Columbia University becomes first Ivy League institution to go permanently test-optional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

[Anonymous]

Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

To the person who said the data doesn’t suggest blacks and Hispanics underperform relative to whites and Asians, please see page 8. https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/2022-michigan-sat-suite-of-assessments-annual-report.pdf

[Anonymous]

"test optional" unless you are unhooked and go to a private school - in which case it's really test mandatory - and at a very high interquartile SAT/ACT range. Let's call it what it is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

The UC system did a comprehensive review using millions of students over the years. They found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. Test scores and grades were better than either one alone. Kuncel and Sackett (University of Minnesota) have done extensive research using data from millions of students as well and came to the same conclusions. The data for test scores being predictive is pretty overwhelming at this point, and the studies that show it have massive amounts of real data behind them. Most of the other studies are from a single universities, which suffer from range restriction.

Colleges are not removing standardized test requirements because they don't work; they're removing them because they do.

[Anonymous]

Per the report above, in Michigan in 2022, 3 pct of African Americans broke 1200, 19 pct of whites did and 47 pct of Asians did. Sorry, it’s just reality. Now you can argue it’s because of racism (America is systematically Asian supremacist I guess) but the issue at hand is that blacks and Hispanics do consistently underperform on standardized tests and not slightly. It’s enormous.

[Anonymous]

MIT usually does a good job navigating data. Check out what they have to say on the matter. https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement-0328

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

All the studies by Chicago and Wake Forest who have actually done it say it doesn’t. So let schools choose what works for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Are you close friends with any professors at T10s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

No one said this. Also, what year did you graduate from law school? Sometime in the 1990s, I’ll wager.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

No one said this. Also, what year did you graduate from law school? Sometime in the 1990s, I’ll wager.

The year of my graduation has no relevance whatsoever.

And of course what you've bolded isn't exactly what every one is saying, but it's what many are thinking. There are many folks on this board who insist that with all of the grade inflation going on test scores need to matter more, the assumption being that they are somehow fail-proof and objective criteria. Which they are not.

I have a hunch that the large majority of those arguing that schools should not be test optional have kids with high test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

[Anonymous]

I think you can simultaneously believe schools should have latitude to deprioritize test scores for reasons the successful lawyer articulated while asserting that they are doing so now as a workaround for the affirmative action ruling. They don’t want data that suggests systematic racial preferences. So it is better not to have the data. I think in practice everyone knows white and Asian kids are at a huge disadvantage if they do not submit test scores barring exceptional circumstances (low income, special hardship or a fantastic transcript). Certainly some white and Asian kids get admitted without scores but the odds are probably quite low. The schools of course don’t provide any meaningful statistics on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

No one said this. Also, what year did you graduate from law school? Sometime in the 1990s, I’ll wager.

The year of my graduation has no relevance whatsoever.

And of course what you've bolded isn't exactly what every one is saying, but it's what many are thinking. There are many folks on this board who insist that with all of the grade inflation going on test scores need to matter more, the assumption being that they are somehow fail-proof and objective criteria. Which they are not.

I have a hunch that the large majority of those arguing that schools should not be test optional have kids with high test scores.

Lol, okay, law school admissions have not changed AT ALL since the 1990s. The ABA isn’t eliminating the LSAT in 2025. Standards haven’t been relaxed at all.