s/o this brutal admissions year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

How on earth would test optional hurt high performing students?

It made the test optional for lesser performing students, who now skate by on some vague criteria.

I disagree. Performing well on a test doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or a better student.

There is nothing that proves that you are smarter or a better student. But standardized testing is a useful tool when evaluating students.

When evaluating them for what? And don't just say "qualified for admission", please be specific about personal qualities of a prospective student that standardized testing illustrates.

It’s definitely not perfect but I feel that since khan academy is free it is a more useful indicator (since costly prep isn’t necessary.) It is an additional piece of info. My child worked their tail off preparing with khan academy and got upper 1500s. To me that seems more relevant to her likelihood of success in college than her sports and clubs.

So really you don’t know.

It’s a terrible measure. GPA is a good measure

How can GPA be a good measure when it is to subjective and different across schools and even across teachers in the same school?

How can SAT be a good measure when you see examples on this thread of spending big bucks to substantially increase scores?

[Anonymous]

There will be tests in college. A kid has to know how to take a test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

How on earth would test optional hurt high performing students?

It made the test optional for lesser performing students, who now skate by on some vague criteria.

I disagree. Performing well on a test doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or a better student.

There is nothing that proves that you are smarter or a better student. But standardized testing is a useful tool when evaluating students.

When evaluating them for what? And don't just say "qualified for admission", please be specific about personal qualities of a prospective student that standardized testing illustrates.

It’s definitely not perfect but I feel that since khan academy is free it is a more useful indicator (since costly prep isn’t necessary.) It is an additional piece of info. My child worked their tail off preparing with khan academy and got upper 1500s. To me that seems more relevant to her likelihood of success in college than her sports and clubs.

So really you don’t know.

It’s a terrible measure. GPA is a good measure

How can GPA be a good measure when it is to subjective and different across schools and even across teachers in the same school?

Because it shows ability to learn not what you have learned.

All teachers are subjective even the A ‘s you get at a top private school. They may give you the benefit of the doubt.

But GPA measure how you perform in your environment... if you can get a 4.0 in a terrible school system it still shows you perform at the top of your class. If you miss points on the SAT it means you never learned that not that you can’t learn it. Who care if somebody wasnt taught a random fact... the question is could they have learned it if taught it.

Schools don’t need kids that have learned a ton, they need kids that are teachable, GPA shows teach ability.

Also outside activities show a whole lot more than SAT. The “March for our lives” kids all got into Ivy colleges. Their GPA and SAT were lie but they showed they could create a movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

How on earth would test optional hurt high performing students?

It made the test optional for lesser performing students, who now skate by on some vague criteria.

I disagree. Performing well on a test doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or a better student.

There is nothing that proves that you are smarter or a better student. But standardized testing is a useful tool when evaluating students.

When evaluating them for what? And don't just say "qualified for admission", please be specific about personal qualities of a prospective student that standardized testing illustrates.

It’s definitely not perfect but I feel that since khan academy is free it is a more useful indicator (since costly prep isn’t necessary.) It is an additional piece of info. My child worked their tail off preparing with khan academy and got upper 1500s. To me that seems more relevant to her likelihood of success in college than her sports and clubs.

So really you don’t know.

It’s a terrible measure. GPA is a good measure

How can GPA be a good measure when it is to subjective and different across schools and even across teachers in the same school?

Moreover, many schools don’t have much range among kids in terms of gpa, i.e. there are a lot of kids clustered together. If colleges aren’t using test scores or class rank, the admissions process does become even more a lottery.

FCPS does not rank students, because parents would be literally shooting each other over who deserves what more - they practically are, as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be tests in college. A kid has to know how to take a test.

My son is at a top university only 1/2 his classes have test.

Most are projects and papers.

None are “like” the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

How on earth would test optional hurt high performing students?

It made the test optional for lesser performing students, who now skate by on some vague criteria.

I disagree. Performing well on a test doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or a better student.

There is nothing that proves that you are smarter or a better student. But standardized testing is a useful tool when evaluating students.

When evaluating them for what? And don't just say "qualified for admission", please be specific about personal qualities of a prospective student that standardized testing illustrates.

It’s definitely not perfect but I feel that since khan academy is free it is a more useful indicator (since costly prep isn’t necessary.) It is an additional piece of info. My child worked their tail off preparing with khan academy and got upper 1500s. To me that seems more relevant to her likelihood of success in college than her sports and clubs.

So really you don’t know.

It’s a terrible measure. GPA is a good measure

How can GPA be a good measure when it is to subjective and different across schools and even across teachers in the same school?

Because it shows ability to learn not what you have learned.

All teachers are subjective even the A ‘s you get at a top private school. They may give you the benefit of the doubt.

But GPA measure how you perform in your environment... if you can get a 4.0 in a terrible school system it still shows you perform at the top of your class. If you miss points on the SAT it means you never learned that not that you can’t learn it. Who care if somebody wasnt taught a random fact... the question is could they have learned it if taught it.

Schools don’t need kids that have learned a ton, they need kids that are teachable, GPA shows teach ability.

Also outside activities show a whole lot more than SAT. The “March for our lives” kids all got into Ivy colleges. Their GPA and SAT were lie but they showed they could create a movement.

One of those Parkland kids subsequently got kicked out of said Ivy for racist Facebook posts. Not sure that’s a particularly good example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

How on earth would test optional hurt high performing students?

It made the test optional for lesser performing students, who now skate by on some vague criteria.

I disagree. Performing well on a test doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or a better student.

There is nothing that proves that you are smarter or a better student. But standardized testing is a useful tool when evaluating students.

When evaluating them for what? And don't just say "qualified for admission", please be specific about personal qualities of a prospective student that standardized testing illustrates.

It’s definitely not perfect but I feel that since khan academy is free it is a more useful indicator (since costly prep isn’t necessary.) It is an additional piece of info. My child worked their tail off preparing with khan academy and got upper 1500s. To me that seems more relevant to her likelihood of success in college than her sports and clubs.

So really you don’t know.

It’s a terrible measure. GPA is a good measure

How can GPA be a good measure when it is to subjective and different across schools and even across teachers in the same school?

Because it shows ability to learn not what you have learned.

All teachers are subjective even the A ‘s you get at a top private school. They may give you the benefit of the doubt.

But GPA measure how you perform in your environment... if you can get a 4.0 in a terrible school system it still shows you perform at the top of your class. If you miss points on the SAT it means you never learned that not that you can’t learn it. Who care if somebody wasnt taught a random fact... the question is could they have learned it if taught it.

Schools don’t need kids that have learned a ton, they need kids that are teachable, GPA shows teach ability.

Also outside activities show a whole lot more than SAT. The “March for our lives” kids all got into Ivy colleges. Their GPA and SAT were lie but they showed they could create a movement.

One of those Parkland kids subsequently got kicked out of said Ivy for racist Facebook posts. Not sure that’s a particularly good example.

He was not a “March for our lives” kid. He was the conservative pro gun lunatic. That’s what happens when Ivys try to pretend they support conservative views.

SAT was only a good measure when students didn’t study. It was supposed to find the rare gem and the test prep/khan made that impossible and it’s usefulness is long gone.

[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 know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

How on earth would test optional hurt high performing students?

It made the test optional for lesser performing students, who now skate by on some vague criteria.

I disagree. Performing well on a test doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or a better student.

There is nothing that proves that you are smarter or a better student. But standardized testing is a useful tool when evaluating students.

When evaluating them for what? And don't just say "qualified for admission", please be specific about personal qualities of a prospective student that standardized testing illustrates.

It’s definitely not perfect but I feel that since khan academy is free it is a more useful indicator (since costly prep isn’t necessary.) It is an additional piece of info. My child worked their tail off preparing with khan academy and got upper 1500s. To me that seems more relevant to her likelihood of success in college than her sports and clubs.

So really you don’t know.

It’s a terrible measure. GPA is a good measure

How can GPA be a good measure when it is to subjective and different across schools and even across teachers in the same school?

Because it shows ability to learn not what you have learned.

All teachers are subjective even the A ‘s you get at a top private school. They may give you the benefit of the doubt.

But GPA measure how you perform in your environment... if you can get a 4.0 in a terrible school system it still shows you perform at the top of your class. If you miss points on the SAT it means you never learned that not that you can’t learn it. Who care if somebody wasnt taught a random fact... the question is could they have learned it if taught it.

Schools don’t need kids that have learned a ton, they need kids that are teachable, GPA shows teach ability.

Also outside activities show a whole lot more than SAT. The “March for our lives” kids all got into Ivy colleges. Their GPA and SAT were lie but they showed they could create a movement.

One of those Parkland kids subsequently got kicked out of said Ivy for racist Facebook posts. Not sure that’s a particularly good example.

He was not a “March for our lives” kid. He was the conservative pro gun lunatic. That’s what happens when Ivys try to pretend they support conservative views.

SAT was only a good measure when students didn’t study. It was supposed to find the rare gem and the test prep/khan made that impossible and it’s usefulness is long gone.

Kids who get good grades also study so if studying is bad, grades are a bad measure. The truth is that both grades and SAT are good tools and I expect that schools will continue to use both for affluent students. They won’t look at test scores among populations it disadvantages.

[Anonymous]

What about the high-scoring, low-income brilliant kids who aren't prepping at all and take the exam cold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the high-scoring, low-income brilliant kids who aren't prepping at all and take the exam cold?

A unicorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the high-scoring, low-income brilliant kids who aren't prepping at all and take the exam cold?

I was a high scoring kid with terrible grades (due to undiagnosed adhd and a chaotic home environment) at a terrible school and it’s no joke that my life would be completely different if I hadn’t stood out on the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From today's WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/04/05/college-admissions-2021-test-optional/


For the deniers who keep parroting that this year is no different from previous years. It's not. It's worse. And it will be worse next year too. The system will need about 3 years to adjust to the new normal.

Agreed, this was worse, different, unexpected and unpredictable. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous (and pretty insensitive to the kids (yes, these are kids!) that went through this roller coaster of an admissions cycle. I don't think it's wrong to say that when all the rules go out the window and the expectations are unclear, kids and families have a right to be disappointed, shocked, etc. (It doesn't make them "bad" and it doesn't mean they may not agree with the idea of opening up college admissions. It *does* mean that to change the rules mid-stream is fundamentally upending the entire system on the backs of one graduating class of kids.)

This is not fair to anyone.

For this who think this year was "the way it always was" or "no big deal" I have a question:

What would you do if, say, you had trained for a marathon. You put in all the work, time, training, dedication, etc. The day of the race, you are at, say mile 25 of the 26.1. At that point, the race officials say, "actually, we aren't going to take into account what you'd done the first 25 miles". Instead, with the race almost over, we're going to establish new rules. Some don't have to run the first 25 miles of the race at all - it's optional now. Whatever the case (and however decent, respectable the reasoning), completely unexpected changes *during the race.* That's what it felt like for a lot of these kids. They could see the finish line and someone said, "actually, forget about all that, it's all changing" oh and for good measure, "what do you mean, this is the same as it always was."

Not an entirely accurate comparison, but I do think that lots of kids are feeling this way. They feel like the rules changed on them right when they got to the finish line. I understand whey there is so much disappointment.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, same here. That's why I asked the question. No unicorn status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the high-scoring, low-income brilliant kids who aren't prepping at all and take the exam cold?

A unicorn.

Nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From today's WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/04/05/college-admissions-2021-test-optional/


For the deniers who keep parroting that this year is no different from previous years. It's not. It's worse. And it will be worse next year too. The system will need about 3 years to adjust to the new normal.

Agreed, this was worse, different, unexpected and unpredictable. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous (and pretty insensitive to the kids (yes, these are kids!) that went through this roller coaster of an admissions cycle. I don't think it's wrong to say that when all the rules go out the window and the expectations are unclear, kids and families have a right to be disappointed, shocked, etc. (It doesn't make them "bad" and it doesn't mean they may not agree with the idea of opening up college admissions. It *does* mean that to change the rules mid-stream is fundamentally upending the entire system on the backs of one graduating class of kids.)

This is not fair to anyone.

For this who think this year was "the way it always was" or "no big deal" I have a question:

What would you do if, say, you had trained for a marathon. You put in all the work, time, training, dedication, etc. The day of the race, you are at, say mile 25 of the 26.1. At that point, the race officials say, "actually, we aren't going to take into account what you'd done the first 25 miles". Instead, with the race almost over, we're going to establish new rules. Some don't have to run the first 25 miles of the race at all - it's optional now. Whatever the case (and however decent, respectable the reasoning), completely unexpected changes *during the race.* That's what it felt like for a lot of these kids. They could see the finish line and someone said, "actually, forget about all that, it's all changing" oh and for good measure, "what do you mean, this is the same as it always was."

Not an entirely accurate comparison, but I do think that lots of kids are feeling this way. They feel like the rules changed on them right when they got to the finish line. I understand whey there is so much disappointment.

With respect to this particular year, what were colleges to do when many many kids did not have the opportunity to take the test? We can debate it’s valid in future admissions cYcle, but this year was truly unique in that respect.