What if Colleges Truly Required Test Scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

Washu, Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Notre Dame, CMU, Umich, Uva, are TO. UCB and UCLA are blind, but they arent shit schools?

All that keep the policy are trying to overcome location, play games with admissions rates to look more selective, or keep options open for sports recruits.

D1 schools don’t care about test scores other than athletes meet minimum scores (which are very low).

This is not the case in the Ivy League, which is DI (or at least Ivys that are not TO). Scores need to be within range. They may be on the lower side of the school's range, but they're not low. People talk about the crazy high acceptance rate of athletes, but that's only those athletes that have been given the thumbs up by admissions previously based on GPA/scores. Many more don't get to the point of applying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the main reason schools downplay the SAT is money, and the appearance of exclusivity. Very high-scoring middle class students are more apt to turn them down in favor of full rides to state flagships. But students from affluent families with really quite good scores tend to be willing to pay whatever price the school asks.

By the same token, the biggest supporters of elite private schools requiring, and placing a lot of emphasis on, the SAT are affluent families whose kids have very high SAT scores.

Clearly did not read the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'holistic review' and 'ban SAT' policies might sound nice.

But, in reality, these policies merely allow the most wealthy and powerful to virtue signal while getting an edge for their children’s admission to the top universities (especially private universities).

Not true. Lower income kids score lower as a group on these tests. And this is for a variety of reasons

There’s an important nuance here: kids from the top 20% of households do better on the SAT than kids from lower quintiles. But “upper middle class” kids (80-95th percentile incomes) do better on test-only admissions than they do on holistic admissions. That’s because a decent education, while often beyond the reach of the poor, is much less expensive than the other kinds of enrichment activities that very high income families can support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the main reason schools downplay the SAT is money, and the appearance of exclusivity. Very high-scoring middle class students are more apt to turn them down in favor of full rides to state flagships. But students from affluent families with really quite good scores tend to be willing to pay whatever price the school asks.

By the same token, the biggest supporters of elite private schools requiring, and placing a lot of emphasis on, the SAT are affluent families whose kids have very high SAT scores.

Clearly did not read the article.

No one here read the article. They read a screenshot of an abstract on X. Embarrassing for a bunch of people who claim to care about rigor.

[Anonymous]

For those that refused to actually read even the abstract, the authors found that the wealthy and athletic recruits are the biggest beneficiaries of holistic admissions and focusing more on test scores would benefit the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that refused to actually read even the abstract, the authors found that the wealthy and athletic recruits are the biggest beneficiaries of holistic admissions and focusing more on test scores would benefit the middle class.

Focusing more on test scores would cause more middle class students to be admitted, if they applied. But how many middle class families would pay $50k for an elite school (assuming they get some FA) when they can instead attend a flagship for free?

[Anonymous]

The University of Austin is test score only admittance. They aren't interested in non merit academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those that refused to actually read even the abstract, the authors found that the wealthy and athletic recruits are the biggest beneficiaries of holistic admissions and focusing more on test scores would benefit the middle class.

Focusing more on test scores would cause more middle class students to be admitted, if they applied. But how many middle class families would pay $50k for an elite school (assuming they get some FA) when they can instead attend a flagship for free?

The definition of middle class here, earning less than $200,000, would make nearly all the top schools free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

I’m not the poster ..: but I essentially agree. I have one of each … a high scorer and a low scorer . Both doing well in similar schools now. I don’t think SAT is destiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those that refused to actually read even the abstract, the authors found that the wealthy and athletic recruits are the biggest beneficiaries of holistic admissions and focusing more on test scores would benefit the middle class.

Focusing more on test scores would cause more middle class students to be admitted, if they applied. But how many middle class families would pay $50k for an elite school (assuming they get some FA) when they can instead attend a flagship for free?

The definition of middle class here, earning less than $200,000, would make nearly all the top schools free.

Very few schools are free at $200,000. Even the handful that are, are only free “with typical assets” (which means: only if like a typical American you save nothing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

Ah, yes, this is clearly a question asked in good faith. But I’ll answer.

I don’t think standardized test scores have meaningful bearing on college performance. There have been a ton of studies on this topic and no consensus; to the extent that the studies have found that GPA or test scores have predictive value for college performance, the effects are generally quite small.

And then anecdotally I’ve observed so many kids who did not have high test scores thrive at highly selective colleges (including one of my own).

In my observation (including working at a highly selective university), social factors are what predict success in these environments. With some supports (e.g., first-gen programs), student performance is equalized.

And to your final question, I think that having a population of college graduates that is demographically representative is critical to ensuring our country functions effectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

Ah, yes, this is clearly a question asked in good faith. But I’ll answer.

I don’t think standardized test scores have meaningful bearing on college performance. There have been a ton of studies on this topic and no consensus; to the extent that the studies have found that GPA or test scores have predictive value for college performance, the effects are generally quite small.

And then anecdotally I’ve observed so many kids who did not have high test scores thrive at highly selective colleges (including one of my own).

In my observation (including working at a highly selective university), social factors are what predict success in these environments. With some supports (e.g., first-gen programs), student performance is equalized.

And to your final question, I think that having a population of college graduates that is demographically representative is critical to ensuring our country functions effectively.

The quick abandonment of test optional (or test blind)policies suggests the contrary. Also the UCSD issues with students ability to do even basic high school and middle school math under a test blind policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those that refused to actually read even the abstract, the authors found that the wealthy and athletic recruits are the biggest beneficiaries of holistic admissions and focusing more on test scores would benefit the middle class.

Focusing more on test scores would cause more middle class students to be admitted, if they applied. But how many middle class families would pay $50k for an elite school (assuming they get some FA) when they can instead attend a flagship for free?

The definition of middle class here, earning less than $200,000, would make nearly all the top schools free.

Very few schools are free at $200,000. Even the handful that are, are only free “with typical assets” (which means: only if like a typical American you save nothing).

Among the T25, many are free, at least with respect to tuition. This puts them on par with in state options for those families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

Ah, yes, this is clearly a question asked in good faith. But I’ll answer.

I don’t think standardized test scores have meaningful bearing on college performance. There have been a ton of studies on this topic and no consensus; to the extent that the studies have found that GPA or test scores have predictive value for college performance, the effects are generally quite small.

And then anecdotally I’ve observed so many kids who did not have high test scores thrive at highly selective colleges (including one of my own).

In my observation (including working at a highly selective university), social factors are what predict success in these environments. With some supports (e.g., first-gen programs), student performance is equalized.

And to your final question, I think that having a population of college graduates that is demographically representative is critical to ensuring our country functions effectively.

The quick abandonment of test optional (or test blind)policies suggests the contrary. Also the UCSD issues with students ability to do even basic high school and middle school math under a test blind policy.

95% of schools are still TO, including half of the top 25 national universities and virtually all of the top 25 LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

Ah, yes, this is clearly a question asked in good faith. But I’ll answer.

I don’t think standardized test scores have meaningful bearing on college performance. There have been a ton of studies on this topic and no consensus; to the extent that the studies have found that GPA or test scores have predictive value for college performance, the effects are generally quite small.

And then anecdotally I’ve observed so many kids who did not have high test scores thrive at highly selective colleges (including one of my own).

In my observation (including working at a highly selective university), social factors are what predict success in these environments. With some supports (e.g., first-gen programs), student performance is equalized.

And to your final question, I think that having a population of college graduates that is demographically representative is critical to ensuring our country functions effectively.

The quick abandonment of test optional (or test blind)policies suggests the contrary. Also the UCSD issues with students ability to do even basic high school and middle school math under a test blind policy.

95% of schools are still TO, including half of the top 25 national universities and virtually all of the top 25 LACs.

We can also look at the comprehensive study the UC system paid for which found test scores have a statistically significant impact on predicting college performance, particularly in an environment of high grade inflation.