Colleges should require scores if test is taken

[Anonymous]

^ but we aren’t going to ignore merit/stars and say “well he’s such a great guy, let’s waste a recruiting spot for him as an unproven/unknown”.

[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.

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

No wonder sone people bomb standardized testing.

We’ve been through this already. Stop blaming the refs because you lost.

[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.

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

No wonder sone people bomb standardized testing.

We’ve been through this already. Stop blaming the refs because you lost.

Nobody is. Again, off topic.

This was all over somebody whining that tests should not be required.

They should since a center ref can’t do it all on his own—he needs those sideline refs (2nd pair of eyes; aka test scores and recs not just gpa).

[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).

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.

We’ve been through this already. Stop blaming the refs because you lost.

Nobody is. Again, off topic.

This was all over somebody whining that tests should not be required.

They should since a center ref can’t do it all on his own—he needs those sideline refs (2nd pair of eyes; aka test scores and recs not just gpa).

Off topic? Are you the manager?

I think you’re mistaken as to who is doing the whining here. The status quo is test optional.

They have sideline refs in the form of teacher recs for example. You think they should be consulting random fans sitting in the upper deck too.

[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...

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?

Your posts are a good case for why interviews should be prioritized. AOs could probably eliminate a lot of applicants based on a quick 2 minute personality assessment.

[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...

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.

Well then your kid will surely stand heads above my kid, as you will report the stellar score. So what are you afraid of?

I already mentioned that my oldest reported scores and that kids with higher scores didn’t get in the same year. So loooooooong before colleges were looking for something beyond a single test score.

3-2-1…but yield! Then you have the other thread about competing against classmates who want yield protection so one kid doesn’t take all the spots.

Your top-10 kid will be just fine. Relax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

Nah, disagree. Lot of aspects of the application are subjective or polished to put the best foot forward. Highlighting certain aspects, burying others. This is no different. Kids should have the discretion to put together the most favorable admissions package that they can, and that should include THEIR decision whether to report test results.

[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%.

That is how it happens. As the paretn of a kid going through college recruiting, you send your best stats, skills videos, highlight reels. You think we're sending video of missed shots or messed up plays? LOL. Some of these coaches are inviting to official visits w/o seeing them in person or seeing them on a very limited basis in person. So, yes, this actually is the case for a lot of college athletes.

[Anonymous]

'My kids don't test well' parents are funny as fukc.

You need to take ton of tests like midterms, finals, etc to get good GPA

LMFAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:'My kids don't test well' parents are funny as fukc.

You need to take ton of tests like midterms, finals, etc to get good GPA

LMFAO

Exactly. The length of arguing on why they shouldn’t have to send scores—good grief. Yeah, we get it, your kid can’t make the cutoffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'My kids don't test well' parents are funny as fukc.

You need to take ton of tests like midterms, finals, etc to get good GPA

LMFAO

Exactly. The length of arguing on why they shouldn’t have to send scores—good grief. Yeah, we get it, your kid can’t make the cutoffs.

And mommy and daddy can’t buy they r way out if this one. They can’t hire someone to take it for them like they can on the essays. They can’t bully the test administrator Luke they can the teachers. They’re hands are tied and it’s killing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'My kids don't test well' parents are funny as fukc.

You need to take ton of tests like midterms, finals, etc to get good GPA

LMFAO

Exactly. The length of arguing on why they shouldn’t have to send scores—good grief. Yeah, we get it, your kid can’t make the cutoffs.

And mommy and daddy can’t buy they r way out if this one. They can’t hire someone to take it for them like they can on the essays. They can’t bully the test administrator Luke they can the teachers. They’re hands are tied and it’s killing them.

DP: i’m not sure how it’s killing them considering the fact that TO doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon.

The parents that are killing themselves right now are the ones that want TO to go away.