If TJ has such smart kids, why so much cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

I'd read that Harvard could fill their entire class with perfect 1600s, but that's not their priority.

You read wrong. People say this sort of things so that it doesn't seem so bad that a bunch of Asians with perfect sat score don't get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

The year I took the SAT, there were 7 perfect scores.

The test got a lot easier about 30 years ago and scores are far far higher these days.

I wonder why.
I know why.
We all know why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

The year I took the SAT, there were 7 perfect scores.

The test got a lot easier about 30 years ago and scores are far far higher these days.

I wonder why.
I know why.
We all know why.

Some of it is like grade inflation but also kids have much better prep options today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

The year I took the SAT, there were 7 perfect scores.

The test got a lot easier about 30 years ago and scores are far far higher these days.

I wonder why.
I know why.
We all know why.

Some of it is like grade inflation but also kids have much better prep options today.

Most of it is grade inflation. The SAT has recentered itself 3 or so times in the last 30 years. Here's an article about the recentering in 1994, where answering the same number of correct questions as the previous year results in 100 more points. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/sat-increases-the-average-score-by-fiat.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

The year I took the SAT, there were 7 perfect scores.

The test got a lot easier about 30 years ago and scores are far far higher these days.

I wonder why.
I know why.
We all know why.

Some of it is like grade inflation but also kids have much better prep options today.

Most of it is grade inflation. The SAT has recentered itself 3 or so times in the last 30 years. Here's an article about the recentering in 1994, where answering the same number of correct questions as the previous year results in 100 more points. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/sat-increases-the-average-score-by-fiat.html

It wasn't just re-centering, it was also changing the slope of the curve so that the tails were fatter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

The year I took the SAT, there were 7 perfect scores.

The test got a lot easier about 30 years ago and scores are far far higher these days.

I wonder why.
I know why.
We all know why.

Some of it is like grade inflation but also kids have much better prep options today.

Most of it is grade inflation. The SAT has recentered itself 3 or so times in the last 30 years. Here's an article about the recentering in 1994, where answering the same number of correct questions as the previous year results in 100 more points. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/sat-increases-the-average-score-by-fiat.html

It wasn't just re-centering, it was also changing the slope of the curve so that the tails were fatter.

Believe that if you like but I think kids are just much smarter today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

The year I took the SAT, there were 7 perfect scores.

The test got a lot easier about 30 years ago and scores are far far higher these days.

I wonder why.
I know why.
We all know why.

Some of it is like grade inflation but also kids have much better prep options today.

Most of it is grade inflation. The SAT has recentered itself 3 or so times in the last 30 years. Here's an article about the recentering in 1994, where answering the same number of correct questions as the previous year results in 100 more points. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/sat-increases-the-average-score-by-fiat.html

It wasn't just re-centering, it was also changing the slope of the curve so that the tails were fatter.

Believe that if you like but I think kids are just much smarter today.

This is not a matter of opinion.

After 1995, test scores improved about 100 points overnight. This was not because the kids born in 1978 were much smarter than the kids born in 1975. This was because there were more people applying to college and there was less self seelction in who took the test so over time the average SAT score moved from 1000 to about 900. They recentered the scoring to 1000 using a new reference group, and they have probably recentered since then.

The kids may be smarter today but there is no question about the fact that the College Board recentered SAT scores in 1995 and the number of perfect scores went from about 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 1000 overnight.

In 2005, they dropped analogies and quantitative comparisons (widely considered among the most G-loaded portions of the test). This was largely a response to the University of California complaints that were rooted in the racial disparities we saw in test scores. Rather than train up all california kids, they used their market power to dumb down the measuring device.

[Anonymous]

Is cheating still an issue in TJ?
https://www.tjtoday.org/36291/features/the-inside-of-integrity/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too much pressure from parents to get highest grades for college admissions.

This. It also why there have been a few suicides over the years by students (who maybe got a poor grade) and could not face their parents afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Admit students based on essay instead of STEM skills, and wonder why they cheat?

[Anonymous]

They got in by cheating. They’ve learned that’s how to get where you want to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They got in by cheating. They’ve learned that’s how to get where you want to be.

How is writing an essay cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They got in by cheating. They’ve learned that’s how to get where you want to be.

How is writing an essay cheating?

DP. Some lied on their essay - simple. One kid I heard was bragging about it openly in the classroom. The cheaters think the rest are naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They got in by cheating. They’ve learned that’s how to get where you want to be.

How is writing an essay cheating?

DP. Some lied on their essay - simple. One kid I heard was bragging about it openly in the classroom. The cheaters think the rest are naive.

Why is FCPS basing a student's entire four year STEM education decision on few lines of text that can't be verified as truth or lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've seen studies that argue standardized test scores are a more reliable indicator, and others (more) that indicate GPA is stronger. What seems obvious is that all of these things (standardized test scores, GPAs, essay, teacher recs, etc.) can be indicators of merit, and each measure has strengths and weaknesses, such that none should none of them should really be used as the one-and-only measure of "merit". Personally I do wish that standardized test scores were still one component of the evaluation process, but it seems more than a bit disingenuous, or perhaps more innocuously just misguided, to equate that one measure alone with the broader concept of "merit".

Nobody is arguing for any indicator to be a one-and-only. A true holistic evaluation should take in a lot of inputs. Test scores, GPA, courses taken, math level, teacher recommendations, essays, and significant achievements all belong in a holistic evaluation.

Base ES and personal experience factors as well, I'm sure there are other things we could think of for a holistic evaluation, many of which are currently included in the current process. But the outcry is that one factor has been eliminated (standardized test score) on the basis that this removes "merit" from the process. In the eyes of most who use that phrase, standardized tests are 1:1 with the concept of merit, which is obviously false on the face of it.

And when you DO include standardized tests, myriad parents start complaining when a kid with a lower score got in over their kid, blasting every other measure as subjective and/or biased, but having full blinders on when it comes to the similar limitations and bias of standardized tests. I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that it's not as cut-and-dry obvious as many seem to want to oversimplify it down to.

What do you imagine is included in the current process? Math level isn't. Rigor of courses isn't. Standardized test scores aren't. SOL scores aren't. Achievements aren't. Teacher recommendations aren't. There honestly isn't much left in the application, which is why people think the process is no longer based on merit.

The only things included are GPA, which isn't counted heavily and is pretty meaningless when grades are so absurdly inflated, experience factors, a super trivial math problem solving essay, and a few fluff portrait of a graduate mini essays.

Even for college admissions grades are the most important measure of merit.

This is clearly not true.

Between GPA and test scores, test scores are far more predictive than GPA.

It's true that test scores are more predictive but it's also well known that colleges put more weight on GPA. Many don't even require SATs these days.

How do you distinguish between a bunch of straight A students?

This isn't especially difficult. Harvard does it annually.

Yes, mostly by using an objective test.

They also have a preference for legacy applicants, athletic recruits and (until recently) black/hispanic applicants.

Back to the original point it's difficult for Harvard to differentiate these applicants since they literally have thousands of applicants with a perfect 1600.

This would be a reasonable retort if it were even close to true, but the best estimates put the annual number of perfect SAT scores somewhere between 300-1000.

That's really odd since I'd read Harvard could fill their entire class with applicants with UW 4.0 and 1600 and that's several thousand slots.

In a recent year, Harvard had 361 applicants with a perfect SAT score.
We know this because it was discovered during the harvard lawsuit.

I'd read that Harvard could fill their entire class with perfect 1600s, but that's not their priority.

You read wrong. People say this sort of things so that it doesn't seem so bad that a bunch of Asians with perfect sat score don't get in.

Too bad many Asians can't comprehend that the Ivies are not technical schools.