University Of California Reaches Final Decision: No More Standardized Admission Testing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is, are they actually voluntarily deciding not to use SAT scores, and, for a public intsitution, who does that hurt? Public colleges are not private employers who can hire and fire at whim. As for private selective institutions - the truly selective ones like MIT affirm that SAT scores are still important.

No you still miss my point entirely.

The colleges can accept whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they don't break the law. Employers - both private AND public - can hire whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they don't break the law.

What is important is up the THEM, not you. Any criteria, test scores being one.

[Anonymous]

I think test optionsl is great but I do think it’s absurd to completely ignore available tests if submitted when they are giving credence to all manner of absurd “research” experiences and ridiculous “non-profits” kids and their parents have brewed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really would have hurt me. I was a great student, but I know that my score of 1500 on the SAT is what got me into my top college.

But you don't know that. You were already a great student. You probably had great letters of recommendation. You probably wrote well. Did they REALLY need the SAT to tell them you were qualified/competitive/etc?

DP. Two candiates with equal applications, but one has a 1500 and the other has 1300 - the 1500 is more qualified. This is about chosing between people.

The severe and mistaken presupposition this position and ones like it begin with is that admissions is like a track meet where the fastest times rank and claim the available prizes.

It isn't.

The colleges get to pick who they want to build the class they want. It they want to pick a candidate who is lower in every single academic category because they think they are a nice kid who will be an asset on the campus, they get to. That's it. They get to, as long as they violate no laws. Even if you think that is a bad decision by them, it is their decision to make.

Once you understand that, you understand why many people feel test scores are a detriment to the process.

For the record I am not anti-test and both my kids did well on theirs, including a first-time 36 and I am sure that helped their Ivy admission. But the schools get to choose who they want, just like employers get to hire who they want based on their own criteria - they don't have to hire the highest GPA.

Nobody is demanding that the schools ONLY consider test scores. But you're deluded if you think that test scores are meaningless if you're comparing two otherwise identical candidates. The higher score means higher IQ means smarter. That's just how it is. Of course the school in assembling class can still consider other factors. But taking away one instrument just seems extremely short-sighted. I imagine that highly selective schools have their "slots" for different types of candidates. If you're in the "top scores top grades" slot then ... you're going to lose to the kids with better grades and better scores.

Please read the post you are replying to. You have perfectly illustrated my point as nowhere does it say test scores are meaningless. It means a college gets to pick based on any legal criteria they want, regardless. And since there is such an overwhelming number of great candidates, selective colleges tend to get whoever they want easily. The won't make "mistakes" if they disregard test scores. They'll still get the class they want, and by their criteria, probably a better one.

"By their criteria" being the key phrase.

You completely understand and accept how this works in employment and hiring. For some reason you refuse to accept that it works the same way at American colleges in that it is not a decision based on narrow, measurable criteria, so your insistence that they use them is futile and demands they go against their experience and mission.

I think the point is, are they actually voluntarily deciding not to use SAT scores, and, for a public intsitution, who does that hurt? Public colleges are not private employers who can hire and fire at whim. As for private selective institutions - the truly selective ones like MIT affirm that SAT scores are still important.

+1, many colleges have already said test scores are still important MIT is one, and Georgetown is another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fantastic. Study after study after study has confirmed the high correlation between family income and parental education and SAT and ACT scores. Generally speaking, high scores were born on third base. It doesn't make them any smarter.

Have you ever heard of IQ tests? What do you think SAT and ACT measure, if not IQ? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/

That's interesting because my son with an IQ of 158 scored poorly on SAT. Likely due to ADHD and Autism but it doesn't make him any less smart. His 4.9 GPA still stands.

SAT can't measure "slow thinker" intelligence. It only measures "quick thinker" intelligence. These are very different. Some of the most brilliant minds we have are slow thinkers, but they would do badly on the SAT.

Which is why SAT does not correlate to intelligence and is certainly not an IQ test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is, are they actually voluntarily deciding not to use SAT scores, and, for a public intsitution, who does that hurt? Public colleges are not private employers who can hire and fire at whim. As for private selective institutions - the truly selective ones like MIT affirm that SAT scores are still important.

No you still miss my point entirely.

The colleges can accept whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they don't break the law. Employers - both private AND public - can hire whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they don't break the law.

What is important is up the THEM, not you. Any criteria, test scores being one.

And I disagree with you. Public institutions serve the public, so this is all a valid question. Plus UCs don't seem to be doing this voluntarily anyway.

[Anonymous]

You can prep the heck out of these test and score well. Any parent with multiple kids knows which ones are academically inclined and which are more challenged. Yet my own were all able to score well on these standardized tests. One without much prep at all and others after prep and multiple tries.

On paper from the scores...they look identical but I know quite well that they are not. This test can be gamed so what good is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fantastic. Study after study after study has confirmed the high correlation between family income and parental education and SAT and ACT scores. Generally speaking, high scores were born on third base. It doesn't make them any smarter.

Have you ever heard of IQ tests? What do you think SAT and ACT measure, if not IQ? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/

That's interesting because my son with an IQ of 158 scored poorly on SAT. Likely due to ADHD and Autism but it doesn't make him any less smart. His 4.9 GPA still stands.

SAT can't measure "slow thinker" intelligence. It only measures "quick thinker" intelligence. These are very different. Some of the most brilliant minds we have are slow thinkers, but they would do badly on the SAT.

Which is why SAT does not correlate to intelligence and is certainly not an IQ test.

Just going to put this here again: "Although the principal finding of Frey and Detterman has been established for 15 years, it bears repeating: the SAT is a good measure of intelligence [1]. Despite scientific consensus around that statement, some are remarkably resistant to accept the evidence of such an assertion."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can prep the heck out of these test and score well. Any parent with multiple kids knows which ones are academically inclined and which are more challenged. Yet my own were all able to score well on these standardized tests. One without much prep at all and others after prep and multiple tries.

On paper from the scores...they look identical but I know quite well that they are not. This test can be gamed so what good is it?

Why not ask MIT? You can't really game your way into a truly superior SAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can prep the heck out of these test and score well. Any parent with multiple kids knows which ones are academically inclined and which are more challenged. Yet my own were all able to score well on these standardized tests. One without much prep at all and others after prep and multiple tries.

On paper from the scores...they look identical but I know quite well that they are not. This test can be gamed so what good is it?

Why not ask MIT? You can't really game your way into a truly superior SAT score.

"Another popular misconception is that one can “buy” a better SAT score through costly test prep. Yet research has consistently demonstrated that it is remarkably difficult to increase an individual’s SAT score, and the commercial test prep industry capitalizes on, at best, modest changes [13,17]. Short of outright cheating on the test, an expensive and complex undertaking that may carry unpleasant legal consequences, high SAT scores are generally difficult to acquire by any means other than high ability."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is, are they actually voluntarily deciding not to use SAT scores, and, for a public intsitution, who does that hurt? Public colleges are not private employers who can hire and fire at whim. As for private selective institutions - the truly selective ones like MIT affirm that SAT scores are still important.

No you still miss my point entirely.

The colleges can accept whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they don't break the law. Employers - both private AND public - can hire whoever they want for whatever reason they want as long as they don't break the law.

What is important is up the THEM, not you. Any criteria, test scores being one.

And I disagree with you. Public institutions serve the public, so this is all a valid question. Plus UCs don't seem to be doing this voluntarily anyway.

You disagree with me? How? It's not up to me, or to you. How can you disagree with that?

You can have the opinion they should have different criteria, but you don't get to dictate it.

You agree with this for employment, but disagree on college admissions, and that is the hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can prep the heck out of these test and score well. Any parent with multiple kids knows which ones are academically inclined and which are more challenged. Yet my own were all able to score well on these standardized tests. One without much prep at all and others after prep and multiple tries.

On paper from the scores...they look identical but I know quite well that they are not. This test can be gamed so what good is it?

Why not ask MIT? You can't really game your way into a truly superior SAT score.

You need to look at these kids prepping the heck out of it. I am telling you that my very different students look identical on paper from these tests. They may be an indicator of having the discipline required to prepare or of having a taskmaster force them to prepare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this will hurt kids who are late bloomers.

But it will help good students who suck at taking tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this will hurt kids who are late bloomers.

How so? I’d think it would help them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this will hurt kids who are late bloomers.

How so? I’d think it would help them.

I had untreated adhd resulting in mediocre grades and high scores. This policy hurts people like that but helps many other kids, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this will hurt kids who are late bloomers.

How so? I’d think it would help them.

NP. Late bloomers may have lower grades.