No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Sour grapes posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

Soooo - colleges are not ranked based on the students that attend but on the faculty who teach there. Your argument makes no sense, especially when one of the changing factors is that US schools are taking more and more international students. A great example of this is in graduate school - where most top US STEM programs have fewer than 50% of their graduate students as US citizens.

Academics want to work at universities that have a high quality student base. It’s a lot less work and more fulfilling for the academics to teach those students. Not to mention the fact that grad students do most of the heavy lifting in academia.

The shift might not happen overnight, but the good academics will go where the good students are.

They want to work where they get the most support to do their work, which includes a strong graduate student program. Having a lighter undergrad teaching load is generally considered better (unless you are into SLAC teaching model) and most heavy hitters would prefer the grad students to interact with the undergrads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

Soooo - colleges are not ranked based on the students that attend but on the faculty who teach there. Your argument makes no sense, especially when one of the changing factors is that US schools are taking more and more international students. A great example of this is in graduate school - where most top US STEM programs have fewer than 50% of their graduate students as US citizens.

Academics want to work at universities that have a high quality student base. It’s a lot less work and more fulfilling for the academics to teach those students. Not to mention the fact that grad students do most of the heavy lifting in academia.

The shift might not happen overnight, but the good academics will go where the good students are.

Are you a professor? I’m an academic and I would disagree. Most want to work with the best grad students and at institutions that provide the best research opportunities. High achieving undergrads are a bonus, but honestly most of my colleagues at R1 institutions are not there because of teaching. Most tenure track faculty will do anything to lower their course load, especially if they have to teach undergrads.

I don't see how you are disagreeing with me? Previous posters said that international colleges would be taking over US ones - do you agree with this? I am saying it is faculty and output that affect ratings. Great professors choose schools that are great in their own field (which varies widely by subject from USNWR rankings), where they get the most support and freedom to do their work, where colleagues are strong, and graduate students are strong. As you say - they'd prefer not to teach undergrad (although some do like this). Do you really think the changes in college admissions are affecting the undergraduate enrollment in a way that will result in professors at US universities to leave to go abroad instead? I just don't see this happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

Soooo - colleges are not ranked based on the students that attend but on the faculty who teach there. Your argument makes no sense, especially when one of the changing factors is that US schools are taking more and more international students. A great example of this is in graduate school - where most top US STEM programs have fewer than 50% of their graduate students as US citizens.

Academics want to work at universities that have a high quality student base. It’s a lot less work and more fulfilling for the academics to teach those students. Not to mention the fact that grad students do most of the heavy lifting in academia.

The shift might not happen overnight, but the good academics will go where the good students are.

Are you a professor? I’m an academic and I would disagree. Most want to work with the best grad students and at institutions that provide the best research opportunities. High achieving undergrads are a bonus, but honestly most of my colleagues at R1 institutions are not there because of teaching. Most tenure track faculty will do anything to lower their course load, especially if they have to teach undergrads.

I don't see how you are disagreeing with me? Previous posters said that international colleges would be taking over US ones - do you agree with this? I am saying it is faculty and output that affect ratings. Great professors choose schools that are great in their own field (which varies widely by subject from USNWR rankings), where they get the most support and freedom to do their work, where colleagues are strong, and graduate students are strong. As you say - they'd prefer not to teach undergrad (although some do like this). Do you really think the changes in college admissions are affecting the undergraduate enrollment in a way that will result in professors at US universities to leave to go abroad instead? I just don't see this happening.

I agree with you. I was disagreeing with the PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

Soooo - colleges are not ranked based on the students that attend but on the faculty who teach there. Your argument makes no sense, especially when one of the changing factors is that US schools are taking more and more international students. A great example of this is in graduate school - where most top US STEM programs have fewer than 50% of their graduate students as US citizens.

Academics want to work at universities that have a high quality student base. It’s a lot less work and more fulfilling for the academics to teach those students. Not to mention the fact that grad students do most of the heavy lifting in academia.

The shift might not happen overnight, but the good academics will go where the good students are.

Are you a professor? I’m an academic and I would disagree. Most want to work with the best grad students and at institutions that provide the best research opportunities. High achieving undergrads are a bonus, but honestly most of my colleagues at R1 institutions are not there because of teaching. Most tenure track faculty will do anything to lower their course load, especially if they have to teach undergrads.

I don't see how you are disagreeing with me? Previous posters said that international colleges would be taking over US ones - do you agree with this? I am saying it is faculty and output that affect ratings. Great professors choose schools that are great in their own field (which varies widely by subject from USNWR rankings), where they get the most support and freedom to do their work, where colleagues are strong, and graduate students are strong. As you say - they'd prefer not to teach undergrad (although some do like this). Do you really think the changes in college admissions are affecting the undergraduate enrollment in a way that will result in professors at US universities to leave to go abroad instead? I just don't see this happening.

I agree with you. I was disagreeing with the PP.

ok - that makes much more sense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

Plenty TO schools disagree with this claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

Plenty TO schools disagree with this claim.

+1. For the slow ones in the back, test scores are only one metric of student performance. It is not the most important metric.

And test scores are not indicative of workplace or life success. Universities are looking at the whole person. You can not like this approach and continue to argue on anonymous message boards, but your view on test scores is not shared by many universities. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

Plenty TO schools disagree with this claim.

+1. For the slow ones in the back, test scores are only one metric of student performance. It is not the most important metric.

And test scores are not indicative of workplace or life success. Universities are looking at the whole person. You can not like this approach and continue to argue on anonymous message boards, but your view on test scores is not shared by many universities. Get over it.

Or they just want more more applications for the money and to improve they rankings. Both are equally likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

Plenty TO schools disagree with this claim.

+1. For the slow ones in the back, test scores are only one metric of student performance. It is not the most important metric.

And test scores are not indicative of workplace or life success. Universities are looking at the whole person. You can not like this approach and continue to argue on anonymous message boards, but your view on test scores is not shared by many universities. Get over it.

Yes that’s true. They can’t get the diversity they want with objective measures of academic merit so they eliminate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

+1.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked