Purdue Returning to Test Required

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Test optional hasn't helped underprivileged kids, it just makes it harder on admissions staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

One thing I’ve heard is that it’s hard for admission officers to “unsee” bad scores. They may love a Black applicant with good grades and recs, but when they see the 1000 on the SAT, it’s just really hard to forget it. Then, they end up with fewer Black kids than they had desired in the class overall. If they never see the score at all, it’s a lot easier to admit the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Test optional hasn't helped underprivileged kids, it just makes it harder on admissions staff.

Where’s your data on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Test optional hasn't helped underprivileged kids, it just makes it harder on admissions staff.

Where’s your data on this?

Berkeley test blind = Blacks 3%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Please define "privileged?"

in the era of the internet all students who wants to prep for any test have access and available resources. Thank goodness for FREE internet resources for all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Please define "privileged?"

in the era of the internet all students who wants to prep for any test have access and available resources. Thank goodness for FREE internet resources for all of this.

Yea, right, and that’s why the privileged kids still pay for test prep. We all know free prep isn’t the same thing. Beyond that, you’re also assuming that the underprivileged kids even KNOW about the need to/benefits of, test prep. I will tell you this, when I was growing up in a first generation household, no one told me - and I had no way of knowing - that test prep was a good idea. So it never occurred to me.

You’re living in a bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Test optional hasn't helped underprivileged kids, it just makes it harder on admissions staff.

Where’s your data on this?

Berkeley test blind = Blacks 3%

That’s not data. That’s an anecdote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

Interesting idea. I like that.

Should you also ask if you hired tutors and if so when and how long.
Also ask if you hired college admission consultant?

And you should get bonus points if you put in the extra time to learn the material better and deeper with tutors. Tutoring is a good thing, people. And a lot of tutoring is available for free. Use it! Show some initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

Interesting idea. I like that.

Should you also ask if you hired tutors and if so when and how long.
Also ask if you hired college admission consultant?

And you should get bonus points if you put in the extra time to learn the material better and deeper with tutors. Tutoring is a good thing, people. And a lot of tutoring is available for free. Use it! Show some initiative.

Sounds exactly same as studying for SAT/ACT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

First gen college here, as an aside.

But I have a serious question for the lawyers on the board, why can’t admissions officers do what the Georgetown Dean claims: adjust score thresholds for zip codes/profiles? (He is quoted in the latest Selingo article as saying a 1200 from an underprivileged zip code should be viewed differ than a 1200 from a kid with lots of resources). Aren’t there studies out there on upward mobility that could prove certain profiles, including test scores below the the college range but above the range for a kid’s particular high school, often have a high rate of success in college, and are therefore worth admitting? Seems like you wouldn’t have to get into questions about race but rather opportunity.

Couldn't you also ask kids on an application if they enrolled in a prep class? Georgetown already asks to see all scores.

It seems to me more info is good rather than bad.

They can of course, or view scores based on school attended. Nothing is stopping that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Test optional hasn't helped underprivileged kids, it just makes it harder on admissions staff.

Where’s your data on this?

There is a pre Covid study that found that test optional did not improve diversity at the schools using it at the time. It is referenced in the study discussed her last week which found that admission officers were struggling with comparing students at to schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

I heard multiple college admissions officers say that test optional was creating the most difficulty in their ability to determine which underprivileged kids would be likely to succeed once they arrived on campus. The discussions were considering whether they should bring back tests. These schools said they have enough information without tests to choose among applicants coming from privileged backgrounds or from high schools that they are familiar with. All of these kids will likely do just fine and they can choose among them based on other parts of the application. They said the harder part was evaluating a kid from a small town school that doesn't typically have applicants to their college or underprivileged kids applying. For these kids, they want to have them on paper as part of their student community but really want to make sure that the kid will have the academic skills to succeed. And apparently the test scores really help with that. They are not looking for some stellar score, but alternatively, a score above some lower threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

I heard multiple college admissions officers say that test optional was creating the most difficulty in their ability to determine which underprivileged kids would be likely to succeed once they arrived on campus. The discussions were considering whether they should bring back tests. These schools said they have enough information without tests to choose among applicants coming from privileged backgrounds or from high schools that they are familiar with. All of these kids will likely do just fine and they can choose among them based on other parts of the application. They said the harder part was evaluating a kid from a small town school that doesn't typically have applicants to their college or underprivileged kids applying. For these kids, they want to have them on paper as part of their student community but really want to make sure that the kid will have the academic skills to succeed. And apparently the test scores really help with that. They are not looking for some stellar score, but alternatively, a score above some lower threshold.

This sounds all well and good, but c’mon - that’s not why you have so many posters on this thread saying hallelujah over schools not being test optional. They like tests because they have privileged kids with high test scores that probably wouldn’t be as high as they are except for their privileged circumstances, and yet they still think those test scores should trump everything else. They view test scores as a scalpel and not an axe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Please define "privileged?"

in the era of the internet all students who wants to prep for any test have access and available resources. Thank goodness for FREE internet resources for all of this.

Yea, right, and that’s why the privileged kids still pay for test prep. We all know free prep isn’t the same thing. Beyond that, you’re also assuming that the underprivileged kids even KNOW about the need to/benefits of, test prep. I will tell you this, when I was growing up in a first generation household, no one told me - and I had no way of knowing - that test prep was a good idea. So it never occurred to me.

You’re living in a bubble.

On this point, the only difference between using a paid source vs a free source was making sure my kid was staying on schedule. My kid could totally prep on their own using books and online (and they mostly did this) but having a handful of appointments with a tutor made sure it got done. In the end, they decided to take one test one more time to raise an ACT sub-score and for that they did it all on their own. They also did their own prep using books and online for AP tests (when class wasn't AP).

Of course, your other points about knowing to prep, having parents (like me) pay attention to prep, having classmates who are prepping etc. are spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of the previous posters on this thread are NOT privileged? Let me guess: none.

Please define "privileged?"

in the era of the internet all students who wants to prep for any test have access and available resources. Thank goodness for FREE internet resources for all of this.

Yea, right, and that’s why the privileged kids still pay for test prep. We all know free prep isn’t the same thing. Beyond that, you’re also assuming that the underprivileged kids even KNOW about the need to/benefits of, test prep. I will tell you this, when I was growing up in a first generation household, no one told me - and I had no way of knowing - that test prep was a good idea. So it never occurred to me.

You’re living in a bubble.

On this point, the only difference between using a paid source vs a free source was making sure my kid was staying on schedule. My kid could totally prep on their own using books and online (and they mostly did this) but having a handful of appointments with a tutor made sure it got done. In the end, they decided to take one test one more time to raise an ACT sub-score and for that they did it all on their own. They also did their own prep using books and online for AP tests (when class wasn't AP).

Of course, your other points about knowing to prep, having parents (like me) pay attention to prep, having classmates who are prepping etc. are spot on.

Was the tutor free?

Didn’t think so.