Colleges should require scores if test is taken

[Anonymous]

Measurable stats can be more than a snapshot. They are a quantifiable way of determining academic proficiency. If you are emphasizing intangibles, how on earth do you differentiate between students, particularly with all of the truth stretching that happens with extracurricular and volunteer involvement?

[Anonymous]

Could it be that a lot of the people who are in favor of test optional are the ones whose kids can't get a good enough score to get into a prestigious school? Money can buy you a good college consultant, but can't always get those scores up, so let's pretend it's more about the intangibles than academics!!

[Anonymous]

[b]It is. Especially for the toughest STEM schools.

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

You should trust MIT, that does require them.

https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement-0328

Research conducted by the admissions office shows that the standardized tests are an important factor in assessing the academic preparation of applicants from all backgrounds, according to Dean of Admissions and Student Financial Services Stuart Schmill. He says the standardized exams are most helpful for assisting the admissions office in identifying socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are well-prepared for MIT’s challenging education, but who don’t have the opportunity to take advanced coursework, participate in expensive enrichment programs, or otherwise enhance their college applications.

Our research has shown that, in most cases, we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test results alongside grades, coursework, and other factors. These findings are statistically robust and stable over time, and hold when you control for socioeconomic factors and look across demographic groups. And the math component of the testing turns out to be most important.

What he says is actually true everywhere, not just at MIT.

[Anonymous]

+1
With all data, you can account for differences in testing among groups and make informed decisions, like admitting a high achieving student with lower scores from a socioeconomically disadvantaged area.

Without data, you are making assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, my DC has +1500 but only okay grades (3.4 UW) in a very rigorous private school. And I don’t think the SAT is as anywhere near as good an indicator of his academic strength as his grades are. So he’s generally looking at schools with acceptance rates in the 35% or higher range, and he seems perfectly happy to attend any of them.

[Anonymous]

And with selective data, that the applicant chooses to include, you are only driving the averages up to an unattainable range each year. In turn, the number of applications increases because of the unpredictability of the process.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][b]It is. Especially for the toughest STEM schools.

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

You should trust MIT, that does require them.

https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement-0328

Research conducted by the admissions office shows that the standardized tests are an important factor in assessing the academic preparation of applicants from all backgrounds, according to Dean of Admissions and Student Financial Services Stuart Schmill. He says the standardized exams are most helpful for assisting the admissions office in identifying socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are well-prepared for MIT’s challenging education, but who don’t have the opportunity to take advanced coursework, participate in expensive enrichment programs, or otherwise enhance their college applications.

Our research has shown that, in most cases, we cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test results alongside grades, coursework, and other factors. These findings are statistically robust and stable over time, and hold when you control for socioeconomic factors and look across demographic groups. And the math component of the testing turns out to be most important.

What he says is actually true everywhere, not just at MIT.[/quote]

Cal Tech doesn’t think so. Nor do plenty of other schools. Are they all wrong? It’s amazing how the one school that validates your worldview is now “true everywhere”.

Perhaps the MIT admissions office is just less competent at their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm, my DC has +1500 but only okay grades (3.4 UW) in a very rigorous private school. And I don’t think the SAT is as anywhere near as good an indicator of his academic strength as his grades are. So he’s generally looking at schools with acceptance rates in the 35% or higher range, and he seems perfectly happy to attend any of them.

And having both grades and test scores gives you that full picture of where he might find his fit. If he were only required to submit the SAT and not his GPA, his list of options might look a little different.

[Anonymous]

Cal Tech doesn’t think so. Nor do plenty of other schools. Are they all wrong? It’s amazing how the one school that validates your worldview is now “true everywhere”.

Depends on your definition of wrong. What they are very obviously trying to do with TO - not just at CalTech but at many other schools - is:
1. Boost "diversity" (of the non-Asian kind)
2. Eliminate an objective measure that could be used as the basis for lawsuits about policy #1
3. Boost their apparent "selectivity" (and thus their "rankings") by expanding the applicant pool

Those reasons have nothing to do with academic merit or the success of admitted students. But, they are what they are.

Perhaps the MIT admissions office is just less competent at their jobs.

Perhaps you should avoid making hilariously stupid remarks like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could it be that a lot of the people who are in favor of test optional are the ones whose kids can't get a good enough score to get into a prestigious school? Money can buy you a good college consultant, but can't always get those scores up, so let's pretend it's more about the intangibles than academics!!

It’s 100% this^

If your kid has the scores you aren’t spending pages touting the wonderfulness of TO.

[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...

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.

No, dummy. I’m talking about why it should be test REQUIRED. Everyone doesn’t get a trophy. Everyone races; only those that make the score/time qualify. Capiche?

[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.

Exactly! And acceptance rates would not be as low. Less applications and all.

[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...

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?

Yeah. But some kids have it all. Those are the ones that used to be top 10 students.

My kid has grades, scores, ECs, sports, equally strong in all areas and one helluva writer.

[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.

It ain’t that deep. We are using the analogy “everyone gets a trophy”.

No wonder sone people bomb standardized testing.

[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).

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.

Correct. My kid was injured his entire junior year of high school …so, yep, he no longer was recruited. Coaches that were talking to him told him they couldn’t offer him anything until they saw him at 100%.

He was a sophomore transfer because he didn’t play Freshmen year because he didn’t have the stats.

It’s real world. Some kids are late bloomers, they won’t get in the top 10 schools—but they will blossom somewhere else and can end up better.