Test optional over

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

“The system should advantage what my kids are best at, otherwise it’s unfair and dangerous”

I’m sorry the entire higher education system is not rewriting itself around your VERY SPECIAL CHILD.

You don’t “deserve” anything and neither do do they.

They deserve fairness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well it says IF a college uses test option IN ORDER TO achieve racial balance. But there are a lot of reasons to go test optional that have nothing to do with racial balance. Some colleges simply don’t believe they are strong indicators of a student’s ability.

And let's face it, no college is even close to having a "racial balance."

[Anonymous]

They aren’t looking for the smartest kids. That’s not holistic admissions.
They need a baseline/threshold. That # varies per selectivity of institution.

After that, they want to know what your kid will be doing on campus all day. After all they are only in class for 1-3 hrs a day. What will they be doing? How will they engage?
That’s what they really care about. That’s also what fills their discussions in AO Cmte. They aren’t talking about scores.

[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:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

What about writing? A kid may not test well but could be Ana amazing writer. That counts for nothing since they did normal in bubbles?

What about writing? Do you really care if the surgeon operating on your loved one is an excellent writer? Or the engineer who inspects the bridge you have to cross over every day?

Writing is thinking on paper. It’s actually not some frivolity. A doctor who can’t use words to explain a complex diagnosis is a worse doctor.

I really don't care about the doctors words if he can heal my sick child. If your kid was dying, you'd really choose the doctor who "wrote well" over the one that could save your child's life?

A large part of successful medicine is skillfully managing the patient (and family). If the patient doesn't trust their MD or doesn't do what the MD tells them to do, no amount of medical knowledge or experience will be useful. Same goes for effective communication with their team during a procedure, it’s essential.

Actually performing the surgery is important too. All the "skillfull management of the family" will be of no use when the patient is dead.

Which is what I said, communication with their team. Aware it’s both. Acutely aware of first one as of late with a parent that wants to stop going to a specialist as they have zero bedside manner. It’s a nightmare and getting in elsewhere would be months at best. They were turned off immediately and now it’s an uphill battle on listening to any of their suggestions.

I get it. I want my kid to live. You want your kid to die and then the doctor to write a poem about it. We're just different, is all.

Yes, that is exactly what the PP is saying. They want their kid to die and for the doctor to write a poem about it. Your ability to parse out the nuances of what PP is saying is staggering, demonstrative of superior complex reasoning, and wholly convincing.

I think what the pp is saying is that writing ability is largely irrelevant to surgical skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

What about writing? A kid may not test well but could be Ana amazing writer. That counts for nothing since they did normal in bubbles?

What about writing? Do you really care if the surgeon operating on your loved one is an excellent writer? Or the engineer who inspects the bridge you have to cross over every day?

Writing is thinking on paper. It’s actually not some frivolity. A doctor who can’t use words to explain a complex diagnosis is a worse doctor.

I really don't care about the doctors words if he can heal my sick child. If your kid was dying, you'd really choose the doctor who "wrote well" over the one that could save your child's life?

This is a false choice

If you are selecting a doctor or medical student based on writing ability over a doctor or student with better medical ability, this is exactly the choice you are making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it says IF a college uses test option IN ORDER TO achieve racial balance. But there are a lot of reasons to go test optional that have nothing to do with racial balance. Some colleges simply don’t believe they are strong indicators of a student’s ability.

These are not the games you want to play as an institution. Despite everyone claiming that practice schools don't need federal funding, recent weeks have shown that it is obvious that they do

Practice schools= private schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t looking for the smartest kids. That’s not holistic admissions.
They need a baseline/threshold. That # varies per selectivity of institution.

After that, they want to know what your kid will be doing on campus all day. After all they are only in class for 1-3 hrs a day. What will they be doing? How will they engage?
That’s what they really care about. That’s also what fills their discussions in AO Cmte. They aren’t talking about scores.

This is true and it is what people don't understand when they complain that the "smarter" kid did not get admitted. They aren't trying to admit only the best tester kids, nor should they. That isn't what college in America is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

What about writing? A kid may not test well but could be Ana amazing writer. That counts for nothing since they did normal in bubbles?

What about writing? Do you really care if the surgeon operating on your loved one is an excellent writer? Or the engineer who inspects the bridge you have to cross over every day?

Writing is thinking on paper. It’s actually not some frivolity. A doctor who can’t use words to explain a complex diagnosis is a worse doctor.

I really don't care about the doctors words if he can heal my sick child. If your kid was dying, you'd really choose the doctor who "wrote well" over the one that could save your child's life?

This is a false choice

If you are selecting a doctor or medical student based on writing ability over a doctor or student with better medical ability, this is exactly the choice you are making.

Are there TO med schools? Pretty sure all med schools require the MCAT, so what are you babbling about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t looking for the smartest kids. That’s not holistic admissions.
They need a baseline/threshold. That # varies per selectivity of institution.

After that, they want to know what your kid will be doing on campus all day. After all they are only in class for 1-3 hrs a day. What will they be doing? How will they engage?
That’s what they really care about. That’s also what fills their discussions in AO Cmte. They aren’t talking about scores.

This is true and it is what people don't understand when they complain that the "smarter" kid did not get admitted. They aren't trying to admit only the best tester kids, nor should they. That isn't what college in America is about.

This whole thread sounds like a bitter immigrant from India. Who doesn’t understand the basic framework.

And I’m south Asian American

[Anonymous]

It was never about the smart kids after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extreme overreach in one direction invites extreme overreach in the other.

Colleges brought this on themselves.

When you get caught bluffing you don't double down you folks but last year's admissions stats show that several schools doubled down.

You dont know this. You assume so because the makeup is what you expected/wanted it to be. So you assume 'cheating'. Doesn't make it so. Change the inputs you get a different output. You have no idea what the inputs were so cant model an output.

My expectations are not a wild as guess. They are the statistically predicted results that were predicted by both economists in the Harvard case, and the sworn amounts brief of all the colleges telling the supreme court that their URM population world drop dramatically without racial preferences.

Aren't you even a little embarrassed by the ridiculous argument you are so stridently making?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I predict this sends some schools in the direction of the UCs. Why risk ever admitting someone with a lower score over a higher score? If you don’t think the score is the most important factor, best not to know anything about scores at all.

That probably falls under "eliminating testing"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still admit students with low test scores even if they submit them!

Exactly. It doesn't mean kids who aren't great test takers won't get into college.

“Aren’t great test takers”, the foundation for academic measurement in every setting. Have you ever wondered if they “aren’t great test takers” but have a high GPA, how that occurred? Grade inflation? Retakes? Clearly it was not “test taking”. If there is one score I would use for college admissions it’s the SAT/ACT and secondarily AP scores. The amount of TO kids getting into colleges over my high stat GPA/SAT kids makes me crazy and I have every right to be.

Completely agree. If kid A tests better than kid B, it’s bc kid A IS SMARTER. Jeez.

No that is false. The SAT and ACT are timed test that do not require a great deal of deep thinking. It is more about your preparation for the test, what ones has been exposed to and tutoring.
Very complex hard to solve problems that require high intelligence are not solved 1 minute 11 seconds to 1 minute 35 seconds(SAT) or 52 seconds (ACT).

It's about having a basic knowledge and skills.

If your kid can't even score high on SAT/ACT, there are 3000+ colleges that your kid can fit in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it says IF a college uses test option IN ORDER TO achieve racial balance. But there are a lot of reasons to go test optional that have nothing to do with racial balance. Some colleges simply don’t believe they are strong indicators of a student’s ability.

Nobody is going to risk that.

It's not a risk. Socio-economic balance. Simple. Its well understood test scores correlate with wealth. TO for FGLI considerations. Done.

Considering that peer reviewed research refutes this, it is a pretty large risk.

Peer reviewed research out of Opportunity Insights by Harvard and Brown economists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brilliant.TO is another proxy for this by the way and should also be banned. No one in USA cant take an SAT these days. Shame on anyone applying to school TO but the essays are the worst.

I can see why the PP is opposed to essays. Clearly they didn't get ahead in life on the basis of sharp writing skills.

The PP is not opposed to essays - they are opposed to using essays as a proxy for racial information:

"For example, a school may not use students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues as a means of determining or predicting a student’s race and favoring or disfavoring such students."

High time. No more essays used to thinly disguise your race.

THANK YOU!!!!

Thank god. No more identity essays, no more tell us about your trauma, no more pressure to create yet another cultural club to showcase your ethic heritage. Can't get rid of it fast enough.

There was always something a little ick about asking minorities to bare their wounds to get the racial preference. And there was something even more ick about actually doing so.

Not as ick as the fact that the wounds exist at all, should that be the case

No but what does that have to do with academic merit? If you want to fix racism, be my guest, but don't fight racism with more racism.