Test optional over

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Yes, as long as they admit non-URM at the same rate as URM students.

They aren’t allowed to ask anyone’s race or consider anyone’s race so how do they that, exactly.

“Admit at the same rate” is racial balancing, that’s a no-no.

The only way to not get into trouble as per the memo is just admit whites and Asians, all other admissions will be treated with suspicion.

But a college somehow has to do this without any data on the race of the applicant or any analysis whatsoever.

If the application doesn't mention race then race couldn't have been a factor. They are not abundant but there are several black and Hispanic seniors at TJ that have 1550+ SAT scores. Their not getting likely letters from ivy+ shools like they might have in the past but they are doing very well. Nobody is going to think they got into a school because of their race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few long term TO schools and that is fine, they are quirky and look for something other than academics. But for the vast majority of academic mainstream schools the thought of making admissions decisions with localized GPAs, chatgpt essays and unverified activities is just asinine. They have to have an agenda to agree to this and it’s not the find the highest performing academics, which are potentially America’s GREATEST natural resource. They are being cast aside for all sorts of nonsense while other countries plot our demise.

This.

America is losing it's competitive edge

Some people complain about H 1 B visas but if we don't bring them here, the job goes over there. The global economy of the future is not going to be kind to countries that play these sort of games

I’m a pp. This is kind of ridiculous. SAT doesn’t measure creativity and innovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

Completely agree. If kid A tests better than kid B, it’s bc kid A IS SMARTER. Jeez.

Exactly. I have one kid who is a "great test taker" and one who is not. The great test taker is, objectively, smarter. Should my not-great-test-taker go to college? Sure. Should he go to Princeton? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

What about writing? A kid may not test well but could be Ana amazing writer. That counts for nothing since they did normal in bubbles?

What about writing? Do you really care if the surgeon operating on your loved one is an excellent writer? Or the engineer who inspects the bridge you have to cross over every day?

Writing is thinking on paper. It’s actually not some frivolity. A doctor who can’t use words to explain a complex diagnosis is a worse doctor.

I really don't care about the doctors words if he can heal my sick child. If your kid was dying, you'd really choose the doctor who "wrote well" over the one that could save your child's life?

A large part of successful medicine is skillfully managing the patient (and family). If the patient doesn't trust their MD or doesn't do what the MD tells them to do, no amount of medical knowledge or experience will be useful. Same goes for effective communication with their team during a procedure, it’s essential.

Actually performing the surgery is important too. All the "skillfull management of the family" will be of no use when the patient is dead.

Which is what I said, communication with their team. Aware it’s both. Acutely aware of first one as of late with a parent that wants to stop going to a specialist as they have zero bedside manner. It’s a nightmare and getting in elsewhere would be months at best. They were turned off immediately and now it’s an uphill battle on listening to any of their suggestions.

I get it. I want my kid to live. You want your kid to die and then the doctor to write a poem about it. We're just different, is all.

Yes, that is exactly what the PP is saying. They want their kid to die and for the doctor to write a poem about it. Your ability to parse out the nuances of what PP is saying is staggering, demonstrative of superior complex reasoning, and wholly convincing.

DP. That’s not what PP said at all, but you are clearly enraged by this topic (very normal reaction) so we’ll let this go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Yes, as long as they admit non-URM at the same rate as URM students.

Legacies, high dollar donors, faculty kids, the average white guys to balance out gender gap, etc.

All of that has to go

We cannot subordinate the hierarchy of merit to the hierarchy of operation, preferences and special privileges. We didn't have enough of a lead in global competition to be able to afford it like we could in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is too bad. Creatives will be shut out of better colleges because many don’t process standardized tests well. One of mine tested high and another went TO. They both deserve a place at college, but the one kid isn’t inherently a better student than the other. The one who didn’t test well has more curiosity and is always leading interesting discussions on a myriad of topics.

Don't worry.
There are good colleges for the kid who got 1250 sat. The kid will be fine.

Elite colleges are for kids who got both.

You are so smug. Your kid who “got both” may not have the advantages you think he does in the real world.

Colleges like Bowdoin (which is a great college) have long disagreed with you that test scores are the most important factor. Their track record shows they know how to choose good students without test scores. FWIW, I believe they used to have kids submit graded work in lieu of test scores so they had a method and it clearly worked for them for many years. Not sure if it is the same now that more schools are test optional. I know you can’t comprehend it, but good schools actually do know what they are looking for and have a good track record of picking the right students. It’s not all about who has the highest scores.

You speculate too much.
MIT disagrees. There's no need to take low scoring kids unless they really show something special such as
winning math Olympiad, national hacker championship, etc that everyone can agree.

Nobody is talking about MIT. They are not TO.

I think that's the point. TO is pretty stupid institutionally unless you are pursuing other goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

This may be cold comfort but studies show that lifetime outcomes of high stat kids are not dramatically impacted by which undergraduate institution they attended. This is a pretty strong argument for going to you flagship state over almost every private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

This may be cold comfort but studies show that lifetime outcomes of high stat kids are not dramatically impacted by which undergraduate institution they attended. This is a pretty strong argument for going to you flagship state over almost every private.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

Completely agree. If kid A tests better than kid B, it’s bc kid A IS SMARTER. Jeez.

Exactly. I have one kid who is a "great test taker" and one who is not. The great test taker is, objectively, smarter. Should my not-great-test-taker go to college? Sure. Should he go to Princeton? No.

Princeton requires a writing sample assignment that was submitted in class as part of their admissions packet. My guess is that would be their determining factor in admissions far more than scores submitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few long term TO schools and that is fine, they are quirky and look for something other than academics. But for the vast majority of academic mainstream schools the thought of making admissions decisions with localized GPAs, chatgpt essays and unverified activities is just asinine. They have to have an agenda to agree to this and it’s not the find the highest performing academics, which are potentially America’s GREATEST natural resource. They are being cast aside for all sorts of nonsense while other countries plot our demise.

This.

America is losing it's competitive edge

Some people complain about H 1 B visas but if we don't bring them here, the job goes over there. The global economy of the future is not going to be kind to countries that play these sort of games

I’m a pp. This is kind of ridiculous. SAT doesn’t measure creativity and innovation.

SAT measures how wealthy your parents are.

In the larger scheme of things, the test optional colleges and universities are not having problems filling their freshmen classes with qualified students. SAT and ACT scores at very competitive colleges like Stanford average between 1500-1560 and 33-35. That is average and if your kid got a B in one class you are not getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

Completely agree. If kid A tests better than kid B, it’s bc kid A IS SMARTER. Jeez.

Exactly. I have one kid who is a "great test taker" and one who is not. The great test taker is, objectively, smarter. Should my not-great-test-taker go to college? Sure. Should he go to Princeton? No.

Princeton requires a writing sample assignment that was submitted in class as part of their admissions packet. My guess is that would be their determining factor in admissions far more than scores submitted.

+1. By all means, look at test scores. But it’s weird that people who want this because they think it is demonstrative of intelligence and academic ability seem to shy away from anything else that also assesses these things.

[Anonymous]

The Yale podcast basically said they can assess capabilities without tests and have become quite good at it - but by becoming test flexible they just wanted to get rid of applicants who had no business applying. They prefer test flexible bc it gives them more flexibility with shaping the class.

See mythbusters podcast from the fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a few long term TO schools and that is fine, they are quirky and look for something other than academics. But for the vast majority of academic mainstream schools the thought of making admissions decisions with localized GPAs, chatgpt essays and unverified activities is just asinine. They have to have an agenda to agree to this and it’s not the find the highest performing academics, which are potentially America’s GREATEST natural resource. They are being cast aside for all sorts of nonsense while other countries plot our demise.

This is essentially the best overall argument as to why we need standardized scores and doesn't lean into the anti-minority position many tend to jump to. It is frankly puzzling how the US has agreed with an admissions system that deprioritizes academics as much as it does. Pretty much every other developed nation has a model built off of rigorous exams, and we prize...being interesting?

Do I think students with quirky extracurriculars and backgrounds provide a ton to the college community? 100%, it is how I got into college, and I've always been more interested in investing into community, so college admissions was perfect for me, but I also had the baseline SAT stats to get into an elite school. Honestly, schools should just use an SAT minimum that is public knowledge and throw out apps under a certain threshold. The SAT is practically a joke-exam compared to peer nations and seriously needs a curriculum/rigor upgrade.

They deprioritize academics because they cannot justify racial diversity they achieve in light of the relative academic achievements of the different races. THAT'S why it seems like people are jumping to an anti minority position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

Almost everyone DD knows is getting an accommodation of some sort. Expect accommodations to rise if TO is eliminated.

Time accommodations are also bullshit.

Time if one of the primary constraints in testing.
It's like having a strength test where everyone has to squat 200 pounds but some people get to squat 100 pounds twice. They both lift the same amount of weight but it doesn't measure the same thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So will this have an impact on Regular Decisions this year?

Probably not this year. But next year for sure.