No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

That testing might be found discriminatory/illegal at some point, too. Especially if it violates ADA compliance.

Huh? How is it illegal to give the candidates tasks to do before you choose a hire? They have to be able to perform the job well or I don't have to hire that candidate.

Exactly. I recently hired a finance grad from a school not in the top 100 over 2 candidates from UVA and UMD. The two failed a very basic two question analysis test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

Exactly.

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant.

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

Where was this study researched?

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores. Why do you think it's that?

And yet UC application has removed all SAT/ACT scores from consideration

Against the recommendation of the faculty committee and the research. Purely a political decision by the trustees in reaction to a law suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

What an uninformed and troll-y post. SAT/AP test performance is not an indication of giftedness. There are means to prepare for these. Also, lots of kids fulfill this criteria.

People who enrich outside of school and/or prep for tests want them to count for more and define merit or intellect when they don't. They can certainly add to a student's application, but they shouldn't be the defining metric.

You are right, there are means to prepare. For example, you can check out the prep book from the library, for free. You know how I know? Because that is exactly what I did. I was born poor in a third world country. I studied for the SATs for 2 years and aced a test in my non-native tongue. I received a full ride from a top college. Aced it entirely based on books borrowed from my public library, for free! So please tell me again how it's inequitable, because I am a living proof that if you are motivated, nothing is impossible.

If you are a motivated person who is willing to put in hard work, that is 100% merit. SATs and grades measure exactly that.

Grades and essay help probably have the same graph

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read this 2019 article from the NYT? Sound familiar?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/magazine/almost-all-the-colleges-i-wanted-to-go-to-rejected-me-now-what.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR33p-Nhl1mO5BSmjk461YIxU1iqqvLZ5moObJWGaE2-iV7bm-csPn0xEFU&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

Kids have been getting rejected from Uber-competitor schools for a very long time. This was pre-COVID, pre-TO.

I realize there is an impulse to look for something to blame if your kid is rejected from their dream school or most of their targets. But it’s important to remember that your kid is the common denominator (especially with multiple rejections). There is obviously something deficient in the application for the kinds of schools targeted — maybe the essay is bad, maybe you didn’t take enough foreign language, maybe the ECs are spread too thin and don’t demonstrate passion and commitment over time?

What impressed me about the letter writer in the article was he seems to recognizes that instead of casting blame on others. At least there’s some acknowledgment he’s dealing with a bruised ego. That said, his attitude about the schools he did get into leaves a lot to be desired.

I feel bad for kids who faced a lot of rejection this year. But telling them it’s because test optional let lesser kids sneak in and steal their birthright admission isn’t helping them deal with reality. Learn to make the best of the opportunities you ARE given.

Well, these sermons about learning to deal with the harsh realities of college admissions is of little help to students who spent years of high school chasing an unattainable goal. Not because they didn't study enough or didn't give their best to their community, their extracurriculars and their internships but because they are from unwanted financial class, race, geography or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

What an uninformed and troll-y post. SAT/AP test performance is not an indication of giftedness. There are means to prepare for these. Also, lots of kids fulfill this criteria.

People who enrich outside of school and/or prep for tests want them to count for more and define merit or intellect when they don't. They can certainly add to a student's application, but they shouldn't be the defining metric.

That's the thing, lots of kids don't fulfill this criteria. These are top 1% kids. Majority of kids with more resources aren't at this level of high achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

They are enforcing a quota system by setting different ceiling heights for different groups. People aren't not complaining against diversity and inclusion efforts but how its implementation unfair and faulty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

Lol. Asians aren’t the best at education.

That’s an absolutely racist statement. The correct statement is: Not all Asians are the best at education. But no race is.

This^ though Asians are the most academic obsessed group on average and majority is first second generation so they have disadvantage of not knowing the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read this 2019 article from the NYT? Sound familiar?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/magazine/almost-all-the-colleges-i-wanted-to-go-to-rejected-me-now-what.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR33p-Nhl1mO5BSmjk461YIxU1iqqvLZ5moObJWGaE2-iV7bm-csPn0xEFU&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

Kids have been getting rejected from Uber-competitor schools for a very long time. This was pre-COVID, pre-TO.

I realize there is an impulse to look for something to blame if your kid is rejected from their dream school or most of their targets. But it’s important to remember that your kid is the common denominator (especially with multiple rejections). There is obviously something deficient in the application for the kinds of schools targeted — maybe the essay is bad, maybe you didn’t take enough foreign language, maybe the ECs are spread too thin and don’t demonstrate passion and commitment over time?

What impressed me about the letter writer in the article was he seems to recognizes that instead of casting blame on others. At least there’s some acknowledgment he’s dealing with a bruised ego. That said, his attitude about the schools he did get into leaves a lot to be desired.

I feel bad for kids who faced a lot of rejection this year. But telling them it’s because test optional let lesser kids sneak in and steal their birthright admission isn’t helping them deal with reality. Learn to make the best of the opportunities you ARE given.

Well, these sermons about learning to deal with the harsh realities of college admissions is of little help to students who spent years of high school chasing an unattainable goal. Not because they didn't study enough or didn't give their best to their community, their extracurriculars and their internships but because they are from unwanted financial class, race, geography or whatever.

Maybe the internships were a bad idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Test-optional adds to the uncertainty and STRESS.

This is the end result. People are not as confident they will get in, and therefore second-guess themselves, agonize and apply to more schools, which creates more work and more stress for everyone.

And as a poster said above, there aren't more seats in college. It is a zero sum game. Admissions officers taking a chance on a test-optional student WILL have to reject an academically qualified high stats student for that option!

So I disagree with the dismissive posters above regarding test-optional. Test-optional is actually the reason some students are not accepted. Literally.

Now yield protection is different: you can bypass that by demonstrating interest, and customizing your essay to make sure the college knows it isn't just a last recourse. All colleges want is a little courtesy in that regard, even though looking at stats, they are well aware they won't be the first choice. But again, customizing essays, visits and interviews are adding STRESS to the process.

So all this atmosphere leads to more stress than previously. This is not healthy or acceptable. No other country does college admissions this way, and the USA should not either!!!

I hear you, but students who are excellent students but don't test well are burdened with far more stress if tests aren't optional. Why can't they be allowed to put their best foot forward with awards, achievements, APs and other indices? As someone who teaches SAT test prep, I am bothered that people place too much emphasis on SAT in relation to merit.

We need to expand our definitions of top schools rather than hoard spaces for kids who are able to perform well on SAT.

No such thing. That’s called grade inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

Well, sure. How boring to have a bunch of 1559 SAT stressed out robots.

Using your 1% guidelines would leave out certain kids on the spectrum, adhd kids, kids with dyscalculia and dyslexia. That would be short sighted of the school to do.

And that would also leave out a nationally known teen spokesperson who “only” got a 1340 but has done more to change society than the 5.0 1600 kid.

Nah. This is not bad for society. Some horrible people have easily paid their way into those schools and brought their toxic values into society while decrying the “elite” despite attending two elite schools themselves.

Go to a school. Do well. You can still become a Senator and improve the world.

What’s the bottom third of the Harvard class of 2019 doing, I wonder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is 1550 your cutoff? Why not 1500? Why not 1450?

Looking at MIT, its middle 50% is 1510 - 1570.
So 1550 looks like a good number.

Even MIT has some ALDC and URM, so around 20% are below 1500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is 1550 your cutoff? Why not 1500? Why not 1450?

Looking at MIT, its middle 50% is 1510 - 1570.
So 1550 looks like a good number.

Even MIT has some ALDC and URM, so around 20% are below 1500.

correction;
MIT doesn't do legacy as I know, so ADC and URM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

That testing might be found discriminatory/illegal at some point, too. Especially if it violates ADA compliance.

Huh? How is it illegal to give the candidates tasks to do before you choose a hire? They have to be able to perform the job well or I don't have to hire that candidate.

Exactly. I recently hired a finance grad from a school not in the top 100 over 2 candidates from UVA and UMD. The two failed a very basic two question analysis test.

It isn’t. Except in the original scenario, the pp said these tests were given without any accommodations. That potentially is illegal.

For example, not providing a braille version of the test to a blind candidate (or a similar accommodation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The workplace is figuring out that school brands are kind of meaningless -and testing at all levels is on the rise. My daughter is a recruiter in finance and top employers now require a LOT of testing just to get in the door, including personality, math, logic and writing assessments. You can't prep for these tests or take them over again - and there are no accommodations. Candidates (of all races and backgrounds), including the sort of "elite" credentials many DCUMers salivate over here, often bomb or don't get by the tests. Top employers want proof that the candidate is as good as they look on paper, because degrees don't prove much of anything these days.

That testing might be found discriminatory/illegal at some point, too. Especially if it violates ADA compliance.

I design the workplace tests, and there are accommodations where needed. But the reality is that most workplace tasks aren’t particularly speed-sensitive. The exceptions are of course things like nuclear reactor monitor, air traffic controller etc where timed perception/ judgement tests are appropriate.

The SAT has limited validity for predicting important criteria. As with most tests there is an inflection point in the correlation between test performance and criterion performance. Once the score exceeds the inflection point, there is little to be gained by picking people with higher scores.

And even the best tests can only predict about 5% of the variation in human performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read this 2019 article from the NYT? Sound familiar?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/magazine/almost-all-the-colleges-i-wanted-to-go-to-rejected-me-now-what.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR33p-Nhl1mO5BSmjk461YIxU1iqqvLZ5moObJWGaE2-iV7bm-csPn0xEFU&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

Kids have been getting rejected from Uber-competitor schools for a very long time. This was pre-COVID, pre-TO.

I realize there is an impulse to look for something to blame if your kid is rejected from their dream school or most of their targets. But it’s important to remember that your kid is the common denominator (especially with multiple rejections). There is obviously something deficient in the application for the kinds of schools targeted — maybe the essay is bad, maybe you didn’t take enough foreign language, maybe the ECs are spread too thin and don’t demonstrate passion and commitment over time?

What impressed me about the letter writer in the article was he seems to recognizes that instead of casting blame on others. At least there’s some acknowledgment he’s dealing with a bruised ego. That said, his attitude about the schools he did get into leaves a lot to be desired.

I feel bad for kids who faced a lot of rejection this year. But telling them it’s because test optional let lesser kids sneak in and steal their birthright admission isn’t helping them deal with reality. Learn to make the best of the opportunities you ARE given.

Well, these sermons about learning to deal with the harsh realities of college admissions is of little help to students who spent years of high school chasing an unattainable goal. Not because they didn't study enough or didn't give their best to their community, their extracurriculars and their internships but because they are from unwanted financial class, race, geography or whatever.

That is your fault as a parent if you made them think T25 is an "attainable goal" for anyone. They have always been a reach for everyone, save a well hooked student (think parent is a celebrity or presidents or bill gates, etc).
A well raised kid will grow up knowing you work hard in school to learn, do well and aim high, but also know their life is not over if they only get into school ranked #32.