Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

I think everyone knows this. What they object to is a 1300 SAT kid who hides that score, goes TO and gets in on some 'woke' quota. Hopefully this fixes that!

Woke quota?! Omg I never cease to be amazed by the things that people will actually say (type). Do you assume that the URM students that you see have lower scores? How racist.

I assume the bolded is true because, in fact, this is exactly what Harvard's own data showed in the discovery portion of the SCt case

Not only is the PP is who too short on vocabulary to express what they're trying to say a jerk, but they're also flat-out wrong. In fact, the reinstatement of test scores is so they CAN let in students with lower scores. Maybe 1300 will be a little low, but not, they can see that students with high GPAs from little-known or underperforming schools are capable of doing the work at their universities--and 1400 SAT scores prove that. All this narrative about the highest scores doing "the best" in college really doesn't matter. Students with 1400 scores and high GPAs from their high schools deserve an opportunity to have an excellent education. They don't have to be top students in the Ivy League, they just deserve the chance. Reinstatement of test scores allows that to happen. Again, understand, this is not to put a barrier in front of students with lower scores who were "hiding" them. It is to remove it.

This wall of text doesn't refute PP's statement of facts in the Harvard case. In the years examined, Black and Hispanic students who applied scored far lower than white or Asian kids who applied

Whether Harvard wants to admit the lower scoring kids of color is a separate issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

I think everyone knows this. What they object to is a 1300 SAT kid who hides that score, goes TO and gets in on some 'woke' quota. Hopefully this fixes that!

Woke quota?! Omg I never cease to be amazed by the things that people will actually say (type). Do you assume that the URM students that you see have lower scores? How racist.

I assume the bolded is true because, in fact, this is exactly what Harvard's own data showed in the discovery portion of the SCt case

Not only is the PP is who too short on vocabulary to express what they're trying to say a jerk, but they're also flat-out wrong. In fact, the reinstatement of test scores is so they CAN let in students with lower scores. Maybe 1300 will be a little low, but not, they can see that students with high GPAs from little-known or underperforming schools are capable of doing the work at their universities--and 1400 SAT scores prove that. All this narrative about the highest scores doing "the best" in college really doesn't matter. Students with 1400 scores and high GPAs from their high schools deserve an opportunity to have an excellent education. They don't have to be top students in the Ivy League, they just deserve the chance. Reinstatement of test scores allows that to happen. Again, understand, this is not to put a barrier in front of students with lower scores who were "hiding" them. It is to remove it.

This wall of text doesn't refute PP's statement of facts in the Harvard case. In the years examined, Black and Hispanic students who applied scored far lower than white or Asian kids who applied

Whether Harvard wants to admit the lower scoring kids of color is a separate issue.

DP: But that is the argument that several posters have pointed out on this thread. Yes, the Harvard SC case revealed that the average URM score was lower than that of White/Asian accepted students.

Elite schools are going back to test required to continue equity/DEI initiatives. This allows them to take a lower-scoring URM student that they believe will be able to do the work and not take the risk of accepting these students TO and further lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:test optional was a failed experiment

it wasn't an experiment it was due to testing centers closing during the pandemic

My 2023 and 2024 kids had plenty of opportunities to take and retake the SAT over most of their high school years.

The only graduating years that should have been test optional was class of 2021.

Instead, they doubled down on test optional, and ended up with a bunch of kids from the "you get an A if you login to most of your classes and do this quizlet" generation with school shut-down inflated grades, lack of skills needed for rigorous classes, and no impartial SAT to show whether or not they possessed the intellect to overcome the significant deficiencies of their pandemic "school" years.

Yup, this makes me sad for my dd who was 2023 and had very good SAT scores. Fortunately, she loves where she wound up.

So you believe some stupid kid who had a lower score but didn't have to show it took her spot? Seriously?

Absolutely, I think most kids admitted test optional would not have gotten in otherwise (that’s 20 to 50 percent of the class at most schools). And the fact that these kids aren’t performing well two years and schools are rushing to go back to test required reinforces that belief.

Please. Show me the data where all the TO kids are dropping out of college. It's like the only place you learn is through the posts that repeat your biased, uninformed perspective. That is not why they are resinstating. They are reinstating to do better at admitting a range of qualified kid--and mostly to stop getting sued.

I didn’t say they were dropping out, I said they weren’t performing as well. The data UT released showed that students admitted test optional has a gpa a full point less than those who submitted test scores.

So what? That's not why they're reinstating? Who cares if a kid who didn't have the same benefits that a rich white kid did graduates with a B average? You people really will never ever get it and I don't know why I find it so infuriating.

To me, a common component of the mission of this tier of schools that just reinstated is academic excellence. They want to think of themselves as a place that brings together students who have the potential to have high impact on the world - innovative researchers, Nobel prize-winners, Rhodes scholars, national leaders, Facebook founders, etc.

If finding students that have the potential for a high level of future impact is a priority for these particular schools, then yes they’d rather have the students who can get As and take hard classes vs B students who can “get by” - especially when those students have comparable circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Good. Now we will return to the right people going to the best schools and becoming the country’s ruling elite.

[Anonymous]

Great news. Hopefully with test scores, these colleges will also be mindful of the Supreme Court ruling on racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My own kids are not applying to Harvard, but as a professor of mostly undergraduate students I applaud this. It's one data point that is, like ACTs and APs, scaled nationally. Grades are hyper inflated at many high schools and rigor varies too much across schools to be helpful to an admissions committee who is comparing students across the country, indeed even internationally.
Also, my unpopular opinion is that SATs are not racially biased. The scores are a reflection of reality -Black and Hispanic kids don't do well because they are relatively impoverished compared to other populations. Also, straight math problems (not word problems) logically cannot indicate bias.

Community college professor? Yes, straight math problems logically can be biased, especially in the way they are taught in schools. Think critically just a little. Hope you're not one of my children's professors. But they're both students with LDs at top 20 universities, so I'm guessing not.

DP, why the snark of throwing around community college as an insult and looking down at them? Give an example of a straight math problem that can be biased. Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate bringing up your LD kids at “top 20” colleges.

Again, think a little, and maybe you can make some conclusions on your own. Standardized tests, straight math, most of US style of teaching, are biased. This is not even arguable. It's not accessible to all.

I'm a DP, and I need you to explain this to me like I'm 5 because I don't understand how math problems are biased.

The way math is taught is biased. It's obviously not the problem itself. But when classrooms and instruction are developed to teach to one learning style, then there's no way for every student to learn how to do the straight math problem. Making the standardized tests inaccessible for a large number of very bright students who are not taught in the way they need to be. Therefore, biased.

So you’re saying the math test isn’t biased, the problem is that students are not able to learn the math to begin with because of subpar teaching methods. Therefore the math test is accurately showing that they don’t know how to do the math. That’s not bias in the test, that’s another problem entirely.

I think you are just too far removed and ingrained in your own biases to see how those things are inseparable. Biased process means biased test, that's how that works. That's why the tests have been considered biased for so many years. Because it is easy for average, neurotypical students to learn how to do the "straight math" problems. You seem to need to fold all over yourself to actually not see the bias. It's not like this is really an arguable point. Schools aren't reinstating because they all of a sudden believe the system isn't biased. One large class of people, for whom the bias benefits, sued, and now they have to reinstate them. It's fine. It's still not going to advantage the students with 1500 and higher any more than they are already are. So perhaps it's just not worth arguing with those of you who, even after having these issues drilled into you for past four years, still don't get it. I really don't care. Your average kid will still be going to an average college with his 1500, so whatever.

NP. So if a HS cannot do well on a "biased" SAT / ACT due to a curriculum K-11 that is "biased" against them/their "learning style," is it your position that this applicant should nevertheless be admitted to Selective U. ? Presumably, "bias" victim has poor 9-12 grades as well, on account of their divergent ability not aligning with any teaching "style" for the past 12 years.

If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

The game plan is to receive affirmative action in perpertuity for life. This actually happens. The underqualified URM who gets into a selective college, gets another bump in medical school affirmative action for bombing the MCAT and having a low science GPA, and then another bump for residency and another bump during hiring. It never ends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, obviously. The test optional thing was a weird experiment and there is no evidence that it accomplished anything useful, and some evidence it was genuinely detrimental. Good riddance.

Being good at taking tests is not the most important thing in life and everyone should remind themselves of that. But it turns out that people who do test well, and are able to get very high scores on college preparedness tests, tend to also do best in college, where they will also be expected to regularly take tests. It's okay that not everyone goes to an Ivy, or becomes a lawyer or doctor or academic or MBA or whatever. It's not the only option in life.

Just realize that Harvard isn't going to accept your kids with a 1580 over one with a 1500 based on the SAT alone. They will consider them "the same"/made the cut, and then look at everything else. I don't think requiring tests will have the effect most "high stats" parents want.
Fact is T20 schools only want to see your kid meet a baseline for the testing, then they still want to look at everything else. A 1600 doesn't differentiate your kid from a 1520 kid really.
These schools will still be highly rejective.

I think everyone knows this. What they object to is a 1300 SAT kid who hides that score, goes TO and gets in on some 'woke' quota. Hopefully this fixes that!

Woke quota?! Omg I never cease to be amazed by the things that people will actually say (type). Do you assume that the URM students that you see have lower scores? How racist.

I assume the bolded is true because, in fact, this is exactly what Harvard's own data showed in the discovery portion of the SCt case

Not only is the PP is who too short on vocabulary to express what they're trying to say a jerk, but they're also flat-out wrong. In fact, the reinstatement of test scores is so they CAN let in students with lower scores. Maybe 1300 will be a little low, but not, they can see that students with high GPAs from little-known or underperforming schools are capable of doing the work at their universities--and 1400 SAT scores prove that. All this narrative about the highest scores doing "the best" in college really doesn't matter. Students with 1400 scores and high GPAs from their high schools deserve an opportunity to have an excellent education. They don't have to be top students in the Ivy League, they just deserve the chance. Reinstatement of test scores allows that to happen. Again, understand, this is not to put a barrier in front of students with lower scores who were "hiding" them. It is to remove it.

This wall of text doesn't refute PP's statement of facts in the Harvard case. In the years examined, Black and Hispanic students who applied scored far lower than white or Asian kids who applied

Whether Harvard wants to admit the lower scoring kids of color is a separate issue.

DP: But that is the argument that several posters have pointed out on this thread. Yes, the Harvard SC case revealed that the average URM score was lower than that of White/Asian accepted students.

Elite schools are going back to test required to continue equity/DEI initiatives. This allows them to take a lower-scoring URM student that they believe will be able to do the work and not take the risk of accepting these students TO and further lawsuits.

Yes, you and I agree. I had responded to a PP a few pages back who called someone a "racist" if they "believed" that Black applicants to Harvard had lower SAT scores in that last several years. Repeating facts that can be objectively verified isn't "racist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:test optional was a failed experiment

it wasn't an experiment it was due to testing centers closing during the pandemic

My 2023 and 2024 kids had plenty of opportunities to take and retake the SAT over most of their high school years.

The only graduating years that should have been test optional was class of 2021.

Instead, they doubled down on test optional, and ended up with a bunch of kids from the "you get an A if you login to most of your classes and do this quizlet" generation with school shut-down inflated grades, lack of skills needed for rigorous classes, and no impartial SAT to show whether or not they possessed the intellect to overcome the significant deficiencies of their pandemic "school" years.

Yup, this makes me sad for my dd who was 2023 and had very good SAT scores. Fortunately, she loves where she wound up.

So you believe some stupid kid who had a lower score but didn't have to show it took her spot? Seriously?

Not PP, but seriously, undoubtedly yes.

That is a seriously uninformed, small-minded, and frankly just plain stupid position to take. And that right there is why little Susie with her "very good SAT" scores didn't get in. Genetics. So "sad."

Should we speculate on why you are so triggered?

If you wish, go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Advocates for TO or test blind admissions deserve all the infuriating moments coming their way. They have unsuccessfully attempted to justify these failed policies for plenty of pseudoscience reasons, but it has always been about the test results in their own homes.

They didn't care about access to education. Otherwise, trade schools, community colleges, or state schools would have been more than enough to wet their beak.

They cared about access to "prestigious" education, and if sticking it to the higher-performing kids who have always stood in the way of their kids getting a piece of that prestige pie, they were overjoyed to help crash this DEI jalopy into the ditch we now find ourselves in.

Sending their far too often unprepared kid to a top school was the aim. Taking seats away from more qualified applicants was just a vindictive bonus. But again, as long as they got "theirs".

You think you know what drives other people to think the way they do? NP here, but I can say what infuriates me about TO is that my kid's very high 1450 was no longer good enoughto get him into schools that he would have been able to in 2020. So yes, it is about the test results in my home, and many others' whose hard-working, bright kids didn't know they should submit those strong scores because the average scores went up so high it became impossible to know what to do. Thank goodness sanity has come back to the process and more students will be given a look at top universities, not just those who submit and assume they should be automatically let in just because they broke 1500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My own kids are not applying to Harvard, but as a professor of mostly undergraduate students I applaud this. It's one data point that is, like ACTs and APs, scaled nationally. Grades are hyper inflated at many high schools and rigor varies too much across schools to be helpful to an admissions committee who is comparing students across the country, indeed even internationally.
Also, my unpopular opinion is that SATs are not racially biased. The scores are a reflection of reality -Black and Hispanic kids don't do well because they are relatively impoverished compared to other populations. Also, straight math problems (not word problems) logically cannot indicate bias.

Community college professor? Yes, straight math problems logically can be biased, especially in the way they are taught in schools. Think critically just a little. Hope you're not one of my children's professors. But they're both students with LDs at top 20 universities, so I'm guessing not.

DP, why the snark of throwing around community college as an insult and looking down at them? Give an example of a straight math problem that can be biased. Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate bringing up your LD kids at “top 20” colleges.

Again, think a little, and maybe you can make some conclusions on your own. Standardized tests, straight math, most of US style of teaching, are biased. This is not even arguable. It's not accessible to all.

I'm a DP, and I need you to explain this to me like I'm 5 because I don't understand how math problems are biased.

The way math is taught is biased. It's obviously not the problem itself. But when classrooms and instruction are developed to teach to one learning style, then there's no way for every student to learn how to do the straight math problem. Making the standardized tests inaccessible for a large number of very bright students who are not taught in the way they need to be. Therefore, biased.

So you’re saying the math test isn’t biased, the problem is that students are not able to learn the math to begin with because of subpar teaching methods. Therefore the math test is accurately showing that they don’t know how to do the math. That’s not bias in the test, that’s another problem entirely.

I think you are just too far removed and ingrained in your own biases to see how those things are inseparable. Biased process means biased test, that's how that works. That's why the tests have been considered biased for so many years. Because it is easy for average, neurotypical students to learn how to do the "straight math" problems. You seem to need to fold all over yourself to actually not see the bias. It's not like this is really an arguable point. Schools aren't reinstating because they all of a sudden believe the system isn't biased. One large class of people, for whom the bias benefits, sued, and now they have to reinstate them. It's fine. It's still not going to advantage the students with 1500 and higher any more than they are already are. So perhaps it's just not worth arguing with those of you who, even after having these issues drilled into you for past four years, still don't get it. I really don't care. Your average kid will still be going to an average college with his 1500, so whatever.

NP. So if a HS cannot do well on a "biased" SAT / ACT due to a curriculum K-11 that is "biased" against them/their "learning style," is it your position that this applicant should nevertheless be admitted to Selective U. ? Presumably, "bias" victim has poor 9-12 grades as well, on account of their divergent ability not aligning with any teaching "style" for the past 12 years.

If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

Well, my brown skinned, neurodivergent DD with a 1260 SAT currently has a 3.91 in her sophomore year at Georgetown--which is not TO, as you all know. When biases are recognized, and testing is considered as part of holistic admissions, then yes, these students are accepted into selective universities, and many thrive. And if they don't thrive, so what? They do well enough, get a degree from a top university, and now have some of the advantages that their wealthy, white counterparts have always enjoyed. To the PP who asked, does this reveal enoughof why I'm triggered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My own kids are not applying to Harvard, but as a professor of mostly undergraduate students I applaud this. It's one data point that is, like ACTs and APs, scaled nationally. Grades are hyper inflated at many high schools and rigor varies too much across schools to be helpful to an admissions committee who is comparing students across the country, indeed even internationally.
Also, my unpopular opinion is that SATs are not racially biased. The scores are a reflection of reality -Black and Hispanic kids don't do well because they are relatively impoverished compared to other populations. Also, straight math problems (not word problems) logically cannot indicate bias.

Community college professor? Yes, straight math problems logically can be biased, especially in the way they are taught in schools. Think critically just a little. Hope you're not one of my children's professors. But they're both students with LDs at top 20 universities, so I'm guessing not.

DP, why the snark of throwing around community college as an insult and looking down at them? Give an example of a straight math problem that can be biased. Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate bringing up your LD kids at “top 20” colleges.

Again, think a little, and maybe you can make some conclusions on your own. Standardized tests, straight math, most of US style of teaching, are biased. This is not even arguable. It's not accessible to all.

I'm a DP, and I need you to explain this to me like I'm 5 because I don't understand how math problems are biased.

The way math is taught is biased. It's obviously not the problem itself. But when classrooms and instruction are developed to teach to one learning style, then there's no way for every student to learn how to do the straight math problem. Making the standardized tests inaccessible for a large number of very bright students who are not taught in the way they need to be. Therefore, biased.

So you’re saying the math test isn’t biased, the problem is that students are not able to learn the math to begin with because of subpar teaching methods. Therefore the math test is accurately showing that they don’t know how to do the math. That’s not bias in the test, that’s another problem entirely.

I think you are just too far removed and ingrained in your own biases to see how those things are inseparable. Biased process means biased test, that's how that works. That's why the tests have been considered biased for so many years. Because it is easy for average, neurotypical students to learn how to do the "straight math" problems. You seem to need to fold all over yourself to actually not see the bias. It's not like this is really an arguable point. Schools aren't reinstating because they all of a sudden believe the system isn't biased. One large class of people, for whom the bias benefits, sued, and now they have to reinstate them. It's fine. It's still not going to advantage the students with 1500 and higher any more than they are already are. So perhaps it's just not worth arguing with those of you who, even after having these issues drilled into you for past four years, still don't get it. I really don't care. Your average kid will still be going to an average college with his 1500, so whatever.

NP. So if a HS cannot do well on a "biased" SAT / ACT due to a curriculum K-11 that is "biased" against them/their "learning style," is it your position that this applicant should nevertheless be admitted to Selective U. ? Presumably, "bias" victim has poor 9-12 grades as well, on account of their divergent ability not aligning with any teaching "style" for the past 12 years.

If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

Well, my brown skinned, neurodivergent DD with a 1260 SAT currently has a 3.91 in her sophomore year at Georgetown--which is not TO, as you all know. When biases are recognized, and testing is considered as part of holistic admissions, then yes, these students are accepted into selective universities, and many thrive. And if they don't thrive, so what? They do well enough, get a degree from a top university, and now have some of the advantages that their wealthy, white counterparts have always enjoyed. To the PP who asked, does this reveal enoughof why I'm triggered?

Congrats to your kid. That is an impressive GPA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My own kids are not applying to Harvard, but as a professor of mostly undergraduate students I applaud this. It's one data point that is, like ACTs and APs, scaled nationally. Grades are hyper inflated at many high schools and rigor varies too much across schools to be helpful to an admissions committee who is comparing students across the country, indeed even internationally.
Also, my unpopular opinion is that SATs are not racially biased. The scores are a reflection of reality -Black and Hispanic kids don't do well because they are relatively impoverished compared to other populations. Also, straight math problems (not word problems) logically cannot indicate bias.

Community college professor? Yes, straight math problems logically can be biased, especially in the way they are taught in schools. Think critically just a little. Hope you're not one of my children's professors. But they're both students with LDs at top 20 universities, so I'm guessing not.

DP, why the snark of throwing around community college as an insult and looking down at them? Give an example of a straight math problem that can be biased. Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate bringing up your LD kids at “top 20” colleges.

Again, think a little, and maybe you can make some conclusions on your own. Standardized tests, straight math, most of US style of teaching, are biased. This is not even arguable. It's not accessible to all.

I'm a DP, and I need you to explain this to me like I'm 5 because I don't understand how math problems are biased.

The way math is taught is biased. It's obviously not the problem itself. But when classrooms and instruction are developed to teach to one learning style, then there's no way for every student to learn how to do the straight math problem. Making the standardized tests inaccessible for a large number of very bright students who are not taught in the way they need to be. Therefore, biased.

So you’re saying the math test isn’t biased, the problem is that students are not able to learn the math to begin with because of subpar teaching methods. Therefore the math test is accurately showing that they don’t know how to do the math. That’s not bias in the test, that’s another problem entirely.

I think you are just too far removed and ingrained in your own biases to see how those things are inseparable. Biased process means biased test, that's how that works. That's why the tests have been considered biased for so many years. Because it is easy for average, neurotypical students to learn how to do the "straight math" problems. You seem to need to fold all over yourself to actually not see the bias. It's not like this is really an arguable point. Schools aren't reinstating because they all of a sudden believe the system isn't biased. One large class of people, for whom the bias benefits, sued, and now they have to reinstate them. It's fine. It's still not going to advantage the students with 1500 and higher any more than they are already are. So perhaps it's just not worth arguing with those of you who, even after having these issues drilled into you for past four years, still don't get it. I really don't care. Your average kid will still be going to an average college with his 1500, so whatever.

NP. So if a HS cannot do well on a "biased" SAT / ACT due to a curriculum K-11 that is "biased" against them/their "learning style," is it your position that this applicant should nevertheless be admitted to Selective U. ? Presumably, "bias" victim has poor 9-12 grades as well, on account of their divergent ability not aligning with any teaching "style" for the past 12 years.

If you genuinely believe Bias Victim deserves a spot at Selective U., what is Victim's game plan once admitted? To major in dance? How will Selective U. be any different that Biased Public Schools with respect to offering teaching "styles" AND evaluation of material that is not "biased"?

Well, my brown skinned, neurodivergent DD with a 1260 SAT currently has a 3.91 in her sophomore year at Georgetown--which is not TO, as you all know. When biases are recognized, and testing is considered as part of holistic admissions, then yes, these students are accepted into selective universities, and many thrive. And if they don't thrive, so what? They do well enough, get a degree from a top university, and now have some of the advantages that their wealthy, white counterparts have always enjoyed. To the PP who asked, does this reveal enoughof why I'm triggered?

Congrats to your kid. That is an impressive GPA

+1 thank you for sharing. I think it is so important not to be silenced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My own kids are not applying to Harvard, but as a professor of mostly undergraduate students I applaud this. It's one data point that is, like ACTs and APs, scaled nationally. Grades are hyper inflated at many high schools and rigor varies too much across schools to be helpful to an admissions committee who is comparing students across the country, indeed even internationally.
Also, my unpopular opinion is that SATs are not racially biased. The scores are a reflection of reality -Black and Hispanic kids don't do well because they are relatively impoverished compared to other populations. Also, straight math problems (not word problems) logically cannot indicate bias.

Community college professor? Yes, straight math problems logically can be biased, especially in the way they are taught in schools. Think critically just a little. Hope you're not one of my children's professors. But they're both students with LDs at top 20 universities, so I'm guessing not.

The SAT is less biased than letters of rec, sports, activities, and GPA. It is one of the least biased parts of an application.

+1

Especially for families that can afford substantial test prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:test optional was a failed experiment

it wasn't an experiment it was due to testing centers closing during the pandemic

CA schools didn't go TO because of covid.

Am genuinely curious how the UC's are going to respond to the changes. UCLA had almost 145k applicants this year! Cal Berkeley had 125k applicants. Those numbers are... wild.

UC schools went Test Blind completely independent of Covid. I am fine with Test Blind or Test Required, but TO has been the absolute worst.

Supposedly, they are creating their own test...not sure if that is still happening or what. I don't see them ever returning to SAT/ACT.

Test blind is idiotic. The UCs are admitting kids with a perfect GPA that can’t even get mediocre scores on the SAT/ACT. If someone cannot even get a 50th percentile score on the these tests they should not be going to any college. UCLA and Berkeley are going to ruin their reputation if they continue to admit students without standardized testing. There are too many kids that went to terrible schools schools, but have high GPAs because the coursework is too easy. These tests are the only way to benchmark students from different schools to ensure you are not admitting kids that don’t have the ability to succeed at the university.