Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Dartmouth had the highest rate of students on academic probation ever. They admissions director attributed this directly to the TO policy and the data was consistent with this claim.

[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

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?

I can guarantee that happened.

DD22 at Ivy and her TO roommate already has 2 C’s. She heard another boy bragging abt his 19 ACT who got in TO.

2 girls from the middle of the pack at our private school made it to HYP TO.

Some URM but some aren’t. Some are celeb kids. Her roommate is Asian.

I mean there are countless kids that bonused in the TO era (‘21 - ‘23 grad classes). It was so unfair.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

I read somewhere that the literally worst performing high school in CA had the highest number of accepted students to UC schools this yr. It is a HS in SF where something like 7% of kids read at grade level.

I thought that was hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Huh? Just the opposite. Schools are embarrassed by this failed TO experiment, which they were so proud of instituting for equity purposes. Only UT released the hard data - TO kids were on average a full GPA point lower once enrolled.

[Anonymous]

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

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.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of the College Board and have some thoughts about a private company having the kind of power they have over educational outcomes in America without much oversight at all.

But also, I am not super optimistic about California's ability to develop a test that substitutes for the SAT and ACT without reintroducing the same issues that made them go test blind in the first place.

Should be interesting!

NY State has been doing it for over 100 yrs.

What do you mean?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

With Khan Academy being free and excellent online test prep, I have little problem with kids preparing for the SATs. In the end, the kid is studying and able to solve math problems and comprehend reading passages. I have also seen zero stats showing that kids who prepped and achieved high test scores had lower grades than kids who achieved the same high scores without test prep.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

With Khan Academy being free and excellent online test prep, I have little problem with kids preparing for the SATs. In the end, the kid is studying and able to solve math problems and comprehend reading passages. I have also seen zero stats showing that kids who prepped and achieved high test scores had lower grades than kids who achieved the same high scores without test prep.

To clarify, I mean lower grades in COLLEGE.
Solid test scores correlate to good college grades, seemingly without regard to whether a kid prepped or not.

[Anonymous]

[code] he i

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Dartmouth had the highest rate of students on academic probation ever. They admissions director attributed this directly to the TO policy and the data was consistent with this claim.

This seems to be missing the fairly important point that all of these classes that included TO kids had their high school years disrupted by Covid.

I have a class of ‘25 kid and I think it’s fair that the admissions process reflects that the kids were in person for all 4 years of high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[code] he i

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Dartmouth had the highest rate of students on academic probation ever. They admissions director attributed this directly to the TO policy and the data was consistent with this claim.

This seems to be missing the fairly important point that all of these classes that included TO kids had their high school years disrupted by Covid.

I have a class of ‘25 kid and I think it’s fair that the admissions process reflects that the kids were in person for all 4 years of high school.

As someone pointed out above, UT released their data, which showed that among students who enrolled in 2023 (ALL OF WHOM WENT THROUGH COVID), those who submitted their test scores had a higher GPA by 0.86 points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dude. You people really live in fantasy land. And are so hateful I can't understand. And uninformed. I won't say unintelligent because even smart people can be raging bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Huh? Just the opposite. Schools are embarrassed by this failed TO experiment, which they were so proud of instituting for equity purposes. Only UT released the hard data - TO kids were on average a full GPA point lower once enrolled.

Oh my god, you are going to be so sad when you find out that kids with underperforming GPAs are now going to get in because their test scores are so high, instead of high GPAs and no or lower test scores. And ermagherd, A LOT of those kids are going to be minorities. Gasp!
A lot of you live in this bizarro world, looking for justifications and excuses and rationalizations for why your poor kid wasn't admitted.

Talk about victim mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Indeed.

Some posters on here were very confident that Yale and Brown and Dartmouth resuming testing requirements were the exceptions.

Pretty clear by now that test optional admits had not very good outcomes.

😅😅😅😆 painfully clear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is for current Juniors? my kid has no interest in Harvard, but this seems really really late to make this call for this class

Tend to agree. I think it’s a reflection of how ill prepared TO kids were.

There is zero evidence of this or else schools would be releasing the hard data

Dartmouth had the highest rate of students on academic probation ever. They admissions director attributed this directly to the TO policy and the data was consistent with this claim.

Do you just make stuff up? The Dean of Admissions attributed academic preparedness directly to covid learning loss, not to TO. And their reasons for ending TO were more complex than "hey, we are getting morons."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/02/07/dartmouth-admissions-dean-reinstating-test-requirements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indeed.

Some posters on here were very confident that Yale and Brown and Dartmouth resuming testing requirements were the exceptions.

Pretty clear by now that test optional admits had not very good outcomes.

😅😅😅😆 painfully clear

Yeahm but again, not for the reasons you want to believe. Take Dartmouth for example: "Yes. For the Classes of 2025, ’26 and ’27, we were optional, and the language for everybody was “Access to testing remains uneven, so include testing or not as your situation allows.” And what started to happen in the third year is we started hearing from [high] school counselors that most of the students in their class had access to testing again, but now the question had shifted to, “Should I or should I not include my scores?” Which for us was never really the point of the pause. That was a public health stance, not a critique of testing."

Oh and newsflash...a huge reason is that they weren't getting a diverse application pool and class:

" The finding [in the Dartmouth study] that I found most provocative when I first read it was the point that testing expands access.[...]
But as an admission officer for the last 30 years, it’s been striking to see the differences between different high schools and the way education in the United States is not equal as you move from town to town, never mind state to state. So we’re looking at testing as a reflection of that K-12 disequilibrium. We’re not saying it’s not capturing it, but contextually we’re able to say, “What does this score tell us about the place where it was generated, the neighborhood where the student is?” How do we use them to meet you where you are? As you move across this country, this heterogeneous landscape, it starts to mitigate some of the critique that testing favors the wealthy. It does, but only if you define high and low scores in a strict spectrum. In some places, a 1700 is not high; in some places, it’s lower than the norm. And in other places, it’s remarkably high. And that’s also true for 1200: there are places where that 1200 is unheard-of and others where that 1200 would be at the end of the data distribution."

So sorry...your 1600 DC kid may likely still get beat out by a 1300 kid in bumplepoop nowhere.
Them's the breaks, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indeed.

Some posters on here were very confident that Yale and Brown and Dartmouth resuming testing requirements were the exceptions.

Pretty clear by now that test optional admits had not very good outcomes.

😅😅😅😆 painfully clear

Yeahm but again, not for the reasons you want to believe. Take Dartmouth for example: "Yes. For the Classes of 2025, ’26 and ’27, we were optional, and the language for everybody was “Access to testing remains uneven, so include testing or not as your situation allows.” And what started to happen in the third year is we started hearing from [high] school counselors that most of the students in their class had access to testing again, but now the question had shifted to, “Should I or should I not include my scores?” Which for us was never really the point of the pause. That was a public health stance, not a critique of testing."

Oh and newsflash...a huge reason is that they weren't getting a diverse application pool and class:

" The finding [in the Dartmouth study] that I found most provocative when I first read it was the point that testing expands access.[...]
But as an admission officer for the last 30 years, it’s been striking to see the differences between different high schools and the way education in the United States is not equal as you move from town to town, never mind state to state. So we’re looking at testing as a reflection of that K-12 disequilibrium. We’re not saying it’s not capturing it, but contextually we’re able to say, “What does this score tell us about the place where it was generated, the neighborhood where the student is?” How do we use them to meet you where you are? As you move across this country, this heterogeneous landscape, it starts to mitigate some of the critique that testing favors the wealthy. It does, but only if you define high and low scores in a strict spectrum. In some places, a 1700 is not high; in some places, it’s lower than the norm. And in other places, it’s remarkably high. And that’s also true for 1200: there are places where that 1200 is unheard-of and others where that 1200 would be at the end of the data distribution."

So sorry...your 1600 DC kid may likely still get beat out by a 1300 kid in bumplepoop nowhere.
Them's the breaks, my friend.

But at least the 1600 is less likely to be bumped by a 1300 kid from suburbanpoop.