teh case at any T20 school University or SLAC.[/quote]

I’m sure it’s not the case at some schools. At those schools — Chicago, for example — the thing people like is the way test optional increases the number of applications they receive and therefore lowers their acceptance rate.

The point is that at every college that remains test optional, someone likes test optional enough to fight for it through a bunch of committee meetings. It’s not only low-scoring students who like test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, here are some other studies (actual studies, not screenshots from X):

High School GPAs and ACT Scores as Predictors of College Completion: Examining Assumptions About Consistency Across High Schools: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110

Contextualized High School Performance: Evidence to Inform Equitable Holistic, Test-Optional, and Test-Free Admissions Policies https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584231197413

Is the Sky Falling? Grade Inflation and the Signaling Power of Grades
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X13481382

Predicting College Success
How Do Different High School Assessments Measure Up?
https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-success-how-do-different-high-school-assessments-measure-2019

All of these fail to take account for the restricted range problem. A problem that went away during the test optional covid era when we could see the effect of admitting students with lower test scores on a regular basis. All of this is true at highly selective colleges and less true at less selective colleges.

That’s an excellent point. With top schools the SAT scores were so high that there was very little difference and thus there would be little effect of SAT scores on student outcomes. UT Austin did an analysis of TO vs non-TO students and found that TO students had SAT scores. According to UT’s own analysis, students who submitted test scores during the test-optional period tended to perform better academically with higher GPA and lower risk of poor grades compared to those who didn’t submit scores, even after controlling for high school grades and class rank. The difference in GPA was .86; almost a full letter grade.

UT is a massive state school that accepts students with 1200 SATs as long as they are top of their class. It’s nothing like the top colleges.

Well, if the top colleges are accepting TO kids at the top of their class that scored 1200 on the SAT, that seems exactly the same.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The only people that like TO are those with kids who have low scores. Gosh forbid their snowflake is entitled to apply to T10, because they "deserve" it.[/quote]
The people who run the schools also like TO. Because it makes it a lot easier for them to find enough kids who will pay full price without messing up their profile and ranking. [/quote]

Pretty sure that isn't teh case at any T20 school University or SLAC.[/quote]

I’m sure it’s not the case at some schools. At those schools — Chicago, for example — the thing people like is the way test optional increases the number of applications they receive and therefore lowers their acceptance rate.

The point is that at every college that remains test optional, someone likes test optional enough to fight for it through a bunch of committee meetings. It’s not only low-scoring students who like test optional. [/quote]

Covid spiked applications. That, and the common app.

Our college counselor said that applications went up 40%. FORTY PERCENT!

That 40% happened the year the SAT was cancelled due to COVID, which forced every university and college to go test-optional.

Universities discovered:

- they LOVE all the extra application $$ (it adds up) and

- it drives down their acceptance numbers, which usually increases their US News and World Report ranking.

[Anonymous]

Covid spiked applications. That, and the common app.

Our college counselor said that applications went up 40%. FORTY PERCENT!

That 40% happened the year the SAT was cancelled due to COVID, which forced every university and college to go test-optional.

Universities discovered:

- they LOVE all the extra application $$ (it adds up) and

- it drives down their acceptance numbers, which usually increases their US News and World Report ranking.

[Anonymous]

Why did Covid increase applications?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covid spiked applications. That, and the common app.

Our college counselor said that applications went up 40%. FORTY PERCENT!

That 40% happened the year the SAT was cancelled due to COVID, which forced every university and college to go test-optional.

Universities discovered:

- they LOVE all the extra application $$ (it adds up) and

- it drives down their acceptance numbers, which usually increases their US News and World Report ranking.

It there is another factor:

- the ban on DEI / race-based college admissions in 2023.

Prior to 2023, universities were allowed to fill racial quotas by examining and considering students’ skin color. Now, however, they have to treat every applicant fairly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did Covid increase applications?

Covid = SAT could not be given in 2020.

No SAT = every university in the USA had to go TO.

All universities being TO = 40% increase in applications, because: why not apply if there is no SAT requirement?

Why not take a chance? Roll the dice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting study coming out of Harvard. https://x.com/garrytan/status/1958963104462905385?s=61 requiring scores would increase number of middle income students at expense of upper income. And by requiring, not only requiring submission but using the numbers in admission calculus, no exceptions.

We are upper income and I totally support this. Our kids scored 1500 and 1570, but see too many schools playing games.

It would also increase the numbers of smart minorities and smart first gen.