The Misguided War on the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying an interesting comment to the NYT article:

Elimination of SAT/ACT from University of California applications has led to a wave of unprepared and unqualified admissions— students who have no business being at a UC, and cannot do the work.

My spouse is a UC professor and she says that in 20 years she has never had so many students who are completely unqualified to attend college (and failing her class)— and this is a good UC. She teaches honors students no less.

If this is true, I wonder if the UC administration will figure it out before the brand is damaged.

They aren't going back. It would be good to know which UC school this is since there is a wide range of UCs. What this person said has always been true at the lesser known/newer UCs. This is why they have such a robust state system. To educated as many CA students as possible at every level.

Commenter was from the “OC” so that probably means Irvine? Which apparently rejects nearly 80% of their applicants, so you’d think they wouldn’t have such a hard time finding capable students.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if this was said blatantly by any AOs, such as in the Dartmouth podcast with the Yale AO, but it needs to be said more clearly that students who don't submit scores should be assumed to have scores not in range for the school. Setting aside the question of what the true range is, TO should mean "low score," not "absent data point."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

And on the flip side if this, instead of those high-potential disadvantaged kids, super-polished affluent kids who have all the bells and whistles on their application, but aren’t actually that bright or ready for rigorous elite college work, are slipping through with TO.

It's complex, but THIS is one of the things I worry about in terms of equity and fairness. One of the major arguments about the SAT was that it is a reflection of opportunity, more than it is an indicator of potential. That's a good point. But in isolating the SAT to throw out (or make optional), we're ignoring that all of the OTHER indicators of merit/readiness/specialness are likely JUST as loaded with opportunity. I'm noticing now that admissions care a lot more about extra curriculars. And I'm watching my upper middle class friends figure out how to get their kids into the right balance of activities, pay for them, drive them there, etc. I just find it disingenuous to act like this is LESS biased and loaded with opportunity.

That being said, I like test optional because students CAN use that SAT as one way to demonstrate readiness, but they don't have to use the SAT. That feels to me like it leaves more paths open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

PP. We are in agreement. Prior to test optional, elite colleges' reported ranges seemed more narrow than necessary.

[Anonymous]

I agree. They shouldn't be the top factor, but they should be one factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

This is an honest, sane reply.

I am really for a threshold approach to SAT/ACT like this for test optional. Avoids the arms race in scores but gives adequate information to schools (and to students).

Why do you keep calling it an "arms race?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Frankly, that premise seems obvious because grades are so subjective and different from school to school they really seem the least reliable measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

Oh there you go again...
But no, I disagree. Precise score DOES matter in some situations. For example, majors such as engineering, the colleges will want to see a high score in math/science. If they get a 36 on the English and Reading sections, but a relatively low score in math, the colleges should know that. Only giving a "range" of the composite score won't tell the admissions office what they need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

PP. We are in agreement. Prior to test optional, elite colleges' reported ranges seemed more narrow than necessary.

DP: but the retake at 1400+ mentality is due to the test optional mess that narrowed the submissions to only the top scores. That 1450 used to be easily top 75th% at a huge range of colleges. Now, way to many schools are claiming 1550+ because they only report selected scores, when more than half the admitted students are way below that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

And on the flip side if this, instead of those high-potential disadvantaged kids, super-polished affluent kids who have all the bells and whistles on their application, but aren’t actually that bright or ready for rigorous elite college work, are slipping through with TO.

It's complex, but THIS is one of the things I worry about in terms of equity and fairness. One of the major arguments about the SAT was that it is a reflection of opportunity, more than it is an indicator of potential. That's a good point. But in isolating the SAT to throw out (or make optional), we're ignoring that all of the OTHER indicators of merit/readiness/specialness are likely JUST as loaded with opportunity. I'm noticing now that admissions care a lot more about extra curriculars. And I'm watching my upper middle class friends figure out how to get their kids into the right balance of activities, pay for them, drive them there, etc. I just find it disingenuous to act like this is LESS biased and loaded with opportunity.

That being said, I like test optional because students CAN use that SAT as one way to demonstrate readiness, but they don't have to use the SAT. That feels to me like it leaves more paths open.

Yeah, I think ECs should be the least important factor, but it seems like colleges are making them more and more important. Which is absolutely inequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying an interesting comment to the NYT article:

Elimination of SAT/ACT from University of California applications has led to a wave of unprepared and unqualified admissions— students who have no business being at a UC, and cannot do the work.

My spouse is a UC professor and she says that in 20 years she has never had so many students who are completely unqualified to attend college (and failing her class)— and this is a good UC. She teaches honors students no less.

If this is true, I wonder if the UC administration will figure it out before the brand is damaged.

They aren't going back. It would be good to know which UC school this is since there is a wide range of UCs. What this person said has always been true at the lesser known/newer UCs. This is why they have such a robust state system. To educated as many CA students as possible at every level.

Commenter was from the “OC” so that probably means Irvine? Which apparently rejects nearly 80% of their applicants, so you’d think they wouldn’t have such a hard time finding capable students.

The UC’s currently employ a system where they only look at sophomore and junior grades and cap how many advanced courses they will consider for weighted gpa at eight semesters. Accordingly, they have tons of kids with similar numbers and who knows how they are picking who to admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

I agree. Furthermore, if one does better on the tests than their demographics point to, it shows that this is a student who cares, who knows how to prepare, who studies and does their best.

That, imo speaks volumes. So I do think the SAT is important in gauging this characteristic, which, along with gpa, would indicate ability to succeed in college.

So not necessarily the actual score, but the score relevant to demographics and gpa. It is common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

And on the flip side if this, instead of those high-potential disadvantaged kids, super-polished affluent kids who have all the bells and whistles on their application, but aren’t actually that bright or ready for rigorous elite college work, are slipping through with TO.

It's complex, but THIS is one of the things I worry about in terms of equity and fairness. One of the major arguments about the SAT was that it is a reflection of opportunity, more than it is an indicator of potential. That's a good point. But in isolating the SAT to throw out (or make optional), we're ignoring that all of the OTHER indicators of merit/readiness/specialness are likely JUST as loaded with opportunity. I'm noticing now that admissions care a lot more about extra curriculars. And I'm watching my upper middle class friends figure out how to get their kids into the right balance of activities, pay for them, drive them there, etc. I just find it disingenuous to act like this is LESS biased and loaded with opportunity.

That being said, I like test optional because students CAN use that SAT as one way to demonstrate readiness, but they don't have to use the SAT. That feels to me like it leaves more paths open.

Yeah, I think ECs should be the least important factor, but it seems like colleges are making them more and more important. Which is absolutely inequitable.

This x1000!!! It’s performative and probably more often than not, absolutely not an indicator of the students’ character, but instead, they’re racking up a resume that looks good to the outside. Not for my kid. I want my child to succeed by being himself.

That said, if ambitious pursuits are reflected in self directed achievements, then more power to the student. That’s awesome. But doing study abroad charity work with the goal to pass your resume, that’s just disingenuous. Blech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

And on the flip side if this, instead of those high-potential disadvantaged kids, super-polished affluent kids who have all the bells and whistles on their application, but aren’t actually that bright or ready for rigorous elite college work, are slipping through with TO.

It's complex, but THIS is one of the things I worry about in terms of equity and fairness. One of the major arguments about the SAT was that it is a reflection of opportunity, more than it is an indicator of potential. That's a good point. But in isolating the SAT to throw out (or make optional), we're ignoring that all of the OTHER indicators of merit/readiness/specialness are likely JUST as loaded with opportunity. I'm noticing now that admissions care a lot more about extra curriculars. And I'm watching my upper middle class friends figure out how to get their kids into the right balance of activities, pay for them, drive them there, etc. I just find it disingenuous to act like this is LESS biased and loaded with opportunity.

That being said, I like test optional because students CAN use that SAT as one way to demonstrate readiness, but they don't have to use the SAT. That feels to me like it leaves more paths open.

Yeah, I think ECs should be the least important factor, but it seems like colleges are making them more and more important. Which is absolutely inequitable.

This x1000!!! It’s performative and probably more often than not, absolutely not an indicator of the students’ character, but instead, they’re racking up a resume that looks good to the outside. Not for my kid. I want my child to succeed by being himself.

That said, if ambitious pursuits are reflected in self directed achievements, then more power to the student. That’s awesome. But doing study abroad charity work with the goal to pass your resume, that’s just disingenuous. Blech

Yeah, like good for the students who do interesting things with their time outside of school— that should probably be considered by admissions officers. It just sucks for the kids who have to work a minimum wage job or watch little siblings instead, and who don’t have the leisure time (and neither does their single parent) to pursue travel squash or debate.