Make American Test Optional Again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Entitled parents sending their kids to SAT prep courses perpetuates inequities and only serves to widen the racial achievement gap. Wealthier students have unfair access to test preparation resources overall, which leads to unearned higher scores. This only heightens unearned white privilege and diminished access to education for BIPOCs.

And yet standardized testing is thought to be less influenced by wealth than high school attended, extracurriculars, jobs/internships, legacy and of course, donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitled parents sending their kids to SAT prep courses perpetuates inequities and only serves to widen the racial achievement gap. Wealthier students have unfair access to test preparation resources overall, which leads to unearned higher scores. This only heightens unearned white privilege and diminished access to education for BIPOCs.

And yet standardized testing is thought to be less influenced by wealth than high school attended, extracurriculars, jobs/internships, legacy and of course, donations.

As a UC parent I can honestly tell you we can buy our way into any private high school, the most unique ECs, and the most convincing essays. But prep after prep DC cannot get a 1300+ in sat. I genuinely wish every school is test blind so we could have more options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A standardized test is far better than going by inflated grades and faked extra-curriculars

1000+

1550+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of the top 75 colleges, including SLACs, how many are test required?

Vast majority of unhooked applicants/admits submit scores to top75, including SLACs.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to use test scores than to hand out admission spots to jackasses who had their mommy start a fake charity (that is abandoned once the kid is admitted).

Don't forget about fake testing accommodations.

But taking the test six times and cherry picking the best results from different tests is still cool, right?

UMC whites do it all the time, even WITH testing accommodations.

But you see grades are inflated (you can attend HS once only) and all ECs are made up or something, but the test is perfectly objective as long as you test prep over and over and take it five times and superscore (cherry pick top scores only).

I don’t object to the test as an additional data point of limited usefulness, but the total fanatical devotion to IT’S THE ONLY OBJECTIVE MEASURE, is to be frank, complete nonsense.

If you think you or your kid has any superior characteristics because they took a test nobody over the age of 18 ever cares about, get help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want the US to align itself with the rest of the world and only consider academics. Test scores should be a lot more central to the applications than they are now.

Nobody’s stopping you from moving to South Korea or India for their superior high stakes test based education system.

Unless the PP is a citizen of those countries, there is actually something stopping them from moving to those countries.

But, even so, more and more universities here are moving to test required, for a reason.

Yeah, it’s really hard to sort through 60,000 identical applications.

“My kid is good at the test therefore it’s the best measure of talent”, sure thing boss.

It is. Only someone who doesn't score well would scoff at this essential truth.


I got eleven million on the SATs, pack it up failures.

[Anonymous]

I wish the college board would revise the SAT scores back to how they were when we were kids in the 90s. There is almost no differentiation now but tremendous pressure to get super high scores.

Back in the day 1400 almost guaranteed Ivy. Now you wouldn't have a shot (unless super hooked). Kids are not that much smarter or better prepared. Revise the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitled parents sending their kids to SAT prep courses perpetuates inequities and only serves to widen the racial achievement gap. Wealthier students have unfair access to test preparation resources overall, which leads to unearned higher scores. This only heightens unearned white privilege and diminished access to education for BIPOCs.

And yet standardized testing is thought to be less influenced by wealth than high school attended, extracurriculars, jobs/internships, legacy and of course, donations.

As a UC parent I can honestly tell you we can buy our way into any private high school, the most unique ECs, and the most convincing essays. But prep after prep DC cannot get a 1300+ in sat. I genuinely wish every school is test blind so we could have more options.

I hear this a lot. People keep perpetuating the lie that 1500 scores are common and bought by test prep. No. It’s the smart immigrant kids getting 1500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitled parents sending their kids to SAT prep courses perpetuates inequities and only serves to widen the racial achievement gap. Wealthier students have unfair access to test preparation resources overall, which leads to unearned higher scores. This only heightens unearned white privilege and diminished access to education for BIPOCs.

And yet standardized testing is thought to be less influenced by wealth than high school attended, extracurriculars, jobs/internships, legacy and of course, donations.

As a UC parent I can honestly tell you we can buy our way into any private high school, the most unique ECs, and the most convincing essays. But prep after prep DC cannot get a 1300+ in sat. I genuinely wish every school is test blind so we could have more options.

I hear this a lot. People keep perpetuating the lie that 1500 scores are common and bought by test prep. No. It’s the smart immigrant kids getting 1500.

At a certain minimum, the sat has nothing to do with intelligence but how much effort you want to put into the sat. Our DD went from a 1300 to a 1590, and it was just because she studied for the damn thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish the college board would revise the SAT scores back to how they were when we were kids in the 90s. There is almost no differentiation now but tremendous pressure to get super high scores.

Back in the day 1400 almost guaranteed Ivy. Now you wouldn't have a shot (unless super hooked). Kids are not that much smarter or better prepared. Revise the test.

Agreed. Re-center to the 1990’s version, when it was less prep-able, Limit number of SAT retakes to 3, get rid of superscoring, and make it harder to get accommodations- limit those to people who have demonstrated true, long-term need for them. Hopefully this will get schools to improve their math/Engliah instruction and get kids to read more! The old SAT verbal section favored kids who read a lot.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s telling that so many schools are moving back in this direction. Obviously, test optional was not working for those schools.

[Anonymous]

I think schools are moving back because of the sheer number of applicants. It becomes overwhelming for AOs and the entire system.

I sincerely doubt any university is experiencing a noticeable drop in quality of the student body because of test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitled parents sending their kids to SAT prep courses perpetuates inequities and only serves to widen the racial achievement gap. Wealthier students have unfair access to test preparation resources overall, which leads to unearned higher scores. This only heightens unearned white privilege and diminished access to education for BIPOCs.

And yet standardized testing is thought to be less influenced by wealth than high school attended, extracurriculars, jobs/internships, legacy and of course, donations.

As a UC parent I can honestly tell you we can buy our way into any private high school, the most unique ECs, and the most convincing essays. But prep after prep DC cannot get a 1300+ in sat. I genuinely wish every school is test blind so we could have more options.

I hear this a lot. People keep perpetuating the lie that 1500 scores are common and bought by test prep. No. It’s the smart immigrant kids getting 1500.

At a certain minimum, the sat has nothing to do with intelligence but how much effort you want to put into the sat. Our DD went from a 1300 to a 1590, and it was just because she studied for the damn thing.

An unintelligent kid would have studied and the score wouldn’t have changed. Lots of kids put in a lot of effand don’t get high scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think schools are moving back because of the sheer number of applicants. It becomes overwhelming for AOs and the entire system.

I sincerely doubt any university is experiencing a noticeable drop in quality of the student body because of test optional.

The University of Texas analyzed the performance of their incoming classes during the TO period and found that kids who submitted scores had on average a GPA that was .86 higher than the TO kids when all other variables (HS GPA, class rank etc) were corrected for. That’s a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

The whole TO thing is hurting really smart kids, I think. My DD got a 1290 which is better than 87% of the kids who took the test. But is just shy of the mean for the schools she wants to apply to and they are not even amazing schools in the DCUM sense(think Clemson, Penn State, UConn). If everyone had to submit their test scores, then it would be more fair and get a clearer picture of the applicants. I still remember when cracking 1100 was considered amazing back in the 1980’s! But this TO bullshit and “should we submit or not” is not great