Why Caltech is now requiring test scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Reading through the full paper, seems they're a bit bitter their putnam scores aren't what they used to (which kinda confused me, since the top scorers at Caltech participating in Putnam will undoubtedly have top SAT scores). They are following MIT likely in an attempt to...take a few of the Olympiad talent from MIT. I don't think their intentions are to really educate many future poor kids if the goal is to have a class of top STEM talent.

[Anonymous]

They should stop using affirmative action for women if they are worried about not attracting the best STEM Talent. Most recent class is 50% women for crying out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

Exactly. Caltech isn't Harvey Mudd and the researchers there aren't interested in undergraduate training. This professor makes the environment sound awful for anyone who isn't an independent genius, which...is that the point of undergrad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, the text above is from a faculty petition to restore a requirement for standardized testing.

Having said that, PP is correct that Caltech is once again requiring standardized tests for students applying this fall.

Here's the official announcement:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-restores-standardized-test-requirement-for-undergraduate-admission

It’s ridiculous Hopkins, Harvard, Princeton, UPenn are still test optional this cycle. Univ Michigan, Rice UCLA and Vanderbilt too.

All the studies show scores matter. Schools not requiring scores are losing prestige, not just academically qualified and capable students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, the text above is from a faculty petition to restore a requirement for standardized testing.

Having said that, PP is correct that Caltech is once again requiring standardized tests for students applying this fall.

Here's the official announcement:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-restores-standardized-test-requirement-for-undergraduate-admission

It’s ridiculous Hopkins, Harvard, Princeton, UPenn are still test optional this cycle. Univ Michigan, Rice UCLA and Vanderbilt too.

All the studies show scores matter. Schools not requiring scores are losing prestige, not just academically qualified and capable students.

I can assure you Princeton, the best math college in the United States, is doing perfectly fine on deciding if a student is smart enough to get through their program without the Collegeboard's silly exam

[Anonymous]

Do people in this thread think that math scores are the main way admissions officers look for promisiing math talent? How naive. Colleges, including MIT, will let you waltz in if you do well on the IMO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people in this thread think that math scores are the main way admissions officers look for promisiing math talent? How naive. Colleges, including MIT, will let you waltz in if you do well on the IMO

It's a good point. The strong math students are way, way beyond the math that's on the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, the text above is from a faculty petition to restore a requirement for standardized testing.

Having said that, PP is correct that Caltech is once again requiring standardized tests for students applying this fall.

Here's the official announcement:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-restores-standardized-test-requirement-for-undergraduate-admission

It’s ridiculous Hopkins, Harvard, Princeton, UPenn are still test optional this cycle. Univ Michigan, Rice UCLA and Vanderbilt too.

All the studies show scores matter. Schools not requiring scores are losing prestige, not just academically qualified and capable students.

Harvard went back to requiring scores.

Rice is still test optional but recommends submitting scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people in this thread think that math scores are the main way admissions officers look for promisiing math talent? How naive. Colleges, including MIT, will let you waltz in if you do well on the IMO

It's a good point. The strong math students are way, way beyond the math that's on the SAT.

If it didn't matter, they wouldn't require it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people in this thread think that math scores are the main way admissions officers look for promisiing math talent? How naive. Colleges, including MIT, will let you waltz in if you do well on the IMO

It's a good point. The strong math students are way, way beyond the math that's on the SAT.

If it didn't matter, they wouldn't require it.

We know who didn't get into Caltech, cause the logical reasoning skills are looking...iffy, we'll say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people in this thread think that math scores are the main way admissions officers look for promisiing math talent? How naive. Colleges, including MIT, will let you waltz in if you do well on the IMO

Ascribing poor performance in the Putnam to test-optional is a bit rich. The general pool of kids with high SAT scores aren't going to do well in the Putnam. MIT does well in Putnam because the team has multiple IMO medalists or MOP Team Selection Test qualifiers. I guess these kids (about 20/year, with 5-6 seniors each year) aren't opting for Caltech? According to my kid, this year's TST senior pool is largely going to MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m on the fence about reinstating SAT. I’m all for moving toward tests as GPA’s can vary widely based on school policies/retakes/ grade inflation and vary even among teachers within schools. However, college board is a racket. It’s a poorly constructed test and frankly any test that signing up for an expensive prep course can raise your score 200 is not an effective test. I wish the US had something similar to the British school model with A levels.

The faculty are missing the mark. Correlation does not mean causation. Test blind or optional occurred at the same time during the pandemic. The sophomores that are so deficient missed foundational upper level math skills spending half their freshman and sophomore years in virtual. They jumped into junior year after 2 years of basically self learning and then crammed to get good scores on their tests and AP exams.

To get into Cal Tech, kids need AP Calc BC, Physics etc. Don’t tell me that a kid who can get an A in those classes and a 4 or 5 on the AP wouldn’t have been able to prep for the SAT.

No, the faculty petition addresses that. They say the top students are still well prepared despite the pandemic; the increasing number of failing students is due to lack of skill as indicated by SAT Math score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people in this thread think that math scores are the main way admissions officers look for promisiing math talent? How naive. Colleges, including MIT, will let you waltz in if you do well on the IMO

Ascribing poor performance in the Putnam to test-optional is a bit rich. The general pool of kids with high SAT scores aren't going to do well in the Putnam. MIT does well in Putnam because the team has multiple IMO medalists or MOP Team Selection Test qualifiers. I guess these kids (about 20/year, with 5-6 seniors each year) aren't opting for Caltech? According to my kid, this year's TST senior pool is largely going to MIT.

Caltech lost the battle for Putnam when they cancelled their merit scholarships. Even Liberal arts college students don't want to go to a college with only 200 students per class. If they did, they'd go to Harvey Mudd. Caltech should greatly consider increasing its size if it at all wants to compete with MIT on attracting IMO students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.