Colleges should require scores if test is taken

[Anonymous]

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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Hmm. Should we trust you or the toughest STEM schools that don’t require them? That’s a tough one.

[Anonymous]

TO needs to go away. It is ridiculous that kids who are scoring in the top 95th percentile or higher are debating whether their scores are "good enough." Stop the madness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TO needs to go away. It is ridiculous that kids who are scoring in the top 95th percentile or higher are debating whether their scores are "good enough." Stop the madness.

This.

The College Board just sent me a mildly threatening letter telling me there was still time for my senior to retake the SAT if we weren't satisfied with their scores. We are satisfied because we're not nuts. This is a blatant cash grab, and colleges are using it to prop up their rankings by only reporting their highest scorers.

Meanwhile, my friend got into U Penn 30 years ago with a 1390. His kid just in with a 1360. It's kind of a crock, this myth that you need to get a 1580 or give up. You know what is keeping your 1580 scoring kids out of the t25?

Those schools don't want their entire freshmen class to be all Comp Sci and Engineering majors, which is what you all have them studying.

Make your kid not be a sheep and they'll get in.

[Anonymous]

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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

If you don't finish the race, qualify--you don't get the trophy. For top 25 schools there used to be a minimum cutoff for standardized testing. Your kids 34 is very much aligned with top scores. 34-36 is a range for top 25.

Look - I came in at 3:41 and missed the 3:40 to qualify for the Boston Marathon that year. That's life. I didn't apply to schools that my scores weren't in range with even though my GPA was...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TO needs to go away. It is ridiculous that kids who are scoring in the top 95th percentile or higher are debating whether their scores are "good enough." Stop the madness.

+1

And the sheer number of applicants to schools so the school gets the $80 and they get to go through 80k applications.

No. There is no way to quality review that many applications. Score + gpa hard cutoffs pre-review help.

[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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

If you don't finish the race, qualify--you don't get the trophy. For top 25 schools there used to be a minimum cutoff for standardized testing. Your kids 34 is very much aligned with top scores. 34-36 is a range for top 25.

Look - I came in at 3:41 and missed the 3:40 to qualify for the Boston Marathon that year. That's life. I didn't apply to schools that my scores weren't in range with even though my GPA was...

The problem with this logic is the statistics are skewed. Your race time was measured against all participants, not just the fastest racers who decided to submit their time. TO schools are driving up their median range of test scores because only the top 1-2% feel safe enough to report.

[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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

If you don't finish the race, qualify--you don't get the trophy. For top 25 schools there used to be a minimum cutoff for standardized testing. Your kids 34 is very much aligned with top scores. 34-36 is a range for top 25.

Look - I came in at 3:41 and missed the 3:40 to qualify for the Boston Marathon that year. That's life. I didn't apply to schools that my scores weren't in range with even though my GPA was...

More schools would be in the range for today's kids if all scores were reported.

[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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

If you don't finish the race, qualify--you don't get the trophy. For top 25 schools there used to be a minimum cutoff for standardized testing. Your kids 34 is very much aligned with top scores. 34-36 is a range for top 25.

Look - I came in at 3:41 and missed the 3:40 to qualify for the Boston Marathon that year. That's life. I didn't apply to schools that my scores weren't in range with even though my GPA was...

I posted on page 1 that I'm confident that both my kids would end up where they're meant to be if tests were actually forbidden, like at UC's. I don't have much handwringing about it. Besides, the TO kid has more AP and better AP scores and better essays and is more creative and hardworking. So, really, who's to say which kid of mine should get the "one and only golden" trophy?

[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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

If you don't finish the race, qualify--you don't get the trophy. For top 25 schools there used to be a minimum cutoff for standardized testing. Your kids 34 is very much aligned with top scores. 34-36 is a range for top 25.

Look - I came in at 3:41 and missed the 3:40 to qualify for the Boston Marathon that year. That's life. I didn't apply to schools that my scores weren't in range with even though my GPA was...

More schools would be in the range for today's kids if all scores were reported.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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. [/quote]

No, they don't get the message, many of them. Or they're under the mistaken impression that breaking into the 90th percentile at all is reason for celebration. As when we were kids, if the average SAT is about 1100 and your kid gets a 1300, that's a great score. They did welll.

Except in the upside-down where we live now, where half the kids reporting are in the 1% score-wise and half the kids not reporting come from from families in the 1% economically.

[Anonymous]

I think test optional is doing more harm than good, since schools are now skewing the average test score upward and discouraging kids who have legitimately good scores from submitting so they don't bring down their average. It's insane.

[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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

If you don't finish the race, qualify--you don't get the trophy. For top 25 schools there used to be a minimum cutoff for standardized testing. Your kids 34 is very much aligned with top scores. 34-36 is a range for top 25.

Look - I came in at 3:41 and missed the 3:40 to qualify for the Boston Marathon that year. That's life. I didn't apply to schools that my scores weren't in range with even though my GPA was...

Here’s the problem with your analogy: the Boston marathon is literally a race. The only factor that matters is time. But the SAT is, AT BEST, a very remote indicator of a student’s qualifications. It’s like deciding who makes the basketball team with a free throw shooting contest. It might not be completely irrelevant, but it also doesn’t tell you much at all about how a good a basketball player they are. It’s waaaay down the list. After ball handling, passing, “live” (ie, defended) shooting, defense, rebounding, and intangibles like hustle and selflessness. Same with students. You cannot just say, look, high GPA and test scores = best incoming class. Any population of humans is far more complex than that.

[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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

If you don't finish the race, qualify--you don't get the trophy. For top 25 schools there used to be a minimum cutoff for standardized testing. Your kids 34 is very much aligned with top scores. 34-36 is a range for top 25.

Look - I came in at 3:41 and missed the 3:40 to qualify for the Boston Marathon that year. That's life. I didn't apply to schools that my scores weren't in range with even though my GPA was...

Here’s the problem with your analogy: the Boston marathon is literally a race. The only factor that matters is time. But the SAT is, AT BEST, a very remote indicator of a student’s qualifications. It’s like deciding who makes the basketball team with a free throw shooting contest. It might not be completely irrelevant, but it also doesn’t tell you much at all about how a good a basketball player they are. It’s waaaay down the list. After ball handling, passing, “live” (ie, defended) shooting, defense, rebounding, and intangibles like hustle and selflessness. Same with students. You cannot just say, look, high GPA and test scores = best incoming class. Any population of humans is far more complex than that.

That's fair, but what if you decided who made the basketball team by allowing players to submit their best stats. That's kind of where we are with college admissions. Only the highest stats are being submitted, causing students confusion and hysteria when trying to decode if they fall within the middle 50% of the x number of students who even submitted scores. If you had all the data and reviewed it holistically, you would have a more realistic representation of the true middle 50%.

[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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it.

I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not?

Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era.

+1. TO is the equivalent to “everyone gets a trophy”.

This doesn’t make logical sense, it’s just hysteria. My kid is at a T25 after reporting a 34. On CC, there were kids who were rejected that same year with a 35, and 36. Of course, now people will cry “yield!” One metric isn’t the end all be all, otherwise every single school would be filled kids scoring 35 and 36 and 1580-1600.

My other kid applied TO, so are you saying that he doesn’t deserve a trophy? It’s probably one your kid doesn’t even want. It’s greed and desperation on your part to hoard all these invisible trophies.

If you don't finish the race, qualify--you don't get the trophy. For top 25 schools there used to be a minimum cutoff for standardized testing. Your kids 34 is very much aligned with top scores. 34-36 is a range for top 25.

Look - I came in at 3:41 and missed the 3:40 to qualify for the Boston Marathon that year. That's life. I didn't apply to schools that my scores weren't in range with even though my GPA was...

Here’s the problem with your analogy: the Boston marathon is literally a race. The only factor that matters is time. But the SAT is, AT BEST, a very remote indicator of a student’s qualifications. It’s like deciding who makes the basketball team with a free throw shooting contest. It might not be completely irrelevant, but it also doesn’t tell you much at all about how a good a basketball player they are. It’s waaaay down the list. After ball handling, passing, “live” (ie, defended) shooting, defense, rebounding, and intangibles like hustle and selflessness. Same with students. You cannot just say, look, high GPA and test scores = best incoming class. Any population of humans is far more complex than that.

That's fair, but what if you decided who made the basketball team by allowing players to submit their best stats. That's kind of where we are with college admissions. Only the highest stats are being submitted, causing students confusion and hysteria when trying to decode if they fall within the middle 50% of the x number of students who even submitted scores. If you had all the data and reviewed it holistically, you would have a more realistic representation of the true middle 50%.

Stats are just a snapshot in a relatively short time frame for a student.