The Misguided War on the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

College admissions officers fully understand what the tests show and what their limitations are. They don't use the tests blindly, and, no, they should not have a fixed cut-iff score.

Read the article.

[Anonymous]

:D about darn time. So much damage has been done to our education system by the forces of equity, anti-racism, and DEI.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why this was deleted. Maybe because I pasted the particle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/briefing/the-misguided-war-on-the-sat.html

When I have asked university administrators whether they were aware of the research showing the value of test scores, they have generally said they were. But several told me, not for quotation, that they feared the political reaction on their campuses and in the media if they reinstated tests. “It’s not politically correct,” Charles Deacon, the longtime admissions dean at Georgetown University, which does require test scores, has told the journalist Jeffrey Selingo.

MIT
Without test scores, Schmill explained, admissions officers were left with two unappealing options. They would have to guess which students were likely to do well at M.I.T. — and almost certainly guess wrong sometimes, rejecting qualified applicants while admitting weaker ones. Or M.I.T. would need to reject more students from less advantaged high schools and admit more from the private schools and advantaged public schools that have a strong record of producing well-qualified students.

“Once we brought the test requirement back, we admitted the most diverse class that we ever had in our history,” Schmill told me. “Having test scores was helpful.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

This is an honest, sane reply.

[Anonymous]

Agree, great article. I think the most important argument id the utility of tests to ID high-potential students who don’t have access to fancy extra-curriculars, essay editors, private counselors, etc., and also may not have many AP or other advanced classes at their high school, making it hard for an AO to be able to tell what a 4.0 means.

I also found it interesting that the research found that applicants with missing scores did about as well as applicants with scores at approximately the 25th percentile on average.

[Anonymous]

Copying an interesting comment to the NYT article:

Elimination of SAT/ACT from University of California applications has led to a wave of unprepared and unqualified admissions— students who have no business being at a UC, and cannot do the work.

My spouse is a UC professor and she says that in 20 years she has never had so many students who are completely unqualified to attend college (and failing her class)— and this is a good UC. She teaches honors students no less.

If this is true, I wonder if the UC administration will figure it out before the brand is damaged.

[Anonymous]

There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

[Anonymous]

Article backs up what I’ve long thought. I attended low quality public schools in a rural area, and the quality of instruction was so low I could barely bother to pay attention and spent most of my classes reading, which I loved doing. As such I had very good but not perfect grades but a really strong SAT score. Got in pretty much everywhere I applied and live in different circumstances today. Kids I knew with better grades but weaker scores back then haven’t done as well. I do think a strong score from an under resourced area means something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is other excellent research that questions the ability if test scores to determine acumen or college success. TO is a good approach -- consider test scores if you want to submit. So, that rural kid w/unknown school can use that as part of their portfolio.

So tired of people trying to make this a thing again and again. If you invested in enrichment to yield high scores and expect that to mean more than it does (looking at you, mag parents who have kids submit SAT and ACT), that's on you. How about you focus on helping your kid present the best portfolio they can.

What would that be? Essay written by consultants, EC that is set up by parents or money, etc...If we are measuring students academic performance GPA, SAT would be reflection of students caliber.

Consultants don't write essays. If you want to assert that, then include people cheating on the test or at least highly prepping. Stop trying to make testing THE indicator. It's not. Just one facet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

And on the flip side if this, instead of those high-potential disadvantaged kids, super-polished affluent kids who have all the bells and whistles on their application, but aren’t actually that bright or ready for rigorous elite college work, are slipping through with TO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Copying an interesting comment to the NYT article:

Elimination of SAT/ACT from University of California applications has led to a wave of unprepared and unqualified admissions— students who have no business being at a UC, and cannot do the work.

My spouse is a UC professor and she says that in 20 years she has never had so many students who are completely unqualified to attend college (and failing her class)— and this is a good UC. She teaches honors students no less.

If this is true, I wonder if the UC administration will figure it out before the brand is damaged.

They aren't going back. It would be good to know which UC school this is since there is a wide range of UCs. What this person said has always been true at the lesser known/newer UCs. This is why they have such a robust state system. To educated as many CA students as possible at every level.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else find it ironic that Ms Paxon criticized HS grade inflation given the average GPA at Brown is 3.8? It’s the most inflated among the Ivies. And possibly the most in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

This is an honest, sane reply.

I am really for a threshold approach to SAT/ACT like this for test optional. Avoids the arms race in scores but gives adequate information to schools (and to students).