Colleges should require scores if test is taken

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

I think any moderately successful adult who helps their kids in SAT prep cannot help but be struck by the absurdity of the test

Again, the the 1,000th time, this opinion is shaped by your own experience with the test.

If you did great and your kid did great, you think it’s relevant. If you didn’t do well, and/or your kid didn’t do well, tiu end up like you, tilting at testing windmills because they are “absurd” (but tests, and group projects, and homework, and busy work in school is definitely not absurd).

That’s such a dumb take. You can do well on the SAT and still think it’s a useless measuring stick. It’s a completely lazy response to say “oh well your kids a bad test taker”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

How can a natural barrier be designed? Do you know how the SAT was actually designed? Do you think it genuinely measures capacity? Do you know how many standardized tests most people take after the SAT?

I didn’t say whether the designer was a mere mortal 🫣

"God designed the SAT" is something I genuinely had not heard before. Bravo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

How can a natural barrier be designed? Do you know how the SAT was actually designed? Do you think it genuinely measures capacity? Do you know how many standardized tests most people take after the SAT?

I didn’t say whether the designer was a mere mortal 🫣

"God designed the SAT" is something I genuinely had not heard before. Bravo.

"Natural barriers designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity." Pretty sure that's Psalms? Maybe Philippians. Really inspiring stuff!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

But that works against social engineering the class, which is what the schools want. They want URMs and first generations AND the high test scores that can be reported to USNWR. [/b] Viola! [b]that is the system we have but no one wants to admit it.

What is this, Twelfth Night? Why do people care so much about whether colleges do this? In GPAs, millions of kids get retakes/corrections in their regular classes. Are they “hiding” things? It’s just a fact that SAT/ACT are somewhat correlated to first year college grades (and moreso to HHI) but they have very weak correlation to overall college performance. Which makes sense, they are essentially a “preparedness” test, not aptitude or IQ. If they were really that accurate, colleges would have every incentive to rent in them. I mean who wouldn’t want to use something so predictive? All this conspiracy nonsense about social engineering is for the tin foil hat crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

But that works against social engineering the class, which is what the schools want. They want URMs and first generations AND the high test scores that can be reported to USNWR. [/b] Viola! [b]that is the system we have but no one wants to admit it.

What is this, Twelfth Night? Why do people care so much about whether colleges do this? In GPAs, millions of kids get retakes/corrections in their regular classes. Are they “hiding” things? It’s just a fact that SAT/ACT are somewhat correlated to first year college grades (and moreso to HHI) but they have very weak correlation to overall college performance. Which makes sense, they are essentially a “preparedness” test, not aptitude or IQ. If they were really that accurate, colleges would have every incentive to rent in them. I mean who wouldn’t want to use something so predictive? All this conspiracy nonsense about social engineering is for the tin foil hat crowd.

They DO want to use them. The threat of litigation and the distorted interests of political actors like Janet Napolitano are WHY they don’t use them.

[Anonymous]

Go back to SAT mandatory. Continue to allow super scoring, which reduces the pressure on the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

But that works against social engineering the class, which is what the schools want. They want URMs and first generations AND the high test scores that can be reported to USNWR. [/b] Viola! [b]that is the system we have but no one wants to admit it.

What is this, Twelfth Night? Why do people care so much about whether colleges do this? In GPAs, millions of kids get retakes/corrections in their regular classes. Are they “hiding” things? It’s just a fact that SAT/ACT are somewhat correlated to first year college grades (and moreso to HHI) but they have very weak correlation to overall college performance. Which makes sense, they are essentially a “preparedness” test, not aptitude or IQ. If they were really that accurate, colleges would have every incentive to rent in them. I mean who wouldn’t want to use something so predictive? All this conspiracy nonsense about social engineering is for the tin foil hat crowd.

They DO want to use them. The threat of litigation and the distorted interests of political actors like Janet Napolitano are WHY they don’t use them.

It’s amazing how you can divine what admissions offices really want. What a gift you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

But that works against social engineering the class, which is what the schools want. They want URMs and first generations AND the high test scores that can be reported to USNWR. [/b] Viola! [b]that is the system we have but no one wants to admit it.

What is this, Twelfth Night? Why do people care so much about whether colleges do this? In GPAs, millions of kids get retakes/corrections in their regular classes. Are they “hiding” things? It’s just a fact that SAT/ACT are somewhat correlated to first year college grades (and moreso to HHI) but they have very weak correlation to overall college performance. Which makes sense, they are essentially a “preparedness” test, not aptitude or IQ. If they were really that accurate, colleges would have every incentive to rent in them. I mean who wouldn’t want to use something so predictive? All this conspiracy nonsense about social engineering is for the tin foil hat crowd.

They DO want to use them. The threat of litigation and the distorted interests of political actors like Janet Napolitano are WHY they don’t use them.

It’s amazing how you can divine what admissions offices really want. What a gift you have.

Likewise! Your magical ability to refute what others have said must be quite the burden, having to set the record straight without, you know, actually setting the record straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

But that works against social engineering the class, which is what the schools want. They want URMs and first generations AND the high test scores that can be reported to USNWR. [/b] Viola! that is the system we have but no one wants to admit it.

[b]What is this, Twelfth Night? Why do people care so much about whether colleges do this? In GPAs, millions of kids get retakes/corrections in their regular classes. Are they “hiding” things? It’s just a fact that SAT/ACT are somewhat correlated to first year college grades (and moreso to HHI) but they have very weak correlation to overall college performance. Which makes sense, they are essentially a “preparedness” test, not aptitude or IQ. If they were really that accurate, colleges would have every incentive to rent in them. I mean who wouldn’t want to use something so predictive? All this conspiracy nonsense about social engineering is for the tin foil hat crowd.

An astute social commentary…and also an extremely subtle Viola joke.

The PP’s comment reminds me of basically every observation I’ve ever seen Jeff make about this forum, ie: “As I have commented many times about the college forum, almost all forum participants are convinced that the college admissions process is unfair and they are sure that it is specifically biased against their kids.” And…viola.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

But that works against social engineering the class, which is what the schools want. They want URMs and first generations AND the high test scores that can be reported to USNWR. [/b] Viola! [b]that is the system we have but no one wants to admit it.

What is this, Twelfth Night? Why do people care so much about whether colleges do this? In GPAs, millions of kids get retakes/corrections in their regular classes. Are they “hiding” things? It’s just a fact that SAT/ACT are somewhat correlated to first year college grades (and moreso to HHI) but they have very weak correlation to overall college performance. Which makes sense, they are essentially a “preparedness” test, not aptitude or IQ. If they were really that accurate, colleges would have every incentive to rent in them. I mean who wouldn’t want to use something so predictive? All this conspiracy nonsense about social engineering is for the tin foil hat crowd.

They DO want to use them. The threat of litigation and the distorted interests of political actors like Janet Napolitano are WHY they don’t use them.

It’s amazing how you can divine what admissions offices really want. What a gift you have.

Well, we do know what the faculty who were asked to research standardized testings effectiveness in the UC system wanted; they recommended keeping standardized testing because it was the single best predictor of college success across all income and racial groups. Better than GPA. Test scores predicted equally well across SES groups as well. In other words, a 1300 for a poor kid predicts as well as a 1300 from an UMC kid. A better predictor is obviously standardized test scores along with grades.

Janet Napolitano eliminated standardized testing against the recommendation of the task force her organization commissioned to look into it. While nobody can read minds, this looks much more like someone acting in a political manner vs following the data.

[Anonymous]

It is all so the testing companies (and the whole test prep Industry) make more money. I bet they and the wealthy parents would lobby against this.

(Should they only be allowed to take it once? Twice?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

But that works against social engineering the class, which is what the schools want. They want URMs and first generations AND the high test scores that can be reported to USNWR. [/b] Viola! [b]that is the system we have but no one wants to admit it.

What is this, Twelfth Night? Why do people care so much about whether colleges do this? In GPAs, millions of kids get retakes/corrections in their regular classes. Are they “hiding” things? It’s just a fact that SAT/ACT are somewhat correlated to first year college grades (and moreso to HHI) but they have very weak correlation to overall college performance. Which makes sense, they are essentially a “preparedness” test, not aptitude or IQ. If they were really that accurate, colleges would have every incentive to rent in them. I mean who wouldn’t want to use something so predictive? All this conspiracy nonsense about social engineering is for the tin foil hat crowd.

They DO want to use them. The threat of litigation and the distorted interests of political actors like Janet Napolitano are WHY they don’t use them.

It’s amazing how you can divine what admissions offices really want. What a gift you have.

Well, we do know what the faculty who were asked to research standardized testings effectiveness in the UC system wanted; they recommended keeping standardized testing because it was the single best predictor of college success across all income and racial groups. Better than GPA. Test scores predicted equally well across SES groups as well. In other words, a 1300 for a poor kid predicts as well as a 1300 from an UMC kid. A better predictor is obviously standardized test scores along with grades.

Janet Napolitano eliminated standardized testing against the recommendation of the task force her organization commissioned to look into it. While nobody can read minds, this looks much more like someone acting in a political manner vs following the data.

So you extrapolate from that example affecting a dozen state schools in California to every school in the country?

Did she run CalTech when they went TO? Or UChicago?

Tell me, do their admissions offices want to go back to test mandatory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I”m all in favor of those who don’t test well deciding not to take the SAT or ACT. But I think colleges should require th3 scores for any test taken. I think Georgetown has it right - require all scores. That still leaves the decision with the student and his/her parent. But also allows the colleges to have the most complete information available to make decisions.

And what is your reasoning behind this strange thought? It doesn’t make much sense. Why should an applicant with a bad test result be required to submit it? So arbitrary.

It’s clearly been established that schools don’t put much stock in the tests as measures of anything, right? There’s also valid reason to believe cultural bias built into them is inherently discriminatory and inequitable. We know this because of the different accommodations some students might get — but more time doesn’t necessarily been better outcomes, nor does it inherently make the test more equitable or fair.

[Anonymous]

Better idea.. Colleges should require scores. Period. Oh wait, that used to be the case.. wonder when the idiots showed up and changed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

Agree. Plus parents with resources (like me) are able to get extra time and other accommodations for their kids. Going through that process I just felt so bad for other kids whose parents did not know or have the means to provide that level of support.