What if Colleges Truly Required Test Scores

[Anonymous]

It seems like the main reason schools downplay the SAT is money, and the appearance of exclusivity. Very high-scoring middle class students are more apt to turn them down in favor of full rides to state flagships. But students from affluent families with really quite good scores tend to be willing to pay whatever price the school asks.

By the same token, the biggest supporters of elite private schools requiring, and placing a lot of emphasis on, the SAT are affluent families whose kids have very high SAT scores.

[Anonymous]

It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I mean, tell it to the guy who wrote and published a whole research paper about it.

[Anonymous]

The 'holistic review' and 'ban SAT' policies might sound nice.

But, in reality, these policies merely allow the most wealthy and powerful to virtue signal while getting an edge for their children’s admission to the top universities (especially private universities).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a horror.

I don’t know. I think colleges want to be able to reject a 1600 scores whose teacher recs say the kid is a cheater.

What about the kid who scores 1600 but has lots of Bs or didn't take any challenging classes? Why should a 3 hour test be more important than 4 years of performance?

Unlike the TO folks, people are saying that standardized tests should be required in conjunction with GPA and rigor. Nobody is arguing that grades should be ignored. It would be crazy to ignore data that allows you to make better decisions right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I mean, tell it to the guy who wrote and published a whole research paper about it.

LOL. That link goes to a screenshot of an abstract. Not a full paper, no source, not clear if it’s peer-reviewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a horror.

I don’t know. I think colleges want to be able to reject a 1600 scores whose teacher recs say the kid is a cheater.

What about the kid who scores 1600 but has lots of Bs or didn't take any challenging classes? Why should a 3 hour test be more important than 4 years of performance?

Unlike the TO folks, people are saying that standardized tests should be required in conjunction with GPA and rigor. Nobody is arguing that grades should be ignored. It would be crazy to ignore data that allows you to make better decisions right?

Exactly. I think test required and holistic admissions. Use it as a data point like everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I agree. I think it’s the parents of high scorers who can’t believe a student can show intelligence/ talent/ potential/ ambition/ drive in another way. Test blind has worked out just fine for California schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 'holistic review' and 'ban SAT' policies might sound nice.

But, in reality, these policies merely allow the most wealthy and powerful to virtue signal while getting an edge for their children’s admission to the top universities (especially private universities).

Not true. Lower income kids score lower as a group on these tests. And this is for a variety of reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I agree. I think it’s the parents of high scorers who can’t believe a student can show intelligence/ talent/ potential/ ambition/ drive in another way. Test blind has worked out just fine for California schools

Some of us are just interested. My high-scorer did not apply to any test-mandatory schools, and applied to several of the test-blind UCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

Washu, Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Notre Dame, CMU, Umich, Uva, are TO. UCB and UCLA are blind, but they arent shit schools?

All that keep the policy are trying to overcome location, play games with admissions rates to look more selective, or keep options open for sports recruits.

Most are doing it so they can continue to admit kids from low performing schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'holistic review' and 'ban SAT' policies might sound nice.

But, in reality, these policies merely allow the most wealthy and powerful to virtue signal while getting an edge for their children’s admission to the top universities (especially private universities).

Not true. Lower income kids score lower as a group on these tests. And this is for a variety of reasons

Did you even read the research paper posted in the op ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I agree. I think it’s the parents of high scorers who can’t believe a student can show intelligence/ talent/ potential/ ambition/ drive in another way. Test blind has worked out just fine for California schools

Which is why the Caltech professors basically had a mutiny after only two years test blind to go back to test required and UCSD has had to start offering basic algebra classes? I hate to see your definition of not going well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'holistic review' and 'ban SAT' policies might sound nice.

But, in reality, these policies merely allow the most wealthy and powerful to virtue signal while getting an edge for their children’s admission to the top universities (especially private universities).

Not true. Lower income kids score lower as a group on these tests. And this is for a variety of reasons

Did you even read the research paper posted in the op ?

Incomes less than $200,000 is a different group than Pell grant eligible.