Columbia University becomes first Ivy League institution to go permanently test-optional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

You're clearly not very smart lol. You just tried to prove a trend with a sample size of n = 1. Also, you completely omitted the 50% genetic contribution of your wife who is likely smarter than you.

[Anonymous]

It's permanent until it changes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

You're clearly not very smart lol. You just tried to prove a trend with a sample size of n = 1. Also, you completely omitted the 50% genetic contribution of your wife who is likely smarter than you.

And yours is the response of a nitwit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

Holding on to standardized testing gets you nowhere closer to that goal.

Disagree.
I'm with MIT on this.
It contributes a lot to fairness and transparency and overall higher quality.

Cool. so how does it do that? How are the scores used? How does it translate to higher quality if they’re not taking the top scores?

People can disagree on this point. Chicago does. So let schools do what they want. This authoritarian bent is a weird way to go.

Schools can do anything they want if they don't use a penny of my tax dollar.
If they do, I demand them to be fair and transparent.

Supreme Court will say they can't just do whatever they want in a way already

You keep using the words fair and transparent but I don’t see how mandating the SAT or ACT moves the process in that direction.

Plenty of companies and institutions and your neighbors get tax dollars and subsidies. You want to go around telling everyone how to run their lives?

And if you think the Supreme Court is going to mandate test scores, well good luck on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep... best way to hide their discrimination.

What discrimination?

You do understand it's perfectly acceptable to accept students with lower test scores? For whatever reason they want? And that choosing to have just a disproportionate amount of Asian students versus a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of Asian students is perfectly valid discrimination, right? It's discimination in the sense that when you choose red wine to drink over white wine, you've discriminated against the white wine. Oh well. It doesn't make it wrong.

The reason these schools are getting rid of test scores is that they see the writing on the wall- there are cases before the Supreme Court where schools very clearly discriminated against certain races (Asians and Whites) in favor of other racial/ethnic groups, and the court seems set to strike down these discriminatory policies. And the plaintiffs made their cases based on test scores and grades of applicants who were treated differently based on race. The numbers showed very clearly that Asian applicants in particular with high test scores were discriminated against in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants with significantly lower test scores.

These schools want to get rid of test scores (and probably grades), because getting rid of objective numbers in favor of subjective acceptance criteria will allow them to more easily discriminate without leaving evidence that is easily discoverable the next time they get sued for racial discrimination. It's a pretty transparent ploy.

It's not "discrimination" to drop test scores when test scores themselves discriminate.

No, it's illegal discrimination if a school drops test scores in an attempt to make it easier to discriminate based on a protected class (such as race). It's pretty easy to see through what they're trying to do. They know their current discriminatory practices likely won't survive this court challenge, so they're trying to come up with a way to discriminate that doesn't leave such an obvious evidentiary trail.

And the evidence that tests discriminate based on race is incredibly weak. The logic is circular- certain minority groups don't do as well on tests, so the tests must be discriminatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep... best way to hide their discrimination.

What discrimination?

You do understand it's perfectly acceptable to accept students with lower test scores? For whatever reason they want? And that choosing to have just a disproportionate amount of Asian students versus a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of Asian students is perfectly valid discrimination, right? It's discimination in the sense that when you choose red wine to drink over white wine, you've discriminated against the white wine. Oh well. It doesn't make it wrong.

The reason these schools are getting rid of test scores is that they see the writing on the wall- there are cases before the Supreme Court where schools very clearly discriminated against certain races (Asians and Whites) in favor of other racial/ethnic groups, and the court seems set to strike down these discriminatory policies. And the plaintiffs made their cases based on test scores and grades of applicants who were treated differently based on race. The numbers showed very clearly that Asian applicants in particular with high test scores were discriminated against in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants with significantly lower test scores.

These schools want to get rid of test scores (and probably grades), because getting rid of objective numbers in favor of subjective acceptance criteria will allow them to more easily discriminate without leaving evidence that is easily discoverable the next time they get sued for racial discrimination. It's a pretty transparent ploy.

It's not "discrimination" to drop test scores when test scores themselves discriminate.

No, it's illegal discrimination if a school drops test scores in an attempt to make it easier to discriminate based on a protected class (such as race). It's pretty easy to see through what they're trying to do. They know their current discriminatory practices likely won't survive this court challenge, so they're trying to come up with a way to discriminate that doesn't leave such an obvious evidentiary trail.

And the evidence that tests discriminate based on race is incredibly weak. The logic is circular- certain minority groups don't do as well on tests, so the tests must be discriminatory.

The evidence that the tests are discriminatory is stronger than the nonexistent evidence that supports your first paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep... best way to hide their discrimination.

What discrimination?

You do understand it's perfectly acceptable to accept students with lower test scores? For whatever reason they want? And that choosing to have just a disproportionate amount of Asian students versus a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of Asian students is perfectly valid discrimination, right? It's discimination in the sense that when you choose red wine to drink over white wine, you've discriminated against the white wine. Oh well. It doesn't make it wrong.

The reason these schools are getting rid of test scores is that they see the writing on the wall- there are cases before the Supreme Court where schools very clearly discriminated against certain races (Asians and Whites) in favor of other racial/ethnic groups, and the court seems set to strike down these discriminatory policies. And the plaintiffs made their cases based on test scores and grades of applicants who were treated differently based on race. The numbers showed very clearly that Asian applicants in particular with high test scores were discriminated against in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants with significantly lower test scores.

These schools want to get rid of test scores (and probably grades), because getting rid of objective numbers in favor of subjective acceptance criteria will allow them to more easily discriminate without leaving evidence that is easily discoverable the next time they get sued for racial discrimination. It's a pretty transparent ploy.

It's not "discrimination" to drop test scores when test scores themselves discriminate.

No, it's illegal discrimination if a school drops test scores in an attempt to make it easier to discriminate based on a protected class (such as race). It's pretty easy to see through what they're trying to do. They know their current discriminatory practices likely won't survive this court challenge, so they're trying to come up with a way to discriminate that doesn't leave such an obvious evidentiary trail.

And the evidence that tests discriminate based on race is incredibly weak. The logic is circular- certain minority groups don't do as well on tests, so the tests must be discriminatory.

Meh, they could keep test scores and say they only want above and bellow a given threshold. Nothing saying some is good means more is better. -NP

[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:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

Holding on to standardized testing gets you nowhere closer to that goal.

Disagree.
I'm with MIT on this.
It contributes a lot to fairness and transparency and overall higher quality.

Cool. so how does it do that? How are the scores used? How does it translate to higher quality if they’re not taking the top scores?

People can disagree on this point. Chicago does. So let schools do what they want. This authoritarian bent is a weird way to go.

Schools can do anything they want if they don't use a penny of my tax dollar.
If they do, I demand them to be fair and transparent.

Supreme Court will say they can't just do whatever they want in a way already

You keep using the words fair and transparent but I don’t see how mandating the SAT or ACT moves the process in that direction.

Plenty of companies and institutions and your neighbors get tax dollars and subsidies. You want to go around telling everyone how to run their lives?

And if you think the Supreme Court is going to mandate test scores, well good luck on that.

ACT's and SAT's provide objective evidence as to how schools are treating applicants based on race. They're what have allowed the current plaintiffs in the case before SCOTUS to show that schools were treating applicants with similar test scores differently based on race. Which is why some schools want to get rid of them as admittance criteria- doing so will allow them to discriminate by imposing more subjective criteria that are tougher to discover in a court case. The Supreme Court is not going to mandate test scores, but all indications are that it's going to start striking down racially discriminatory admission policies.

And, yes, if a company or institution receives federal, state or local tax dollars, that money comes with a whole host of strings attached. Federal money to universities is no different. Which is why a university can't use racially discriminatory admissions policy.

[Anonymous]

My guess is most schools stick to a middle ground until they have more data on how test optional students perform at their institution. Ultimately, I think we see schools move back to testing once the college board perfects the next generation test (already in the work#), coupled to an end of super scoring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep... best way to hide their discrimination.

What discrimination?

You do understand it's perfectly acceptable to accept students with lower test scores? For whatever reason they want? And that choosing to have just a disproportionate amount of Asian students versus a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of Asian students is perfectly valid discrimination, right? It's discimination in the sense that when you choose red wine to drink over white wine, you've discriminated against the white wine. Oh well. It doesn't make it wrong.

The reason these schools are getting rid of test scores is that they see the writing on the wall- there are cases before the Supreme Court where schools very clearly discriminated against certain races (Asians and Whites) in favor of other racial/ethnic groups, and the court seems set to strike down these discriminatory policies. And the plaintiffs made their cases based on test scores and grades of applicants who were treated differently based on race. The numbers showed very clearly that Asian applicants in particular with high test scores were discriminated against in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants with significantly lower test scores.

These schools want to get rid of test scores (and probably grades), because getting rid of objective numbers in favor of subjective acceptance criteria will allow them to more easily discriminate without leaving evidence that is easily discoverable the next time they get sued for racial discrimination. It's a pretty transparent ploy.

It's not "discrimination" to drop test scores when test scores themselves discriminate.

No, it's illegal discrimination if a school drops test scores in an attempt to make it easier to discriminate based on a protected class (such as race). It's pretty easy to see through what they're trying to do. They know their current discriminatory practices likely won't survive this court challenge, so they're trying to come up with a way to discriminate that doesn't leave such an obvious evidentiary trail.

And the evidence that tests discriminate based on race is incredibly weak. The logic is circular- certain minority groups don't do as well on tests, so the tests must be discriminatory.

The evidence that the tests are discriminatory is stronger than the nonexistent evidence that supports your first paragraph.

Given how unfriendly the current 6-3 court appears to be towards racially-based admission policies, I'm pretty comfortable that there are going to be a lot of losses in court for universities going forward. Eventually, after spending millions of dollars in legal fees, they'll probably learn their lesson. Granted, the people who populate admissions departments aren't typically the sharpest crayons in the box, so it will require the adults who pay the bills at universities to step in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep... best way to hide their discrimination.

What discrimination?

You do understand it's perfectly acceptable to accept students with lower test scores? For whatever reason they want? And that choosing to have just a disproportionate amount of Asian students versus a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of Asian students is perfectly valid discrimination, right? It's discimination in the sense that when you choose red wine to drink over white wine, you've discriminated against the white wine. Oh well. It doesn't make it wrong.

The reason these schools are getting rid of test scores is that they see the writing on the wall- there are cases before the Supreme Court where schools very clearly discriminated against certain races (Asians and Whites) in favor of other racial/ethnic groups, and the court seems set to strike down these discriminatory policies. And the plaintiffs made their cases based on test scores and grades of applicants who were treated differently based on race. The numbers showed very clearly that Asian applicants in particular with high test scores were discriminated against in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants with significantly lower test scores.

These schools want to get rid of test scores (and probably grades), because getting rid of objective numbers in favor of subjective acceptance criteria will allow them to more easily discriminate without leaving evidence that is easily discoverable the next time they get sued for racial discrimination. It's a pretty transparent ploy.

It's not "discrimination" to drop test scores when test scores themselves discriminate.

No, it's illegal discrimination if a school drops test scores in an attempt to make it easier to discriminate based on a protected class (such as race). It's pretty easy to see through what they're trying to do. They know their current discriminatory practices likely won't survive this court challenge, so they're trying to come up with a way to discriminate that doesn't leave such an obvious evidentiary trail.

And the evidence that tests discriminate based on race is incredibly weak. The logic is circular- certain minority groups don't do as well on tests, so the tests must be discriminatory.

The evidence that the tests are discriminatory is stronger than the nonexistent evidence that supports your first paragraph.

Given how unfriendly the current 6-3 court appears to be towards racially-based admission policies, I'm pretty comfortable that there are going to be a lot of losses in court for universities going forward. Eventually, after spending millions of dollars in legal fees, they'll probably learn their lesson. Granted, the people who populate admissions departments aren't typically the sharpest crayons in the box, so it will require the adults who pay the bills at universities to step in.

So, no more college football, then.

(Football players are disproportionately not Asian, you know.)

[Anonymous]

My personal view is that test optional will make testing more important than ever. Instead of having the schools’ test score data muddied by URMs and other special cases, people will just focus on the 50-75 pct of the student body that submits. Schools will continue to strive to have a high average or range. Does Williams really want to have a lower average SAT than Amherst? Will Colby let itself slip below Bates? Of course not. So there is a two tier system shaping up. URMs and first Gen and other special cases apply into one pool and then the “privileged” students compete against each other in another pool. People will compare schools based on the relative quality of the privileged pool. Admissions offices will continue to manage towards a high average SAT because they know they can’t afford to slip behind peer schools as they will be seen as less selective and then students and parents will have less interest in applying and it will be a downward spiral.

[Anonymous]

Chicago is test optional and disagrees with MIT. However, the whole package has to show tremendous academic strength, whether it is demonstrated in GPA in the most difficult courses, extracurricular awards, or the unique Chicago essays. In order to be able to write (and enjoy writing) the Chicago essays, one needs to be a very creative and intellectually curious thinker. My kids loved writing those essays, which was a strong indicator that Chicago wouldbe a good fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep... best way to hide their discrimination.

What discrimination?

You do understand it's perfectly acceptable to accept students with lower test scores? For whatever reason they want? And that choosing to have just a disproportionate amount of Asian students versus a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of Asian students is perfectly valid discrimination, right? It's discimination in the sense that when you choose red wine to drink over white wine, you've discriminated against the white wine. Oh well. It doesn't make it wrong.

The reason these schools are getting rid of test scores is that they see the writing on the wall- there are cases before the Supreme Court where schools very clearly discriminated against certain races (Asians and Whites) in favor of other racial/ethnic groups, and the court seems set to strike down these discriminatory policies. And the plaintiffs made their cases based on test scores and grades of applicants who were treated differently based on race. The numbers showed very clearly that Asian applicants in particular with high test scores were discriminated against in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants with significantly lower test scores.

These schools want to get rid of test scores (and probably grades), because getting rid of objective numbers in favor of subjective acceptance criteria will allow them to more easily discriminate without leaving evidence that is easily discoverable the next time they get sued for racial discrimination. It's a pretty transparent ploy.

It's not "discrimination" to drop test scores when test scores themselves discriminate.

No, it's illegal discrimination if a school drops test scores in an attempt to make it easier to discriminate based on a protected class (such as race). It's pretty easy to see through what they're trying to do. They know their current discriminatory practices likely won't survive this court challenge, so they're trying to come up with a way to discriminate that doesn't leave such an obvious evidentiary trail.

And the evidence that tests discriminate based on race is incredibly weak. The logic is circular- certain minority groups don't do as well on tests, so the tests must be discriminatory.

The evidence that the tests are discriminatory is stronger than the nonexistent evidence that supports your first paragraph.

Given how unfriendly the current 6-3 court appears to be towards racially-based admission policies, I'm pretty comfortable that there are going to be a lot of losses in court for universities going forward. Eventually, after spending millions of dollars in legal fees, they'll probably learn their lesson. Granted, the people who populate admissions departments aren't typically the sharpest crayons in the box, so it will require the adults who pay the bills at universities to step in.

So, no more college football, then.

(Football players are disproportionately not Asian, you know.)

Is there evidence that college football players are recruited in a racially discriminatory manner? That uses to be the case (some schools refused to recruit black players, for example), but college football has recruited based purely on merit for decades now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

These schools are a teeny tiny part of the whole system. Just disregard them, the way you disregard Bennington and Sarah Lawrence.

This