University Of California Reaches Final Decision: No More Standardized Admission Testing
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
But they would probably know the correct word is “poorly”… |
Anonymous
The severe and mistaken presupposition this position and ones like it begin with is that admissions is like a track meet where the fastest times rank and claim the available prizes. It isn't. The colleges get to pick who they want to build the class they want. It they want to pick a candidate who is lower in every single academic category because they think they are a nice kid who will be an asset on the campus, they get to. That's it. They get to, as long as they violate no laws. Even if you think that is a bad decision by them, it is their decision to make. Once you understand that, you understand why many people feel test scores are a detriment to the process. For the record I am not anti-test and both my kids did well on theirs, including a first-time 36 and I am sure that helped their Ivy admission. But the schools get to choose who they want, just like employers get to hire who they want based on their own criteria - they don't have to hire the highest GPA. |
Anonymous
No, but there are people who are equal on all of these, and the higher SAT score gets the golden ticket. |
Anonymous
You think the SAT tests IQ? Really? |
Anonymous
I think this is a bit of a myth. And anyway, for those few students who are "slow thinkers but brilliant," you'd expect to see this in their grades and letters of recommendation. I think the point here is that IQ tests/standardized tests are one piece of the picture that seems valuable when assembling a college class. Kids aren't cookie cutters - a school should want all types (within the confines of who can do the work.) If you axe the SAT it seems like you're removing the ability to identify a lot of promising kids. Honestly letters of recommendation seem a lot more potentially biased to me anyway. |
Anonymous
First, that isn't even how college admissions works. They don't choose two random people and rock paper scissors them out. Secondly, no. It is not a given that a person with a higher SAT score is more "qualified" for college. |
Anonymous
Nobody is demanding that the schools ONLY consider test scores. But you're deluded if you think that test scores are meaningless if you're comparing two otherwise identical candidates. The higher score means higher IQ means smarter. That's just how it is. Of course the school in assembling class can still consider other factors. But taking away one instrument just seems extremely short-sighted. I imagine that highly selective schools have their "slots" for different types of candidates. If you're in the "top scores top grades" slot then ... you're going to lose to the kids with better grades and better scores. |
Anonymous
Yes, I do. I feel like you don't actually know how very smart the kids are who ace standardized tests. Like the kind that just walk in and ace it, with no or little prep. Those kids are the SMAHT ones and they exist, and they have high IQs. |
Anonymous
I mean, I just think you're fooling yourself. I'm not talking about the difference between 1100 and 1200. But yeah between 1200 and 1600 - that's a big difference and it reflects IQs. I have no skin in the game - I'm a hard working 1250. But the kids who were 1500-1600 are just SMARTER than me, and everything they have achieved reflects that, and college admissions rightly reflected that as well. |
Anonymous
I'm actually pretty positive that kids are sorted by data categories like SAT and grades, and then reviewed in categories. How else would you run admissions? |
Anonymous
"Although the principal finding of Frey and Detterman has been established for 15 years, it bears repeating: the SAT is a good measure of intelligence [1]. Despite scientific consensus around that statement, some are remarkably resistant to accept the evidence of such an assertion." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/ |
Anonymous
Please read the post you are replying to. You have perfectly illustrated my point as nowhere does it say test scores are meaningless. It means a college gets to pick based on any legal criteria they want, regardless. And since there is such an overwhelming number of great candidates, selective colleges tend to get whoever they want easily. The won't make "mistakes" if they disregard test scores. They'll still get the class they want, and by their criteria, probably a better one. "By their criteria" being the key phrase. You completely understand and accept how this works in employment and hiring. For some reason you refuse to accept that it works the same way at American colleges in that it is not a decision based on narrow, measurable criteria, so your insistence that they use them is futile and demands they go against their experience and mission. |
Anonymous
There is abundant research that assuming equivalent grades, the person with the higher SAT score will perform better in college. Your definition of qualified seems to be divorced from measurable skill sets. |
Anonymous
Was your child on Ritalin, Adderall, etc and/or had extra time? |
Anonymous
I think the point is, are they actually voluntarily deciding not to use SAT scores, and, for a public intsitution, who does that hurt? Public colleges are not private employers who can hire and fire at whim. As for private selective institutions - the truly selective ones like MIT affirm that SAT scores are still important. |