Colleges should require scores if test is taken

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that.

"they could"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that.

"they could"

Right so a single college could try. Could it not? Plenty of T20 schools have classes with fewer than 2000 students.

[Anonymous]

I often wonder if low SES students even get the information that they don't need to submit test scores.

So the primary people taking advantage of test optional are the rich low-scoring kids whose parents then cite equity as the reason for keeping test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that.

"they could"

Right so a single college could try. Could it not? Plenty of T20 schools have classes with fewer than 2000 students.

Of the less than 2,500 that exist to meet the condition, YOU think enough would descend on one particular school (say, Dartmouth) to potentially consume their entire incoming class.

If we're at the point of this level of hypothetical, the argument you're trying to defend already has a toe tag on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I often wonder if low SES students even get the information that they don't need to submit test scores.

So the primary people taking advantage of test optional are the rich low-scoring kids whose parents then cite equity as the reason for keeping test optional.

Pretty much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that.

"they could"

Right so a single college could try. Could it not? Plenty of T20 schools have classes with fewer than 2000 students.

Of the less than 2,500 that exist to meet the condition, YOU think enough would descend on one particular school (say, Dartmouth) to potentially consume their entire incoming class.

If we're at the point of this level of hypothetical, the argument you're trying to defend already has a toe tag on it.

Isn’t “could” a signal of a hypothetical? I’m not sure what your issue is here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that.

"they could"

Right so a single college could try. Could it not? Plenty of T20 schools have classes with fewer than 2000 students.

Of the less than 2,500 that exist to meet the condition, YOU think enough would descend on one particular school (say, Dartmouth) to potentially consume their entire incoming class.

If we're at the point of this level of hypothetical, the argument you're trying to defend already has a toe tag on it.

Isn’t “could” a signal of a hypothetical? I’m not sure what your issue is here.

The issue, as plainly as possible, is this:

Those in support of the TO era often argue that there are more applicants with perfect grades, perfect test scores, 10+ APs with 5s on every one of the exams, etc. than there are seats in the aggregate incoming class for the T20 schools. They PERSISTENTLY make this argument.

It's not true. It's laughably untrue. It's repeated over and over again by individuals seeking to downplay discussion of a path where standardized testing might be widely restored in the evaluation process. And that's almost certainly because that would conflict with their interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that.

"they could"

Right so a single college could try. Could it not? Plenty of T20 schools have classes with fewer than 2000 students.

Of the less than 2,500 that exist to meet the condition, YOU think enough would descend on one particular school (say, Dartmouth) to potentially consume their entire incoming class.

If we're at the point of this level of hypothetical, the argument you're trying to defend already has a toe tag on it.

Isn’t “could” a signal of a hypothetical? I’m not sure what your issue is here.

The issue, as plainly as possible, is this:

Those in support of the TO era often argue that there are more applicants with perfect grades, perfect test scores, 10+ APs with 5s on every one of the exams, etc. than there are seats in the aggregate incoming class for the T20 schools. They PERSISTENTLY make this argument.

It's not true. It's laughably untrue. It's repeated over and over again by individuals seeking to downplay discussion of a path where standardized testing might be widely restored in the evaluation process. And that's almost certainly because that would conflict with their interests.

Somebody might be making that argument somewhere but it wasn’t being made here. They were simply saying a college, any college, could decide it only wanted to admit that profile but no one has now or in the past which suggests that a seemingly perfect academic profile isn’t the be all end all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that.

"they could"

Right so a single college could try. Could it not? Plenty of T20 schools have classes with fewer than 2000 students.

Of the less than 2,500 that exist to meet the condition, YOU think enough would descend on one particular school (say, Dartmouth) to potentially consume their entire incoming class.

If we're at the point of this level of hypothetical, the argument you're trying to defend already has a toe tag on it.

Isn’t “could” a signal of a hypothetical? I’m not sure what your issue is here.

The issue, as plainly as possible, is this:

Those in support of the TO era often argue that there are more applicants with perfect grades, perfect test scores, 10+ APs with 5s on every one of the exams, etc. than there are seats in the aggregate incoming class for the T20 schools. They PERSISTENTLY make this argument.

It's not true. It's laughably untrue. It's repeated over and over again by individuals seeking to downplay discussion of a path where standardized testing might be widely restored in the evaluation process. And that's almost certainly because that would conflict with their interests.

Somebody might be making that argument somewhere but it wasn’t being made here. They were simply saying a college, any college, could decide it only wanted to admit that profile but no one has now or in the past which suggests that a seemingly perfect academic profile isn’t the be all end all.

Agreed that it's not the be all, end all. The argument, however, is hoisted EVERY time anyone raises the argument that test scores should be restored in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that.

"they could"

Right so a single college could try. Could it not? Plenty of T20 schools have classes with fewer than 2000 students.

Of the less than 2,500 that exist to meet the condition, YOU think enough would descend on one particular school (say, Dartmouth) to potentially consume their entire incoming class.

If we're at the point of this level of hypothetical, the argument you're trying to defend already has a toe tag on it.

Isn’t “could” a signal of a hypothetical? I’m not sure what your issue is here.

The issue, as plainly as possible, is this:

Those in support of the TO era often argue that there are more applicants with perfect grades, perfect test scores, 10+ APs with 5s on every one of the exams, etc. than there are seats in the aggregate incoming class for the T20 schools. They PERSISTENTLY make this argument.

It's not true. It's laughably untrue. It's repeated over and over again by individuals seeking to downplay discussion of a path where standardized testing might be widely restored in the evaluation process. And that's almost certainly because that would conflict with their interests.

Somebody might be making that argument somewhere but it wasn’t being made here. They were simply saying a college, any college, could decide it only wanted to admit that profile but no one has now or in the past which suggests that a seemingly perfect academic profile isn’t the be all end all.

Agreed that it's not the be all, end all. The argument, however, is hoisted EVERY time anyone raises the argument that test scores should be restored in the process.

DP: people are arguing that there are a lot of highly capable students. No one argues that these kids have perfect scores. I’ve seen posts that use 1500+ SATs, AP scores of 4 or 5 and high GPAs.

If so, please post some examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Guess what? my kid knows how to play the game and is at a top school by dcum standard. I just laugh at all those of you who claim that your DC is a straight A student but is not a good test taker. Yeah right! Pretty sure that many of these kids have also prepped like crazy but couldn't hack a decent score because guess what? not everyone has the ability to get to 1500s. For all those who argue that GPA is a better indicator of college success, I guess you've never heard of grade inflation and unlimited retakes until students get an A. I'm in a parents facebook group for DC's college, and there are so many parents complaining about their previously straight A students struggling or failing their intro classes.

Oh no- grade inflation! Do you think you’ve uncovered some great secret that college admissions offices are blind to? You don’t think they track everything? Good grief - if you think colleges are this inept, including the “top” college your child attends, then you should have sent them abroad.

And all of those supposed straight A students failing intro classes could also have had test scores - unless you expect us to believe the parents are posting “my straight A test optional student is failing - oh how I wish they took the SAT since it’s a curb against grade inflation”

No college admission can't track everything. When 60-70% of the class has an A, how are they going to find out who is ready for college rigor and who is not? And I can guarantee some of these kids are not ready, but no one will know until they matriculate. GPA can be gamed very easily and are absolutely not good indicator of college readiness. AP/IB scores yes, GPA no.

By the way, if any of the straight A student failing intro classes had a high SAT score, their parents would have screamed about it at the top of the lungs, so no I don't know if these kids were test optional, but I'm pretty sure they were not top SAT scorers or their parents would have mentioned it.

Everyone knows SAT and ACT is no indication of readiness for college rigor though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Well my Kid with learning issues, anxiety driven, and no EF simply doesn't test well. Was a 3.5UW kid in HS and almost 3.5 in college (had bad first year in premed courses). Did 35+ hours of tutoring for SAT/ACT and none of it really helped. Score on each test never went up more than 1 point ACT and 30 points SAT, despite all the studying and prepping. Every test resulted in the same damn result.

However, that kid attended a T80 school, graduated in 4 years despite a major change, had almost a 3.5 in college (after ruining gpa freshman year that was a huge accomplishment). Had a job starting 2 weeks after graduation at a good company. In the top 25% of new workers at said company (based on first and 2nd year raises and performance reviews which rank them). Kid is doing well at their job and life. I'd say their SAT/ACT ability has nothing to do with their success in life. And am thankful that colleges outside the T50 recognize that and don't care. Life is about much more than a 4 hour standardized test!

3.5 with 30 ACT sounds like a good fit for a T80 and indeed it all worked out really well. Congrats!

It was a 26 ACT---they could only raise their SAT by 30.

But main point is that despite the inability to "improve on SAT/ACT" they are still excelling in life, and were not relegated to a T300 school. Their GPA demonstrated more about their work ethic and ability than the 4 hour test

A 26 ACT is better score than 83% of the kids who go to college, which seems very much in line with the rest of your kids stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

+1

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

[/quote]

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?[/quote]

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

[b]My native country [/b]has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.
[/quote]

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India. [/quote]

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!
[/quote]

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares. [/quote]

Guess what? my kid knows how to play the game and is at a top school by dcum standard. I just laugh at all those of you who claim that your DC is a straight A student but is not a good test taker. Yeah right! Pretty sure that many of these kids have also prepped like crazy but couldn't hack a decent score because guess what? not everyone has the ability to get to 1500s. For all those who argue that GPA is a better indicator of college success, I guess you've never heard of grade inflation and unlimited retakes until students get an A. I'm in a parents facebook group for DC's college, and there are so many parents complaining about their previously straight A students struggling or failing their intro classes.[/quote]

Oh no- grade inflation! Do you think you’ve uncovered some great secret that college admissions offices are blind to? You don’t think they track everything? Good grief - if you think colleges are this inept, including the “top” college your child attends, then you should have sent them abroad.

And all of those supposed straight A students failing intro classes could also have had test scores - unless you expect us to believe the parents are posting “my straight A test optional student is failing - oh how I wish they took the SAT since it’s a curb against grade inflation”[/quote]

No college admission can't track everything. When 60-70% of the class has an A, how are they going to find out who is ready for college rigor and who is not? And I can guarantee some of these kids are not ready, but no one will know until they matriculate. GPA can be gamed very easily and are absolutely not good indicator of college readiness. AP/IB scores yes, GPA no.

By the way, if any of the straight A student failing intro classes had a high SAT score, their parents would have screamed about it at the top of the lungs, so no I don't know if these kids were test optional, but I'm pretty sure they were not top SAT scorers or their parents would have mentioned it.[/quote]

Everyone knows SAT and ACT is no indication of readiness for college rigor though [/quote]

It is. Especially for the toughest STEM schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores!

Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices.

Guess what? No one else cares.

Guess what? my kid knows how to play the game and is at a top school by dcum standard. I just laugh at all those of you who claim that your DC is a straight A student but is not a good test taker. Yeah right! Pretty sure that many of these kids have also prepped like crazy but couldn't hack a decent score because guess what? not everyone has the ability to get to 1500s. For all those who argue that GPA is a better indicator of college success, I guess you've never heard of grade inflation and unlimited retakes until students get an A. I'm in a parents facebook group for DC's college, and there are so many parents complaining about their previously straight A students struggling or failing their intro classes.

Oh no- grade inflation! Do you think you’ve uncovered some great secret that college admissions offices are blind to? You don’t think they track everything? Good grief - if you think colleges are this inept, including the “top” college your child attends, then you should have sent them abroad.

And all of those supposed straight A students failing intro classes could also have had test scores - unless you expect us to believe the parents are posting “my straight A test optional student is failing - oh how I wish they took the SAT since it’s a curb against grade inflation”

No college admission can't track everything. When 60-70% of the class has an A, how are they going to find out who is ready for college rigor and who is not? And I can guarantee some of these kids are not ready, but no one will know until they matriculate. GPA can be gamed very easily and are absolutely not good indicator of college readiness. AP/IB scores yes, GPA no.

By the way, if any of the straight A student failing intro classes had a high SAT score, their parents would have screamed about it at the top of the lungs, so no I don't know if these kids were test optional, but I'm pretty sure they were not top SAT scorers or their parents would have mentioned it.

Everyone knows SAT and ACT is no indication of readiness for college rigor though

Everyone? You mean you and the fella in the mirror?