I hate test optional!
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It’s now cool and woke to believe that standardized tests are meaningless. That’s not true, as a task force of U of Cal faculty found after lengthy analysis. Especially with rampant grade inflation across the nation, it’s hard to say that GPA alone is a reliable predictor. Half of kids graduate HS with a 4.0 or better. They are not equally likely to perform similarly in college. https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf |
Anonymous
reading comprehension or math deficiency? No wonder. "A>= B" is not same as "B>=A. " |
Anonymous
Why are we subtracting for "hooks"? Why not just accept the smartest kids? |
Anonymous
Define smartest? |
Anonymous
PP here. "Smartest" is subjective. But for the purposes of this exchange I will assume your definition of "smartest" (despite the fact I would probably disagree). "We" are only subtracting for hooks because the colleges have decided what makes the best class for them. But let's remove them all, anyway. And then: - There are about 20,000 ivy slots. - There are about 30,000 high schools. - The top 3 kids at every one of those means 70,000 kids are getting rejected (and 100% of applicants beyond them of course). - That means nearly 3 out of 4 get rejected even with no slots for hooks. - Even counting just the valedictorians means 10,000 kids have to attend elsewhere. It's musical chairs. There are less seats than players of any qualification. Despite the simple math, many don't get it, and I do not know why. Even if every change you wish was made, and the process was streamlined for kids exactly like yours.... ...they are still unlikely to get admitted. |
Anonymous
|
^^^ But you can’t tell people that. It’s always that “athlete/URM/Legacy/Development admit” that cost my kid their spot.
Smart people not failing basic math but rather choosing to ignore it. |
Anonymous
| Why not just make more colleges and universities at the same level? There's no reason to make schools so elite. |
Anonymous
And also make all soccer teams the same level, and all movies, and all houses. |
Anonymous
This statement, while likely made with very good intentions, is so ironic and illustrates the problem. There are many more "colleges and universities at the same level". Hundreds of them. But 1) despite that some are more just desired than others and 2) colleges that have "risen" in prestige are often bashed by many for their presumptuousness in this very forum. The "problem", people, is YOU. It's not self-evident, it's demand driven. This "problem" wouldn't exist if you didn't create it. |
Anonymous
Because the traditional measures of college ready students (GPA, Rigor and Scores) are woefully low for URMs and would disqualify nearly all from admission. 15 years ago (latest study) there were less than 244 African Americans out of over 150k AAs that took the test, who scored 1500+ on the SAT. (Just 73 total in 2003) That is a problem for progressive schools that want to prove their commitment to diversity politically. Enter “holistic evaluations.” http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html The fact that they fail out and/or switch majors to less rigorous ones doesn’t matter. Many are over their head and would be more successful if they went to their “match” schools. |
Anonymous
I agree. Too many parents, students and hiring managers are brand snobs and the current “in” Schools thrive on that. Is there really a difference between Duke, Penn, Northwestern, Yale, Rice or Vanderbilt? No. Yet there are rankings that swap one out for the other every year. |
Anonymous
That part is a total lie and the graduation statistics prove it. You are a sad propagandist. |
Anonymous
Did you read this report? I'm not sure it says what you think it does. Yes, the authors found that test scores are better than high school GPA at predicting college freshmen GPA. But they also found that test scores and high school GPA were about equal in predicting first-year retention, overall college GPA, and graduation from college. And their recommendations would result in LESS reliance on test scores in the admissions process. They recommend an expansion of the Eligibility in Local Context pathway, which currently guarantees admission to a UC school for students with a high school GPA that places them in the top 9% of their high school class, so that more than 9% would be admitted. While they don't recommend that the UC system go test optional at this time, the authors envision a time in the near future when test scores will cease to be considered. They recommend development of a new assessment system that doesn't rely on SAT/ACT scores. |
Anonymous
Agree. I have read that the issue many fail is lack of support (generally economic but also academic) and perceptions that they do not belong or fit in socially (which is why you want to bring in enough students of a particular race/ethnicity to help them have community and support). By the way, I have also heard that Ivy League schools for the most part, are not harder to stay in. They are just harder to get into. The academics may be very similar to the “match” school (depending on what that is). |
Anonymous
PP said grades were “a better predictor” of college performance. Others have gone further to say that standardized tests are meaningless. Not according to this study, especially since 2007 with the rise of grade inflation. Sure, there’s more nuance in this lengthy report. But those are the key takeaways, which are nicely summarized in the executive summary: “The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.3 For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.“ |