Test Optional - Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I applaud any objective metric of intelligence. Of course the parties that habitually score the lower want them removed.

I'm a psychometrician. There are no objective measures of intelligence.

That’s not the point. There are plainly test of academic aptitude .

Are they, though? Or are they tests of the ability to take a test under high stress timed conditions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional us only got URMs and first generation.

And rich people..

There's tacit support for TO on these forums, especially from the private school or elite public school crowd.. you know the "Big 3" (or is it Big 5), "W" or whatever type schools. A lot of posts about how their kids are unable to cross 1400, yet have 3.5+ GPAs. Such parents love TO. They just won't admit it.

The whole college process is corrupt, where "greasing the ***" to squeeze a kid in is called "hooks", pointless athletics (what real life value does the ability to play lacrosse have in real life? Don't bother me with teamwork nonsense), and staged ECs, gets the kids in. Test scores were a glaring gap and now that it's gone, rich folks are thrilled.

URMs and First gen get what they deserve/owed anyways. Besides, most of them don't really want to be know for their accomplishments, not what they are.

[b]As usual, it's the middle class and Asians that get fu**ed!

Middle class and Asians are overrepresented on college campuses.

Wake up.

I AM awake. You must be thrilled now that your dumb kid can get in!

This made me lol!

I am pro-test. I wish they would do away with this TO crap. My smart white kids test high so we will submit scores.

Then your kid is in the same boat that mine is. I’m happy that the admissions landscape currently encourages test free applications, because good scores will help my kid (and yours) stand out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I applaud any objective metric of intelligence. Of course the parties that habitually score the lower want them removed.

I'm a psychometrician. There are no objective measures of intelligence.

That’s not the point. There are plainly test of academic aptitude .

Test prep educator here. They do not. "Aptitude " had to be replaced by "Assessment " in the acronym because this has been proven, and they can't claim the test measures aptitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you score helps your application, and is better than college’s typical reported scores, submit them. If you are just marginally above, then you need to balance and decide. If your score is negative to both, then of course don’t submit. Unspoken is that unless you are a recruited athlete or a hook they love, you are not getting in.

The whole strategy now for students just highlights the colleges sought to get rid of meritocracy so they can get more of their preferred types of students, despite weaker objective scores and not ruin the schools published scores and therefore rating…That’s simply awful.

Test scores are only one indicator of merit. There are many. Also, scores are not objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few schools are staying test optional for next year. My question is, how can admissions officers honestly keep an unbiased opinion looking at kids who didn’t send in test scores? Despite wanting to stay neutral, I know I would be biased and assume that the kid bombed or didn’t do as great as they had hoped on the tests. Can they honestly look at the applications without bias? Worried if my kid should need to go test optional.

It's not a question of bias, it's a question of whether there is enough information for the AO to determine if the applicant is academically qualified for the program they've applied to. That's really the first cut that applicants have to get past. Test optional doesn't mean academic requirements optional. Without test scores, AOs have to look more closely at the transcript and use other information they have about the school and course rigor/grades to decide if the applicant is qualified. If the AO is uncertain and the applicant doesn't have other things that make the application outstanding, the AO is going to go with other choices. That's not "bias", that's working with the data they have.

If you are worried if your kid "should need to go test optional" because they will score poorly on SAT/ACT, then you should be worried. What you are describing is having your kid apply to colleges they are not academically ready for and hoping to get in based on GPA alone by hiding poor scores. That is a disservice to your kid and a set up for struggle at the school, should they be accepted. You should be looking at school that are a good academic fit, and that includes considering test scores.

The second paragraph is baseless. There are many factors that go into test performance. SAT performance is no indicator of college performance. Sounds like you are trying to scare off the competition.

[Anonymous]

The College Board and test prep companies are loving this thread. You have lapped up the bs they've put out and think that admissions offices weren't using all the other parts of the applications all this time to make decisions.

No one was getting in because of their scores to start with. No one. If you listened to the information sessions at the colleges, they were downplaying the tests for a long time while the people whose business models rely on test anxiety have been shouting the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you score helps your application, and is better than college’s typical reported scores, submit them. If you are just marginally above, then you need to balance and decide. If your score is negative to both, then of course don’t submit. Unspoken is that unless you are a recruited athlete or a hook they love, you are not getting in.

The whole strategy now for students just highlights the colleges sought to get rid of meritocracy so they can get more of their preferred types of students, despite weaker objective scores and not ruin the schools published scores and therefore rating…That’s simply awful.

Test scores are only one indicator of merit. There are many. Also, scores are not objective. [/quote

Well, they are generally no less objective than grades, the standards for which can vary widely based on the school and teacher. But don't get me wrong, I'm not against test optional and agree that grades should be given very heavy weight in admissions criteria.

[Anonymous]

Grades are tests, quizzes, papers, projects, sometimes participation, etc. in about 25 different classes over 3 1/2 years. While juggling ECs, jobs? family, and friends.

SAT = a 5 hr. test or 2 (prepped).