University System of Maryland moves toward removing SAT/ACT requirement

[Anonymous]

Tests are stupid and useless only if your kid did poorly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:in 5 years every school will be like this as well as a full online option.

This! Their income through application fees has gone up significantly thanks to test optional. Why would they want to give it up? Plus, it can be used as cover to push their social engineering agendas..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Useless, outdated research. "They examined 55,084 students who graduated from Chicago Public Schools of varying academic profiles between 2006 and 2009, and who then immediately enrolled in a four-year college. At the time of the study, all Illinois students took the ACT in the spring of 11th grade."

That they were all in one school system add uniformity to the GPA stratification. However, given that a GPA means different things in different places, and in some public districts you can't tell the difference between a kid getting 89.5 and 100, and brilliant kids at schools that grade hard are getting B averages and going on to be suma at their colleges, while their previously straight A counterparts from other high schools are barely passing, it seems that GPA cannot be predictive because it isn't a uniform measurement.

I'd prefer a system that tests everyone on substance in the core areas as a universal entrance benchmark.

That's definitely not the SAT then, given that the SAT is a bunch of logical puzzles that is easily prep-able given you take SAT-specific prep classes.

AP and IB exams are a far more substantive judge of academic competencies.

NP. For clarification, there are not currently logic puzzles in the SAT. Analogies left in 2005.

Also, let's all keep in mind that yet another change in the test is coming. High school class of 2025 will only be able to take the new, 2-hour digital SAT. I haven't looked deeply at this yet, but one difference is that reading passages will be shorter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when applying to UMD a candidate can send the SAT score (if that's good enough) or not. The acceptance criteria don't take into consideration that score at all, right? If that's the case, how do they decide who's academically fit? High School grades?

Maybe middle school.

They know what they need to see and have realized that kids who prep for a 4 hour test and do well are not the kids who do well over the course of 4 years. Add in a good essay and extra curriculars and suddenly the standardized tests don't mean much.

Look up information about Wake Forest and why they don't use it.

Please, they have known the whole time that SAT does not measure anything except how much families can pay for prep courses and therefore tuition. You all get that college admissions are actually not a meritocracy?

There is a ton research out there showing that SAT scores predict college success; most times better than HS grades. When the UC system looked into it they found that standardized tests were the single best predictor of college performance. When you add parental education as a variable, HHI becomes significantly less predictive of standardized test scores. In other words, HHI is an inexact proxy for parental education. Free high quality prep is easily available. Asians prep the most, but both Hispanics and AA prep more than whites do, and there are many studies that show that on average prepping only raises scores 30-60 points.

Bottom line, standardized tests work as intended; they act as a relatively unbiased tool to measure college readiness. They’re almost certainly the most objective measurement currently used for college admissions. Unfortunately, that does not allow colleges to balance the demographics of their classes as they wish, thus they’re being phased out.

SAT/ACT are not an unbiased tool. Free prep tools are not the same as those that cost $100+/hour (some way more than that). And average prepping raises scores much more than 30-60 points, unless you are already at a 1500. My own kid did 4 hours of 1 on 1 test prep and raised their score 150 points to a 1500. And all future tests and prep tests had them score within 20 points of 1500. But those initial 4 hours cost me $500. And my kid had to have the time to work for another 3-4 hours outside of those 4 hours. And we continued doing "prep tests" with 1-2 hours of review in between to ensure that kid was going to score well on the ultimate real SAT. That is not available to lower income students, or students who have to work 10-20 hr/week in HS to help support their families.

Btw, if my kid had wanted to, we could have paid for another 10-20 hours of intensive one-on-one test prep and likely gotten to 1550/1560. I am certain that is not an option for majority of college bound students (maybe the top 10%).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when applying to UMD a candidate can send the SAT score (if that's good enough) or not. The acceptance criteria don't take into consideration that score at all, right? If that's the case, how do they decide who's academically fit? High School grades?

Maybe middle school.

They know what they need to see and have realized that kids who prep for a 4 hour test and do well are not the kids who do well over the course of 4 years. Add in a good essay and extra curriculars and suddenly the standardized tests don't mean much.

Look up information about Wake Forest and why they don't use it.

Please, they have known the whole time that SAT does not measure anything except how much families can pay for prep courses and therefore tuition. You all get that college admissions are actually not a meritocracy?

There is a ton research out there showing that SAT scores predict college success; most times better than HS grades. When the UC system looked into it they found that standardized tests were the single best predictor of college performance. When you add parental education as a variable, HHI becomes significantly less predictive of standardized test scores. In other words, HHI is an inexact proxy for parental education. Free high quality prep is easily available. Asians prep the most, but both Hispanics and AA prep more than whites do, and there are many studies that show that on average prepping only raises scores 30-60 points.

Bottom line, standardized tests work as intended; they act as a relatively unbiased tool to measure college readiness. They’re almost certainly the most objective measurement currently used for college admissions. Unfortunately, that does not allow colleges to balance the demographics of their classes as they wish, thus they’re being phased out.

Source? And please don't cite the college board or test prep organizations.

I found these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/
"Grade point averages are a much better predictor of success at college than standardized tests, according to new research."

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
"Students’ high-school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new study from the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research."

Feel free to read the UC report. This was a massive data set, covering all types of students/schools in the UC system.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Here's a study by University of Minnesota researchers (again, a huge data set, 150K students) showing that the SAT helped in predicting college success and wasn't substantially effected by SES

https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/the-role-of-socioeconomic-status-in-sat-grade-relationships-and-i

Here's another from the same researchers showing that the vast majority of the relationship between college performance and test scores was unrelated to SES.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19210051/

Here's a study that shows that test prep by different groups/ses levels. One of the key findings:
"Black non-Hispanic students are more likely to participate in test prep, and there are also significant interaction effects of race and grade level on prep, with black 11th graders having the highest predicted probability of prep."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01326.x


Grades are important obviously, but the data is clear that SAT/ACT scores are also important in determining who succeeds in college. MIT recently added test requirements back in because they were unable to select a class that would do as well at MIT without them.

And despite what you say, the UCs have completely eliminated SAT/ACT tests from the application process. If they were such good indicators, why would they do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when applying to UMD a candidate can send the SAT score (if that's good enough) or not. The acceptance criteria don't take into consideration that score at all, right? If that's the case, how do they decide who's academically fit? High School grades?

Maybe middle school.

They know what they need to see and have realized that kids who prep for a 4 hour test and do well are not the kids who do well over the course of 4 years. Add in a good essay and extra curriculars and suddenly the standardized tests don't mean much.

Look up information about Wake Forest and why they don't use it.

Please, they have known the whole time that SAT does not measure anything except how much families can pay for prep courses and therefore tuition. You all get that college admissions are actually not a meritocracy?

There is a ton research out there showing that SAT scores predict college success; most times better than HS grades. When the UC system looked into it they found that standardized tests were the single best predictor of college performance. When you add parental education as a variable, HHI becomes significantly less predictive of standardized test scores. In other words, HHI is an inexact proxy for parental education. Free high quality prep is easily available. Asians prep the most, but both Hispanics and AA prep more than whites do, and there are many studies that show that on average prepping only raises scores 30-60 points.

Bottom line, standardized tests work as intended; they act as a relatively unbiased tool to measure college readiness. They’re almost certainly the most objective measurement currently used for college admissions. Unfortunately, that does not allow colleges to balance the demographics of their classes as they wish, thus they’re being phased out.

Source? And please don't cite the college board or test prep organizations.

I found these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/
"Grade point averages are a much better predictor of success at college than standardized tests, according to new research."

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
"Students’ high-school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new study from the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research."

Feel free to read the UC report. This was a massive data set, covering all types of students/schools in the UC system.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Here's a study by University of Minnesota researchers (again, a huge data set, 150K students) showing that the SAT helped in predicting college success and wasn't substantially effected by SES

https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/the-role-of-socioeconomic-status-in-sat-grade-relationships-and-i

Here's another from the same researchers showing that the vast majority of the relationship between college performance and test scores was unrelated to SES.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19210051/

Here's a study that shows that test prep by different groups/ses levels. One of the key findings:
"Black non-Hispanic students are more likely to participate in test prep, and there are also significant interaction effects of race and grade level on prep, with black 11th graders having the highest predicted probability of prep."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01326.x


Grades are important obviously, but the data is clear that SAT/ACT scores are also important in determining who succeeds in college. MIT recently added test requirements back in because they were unable to select a class that would do as well at MIT without them.

And despite what you say, the UCs have completely eliminated SAT/ACT tests from the application process. If they were such good indicators, why would they do that?

Because selecting the best students isn't their goal, I would assume

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We're careening towards the bottom at breakneck speed, because of morons who claim that all previously used indicators of academic worth and intellect are suddenly racist and classist and don't prove a thing.

Good Lord, what have we come to?

It's like the body positivity movement, where it's OK to criticize people for being skinny, but God forbid we say a word to people who are overweight, even if their quality of life and lifespan depend on it.

Guess what. Our country's standing in the world, ability to create jobs and conduct groundbreaking research, depends on smart people who take advanced classes and show they're ready for university rigor. Standardized tests are VITAL to this process.

It is not suddenly, they have always been classist and racist so there is that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let us identify all metrics that 1 group of people does worse than the others and eliminate it.

SAT, ACT, GPAs, Magnet Programs, AP classes, Honors Classes, Essays that say that you are well traveled, Essays that are well written, what else?

Might as well use a random number generator at this point.

Do you really think test-optional etc is really being pushed to benefit 1 relatively disadvantaged group? I highly doubt it. Who would benefit most from true test optional? It would be candidates who can put together an elite profile on all other dimensions - grades, activities, essays, recommendations etc. - but has difficulty posting an elite test score. Is that candidate's family likely under privileged or highly privileged?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when applying to UMD a candidate can send the SAT score (if that's good enough) or not. The acceptance criteria don't take into consideration that score at all, right? If that's the case, how do they decide who's academically fit? High School grades?

Maybe middle school.

They know what they need to see and have realized that kids who prep for a 4 hour test and do well are not the kids who do well over the course of 4 years. Add in a good essay and extra curriculars and suddenly the standardized tests don't mean much.

Look up information about Wake Forest and why they don't use it.

Please, they have known the whole time that SAT does not measure anything except how much families can pay for prep courses and therefore tuition. You all get that college admissions are actually not a meritocracy?

There is a ton research out there showing that SAT scores predict college success; most times better than HS grades. When the UC system looked into it they found that standardized tests were the single best predictor of college performance. When you add parental education as a variable, HHI becomes significantly less predictive of standardized test scores. In other words, HHI is an inexact proxy for parental education. Free high quality prep is easily available. Asians prep the most, but both Hispanics and AA prep more than whites do, and there are many studies that show that on average prepping only raises scores 30-60 points.

Bottom line, standardized tests work as intended; they act as a relatively unbiased tool to measure college readiness. They’re almost certainly the most objective measurement currently used for college admissions. Unfortunately, that does not allow colleges to balance the demographics of their classes as they wish, thus they’re being phased out.

Source? And please don't cite the college board or test prep organizations.

I found these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/
"Grade point averages are a much better predictor of success at college than standardized tests, according to new research."

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
"Students’ high-school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new study from the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research."

Feel free to read the UC report. This was a massive data set, covering all types of students/schools in the UC system.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Here's a study by University of Minnesota researchers (again, a huge data set, 150K students) showing that the SAT helped in predicting college success and wasn't substantially effected by SES

https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/the-role-of-socioeconomic-status-in-sat-grade-relationships-and-i

Here's another from the same researchers showing that the vast majority of the relationship between college performance and test scores was unrelated to SES.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19210051/

Here's a study that shows that test prep by different groups/ses levels. One of the key findings:
"Black non-Hispanic students are more likely to participate in test prep, and there are also significant interaction effects of race and grade level on prep, with black 11th graders having the highest predicted probability of prep."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01326.x


Grades are important obviously, but the data is clear that SAT/ACT scores are also important in determining who succeeds in college. MIT recently added test requirements back in because they were unable to select a class that would do as well at MIT without them.

And despite what you say, the UCs have completely eliminated SAT/ACT tests from the application process. If they were such good indicators, why would they do that?

There is a long-standing controversy over standardized tests among the UC Regents. It is a major political football there. However, the main reason UCs initially went test blind was a court order and subsequent settlement.

https://dailybruin.com/2021/05/14/university-of-california-announces-it-will-not-use-sat-act-in-admissions-decisions

The University of California will continue using a standardized-test-blind approach to admissions through at least 2025, according to a settlement reached between the University and plaintiffs Friday.

The UC agreed to not use the ACT or SAT as a factor in admissions for freshman applicants until at least 2025 under the terms of the settlement, according to a Friday press release by Public Counsel, the firm representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the University’s test-optional policy.

An August 2020 court ruling barred the UC from using standardized test scores during the fall 2021 admissions cycle. A California court also denied the UC’s request to make standardized test scores optional in October.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when applying to UMD a candidate can send the SAT score (if that's good enough) or not. The acceptance criteria don't take into consideration that score at all, right? If that's the case, how do they decide who's academically fit? High School grades?

Maybe middle school.

They know what they need to see and have realized that kids who prep for a 4 hour test and do well are not the kids who do well over the course of 4 years. Add in a good essay and extra curriculars and suddenly the standardized tests don't mean much.

Look up information about Wake Forest and why they don't use it.

Please, they have known the whole time that SAT does not measure anything except how much families can pay for prep courses and therefore tuition. You all get that college admissions are actually not a meritocracy?

There is a ton research out there showing that SAT scores predict college success; most times better than HS grades. When the UC system looked into it they found that standardized tests were the single best predictor of college performance. When you add parental education as a variable, HHI becomes significantly less predictive of standardized test scores. In other words, HHI is an inexact proxy for parental education. Free high quality prep is easily available. Asians prep the most, but both Hispanics and AA prep more than whites do, and there are many studies that show that on average prepping only raises scores 30-60 points.

Bottom line, standardized tests work as intended; they act as a relatively unbiased tool to measure college readiness. They’re almost certainly the most objective measurement currently used for college admissions. Unfortunately, that does not allow colleges to balance the demographics of their classes as they wish, thus they’re being phased out.

SAT/ACT are not an unbiased tool. Free prep tools are not the same as those that cost $100+/hour (some way more than that). And average prepping raises scores much more than 30-60 points, unless you are already at a 1500. My own kid did 4 hours of 1 on 1 test prep and raised their score 150 points to a 1500. And all future tests and prep tests had them score within 20 points of 1500. But those initial 4 hours cost me $500. And my kid had to have the time to work for another 3-4 hours outside of those 4 hours. And we continued doing "prep tests" with 1-2 hours of review in between to ensure that kid was going to score well on the ultimate real SAT. That is not available to lower income students, or students who have to work 10-20 hr/week in HS to help support their families.

Btw, if my kid had wanted to, we could have paid for another 10-20 hours of intensive one-on-one test prep and likely gotten to 1550/1560. I am certain that is not an option for majority of college bound students (maybe the top 10%).

Rich people hire tutors and consultants to boost GPA and ECs
They send their kids to private schools which are more advantageous admitting to colleges.
What's the point???
SAT is actually one of the most fair things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when applying to UMD a candidate can send the SAT score (if that's good enough) or not. The acceptance criteria don't take into consideration that score at all, right? If that's the case, how do they decide who's academically fit? High School grades?

Maybe middle school.

They know what they need to see and have realized that kids who prep for a 4 hour test and do well are not the kids who do well over the course of 4 years. Add in a good essay and extra curriculars and suddenly the standardized tests don't mean much.

Look up information about Wake Forest and why they don't use it.

Please, they have known the whole time that SAT does not measure anything except how much families can pay for prep courses and therefore tuition. You all get that college admissions are actually not a meritocracy?

There is a ton research out there showing that SAT scores predict college success; most times better than HS grades. When the UC system looked into it they found that standardized tests were the single best predictor of college performance. When you add parental education as a variable, HHI becomes significantly less predictive of standardized test scores. In other words, HHI is an inexact proxy for parental education. Free high quality prep is easily available. Asians prep the most, but both Hispanics and AA prep more than whites do, and there are many studies that show that on average prepping only raises scores 30-60 points.

Bottom line, standardized tests work as intended; they act as a relatively unbiased tool to measure college readiness. They’re almost certainly the most objective measurement currently used for college admissions. Unfortunately, that does not allow colleges to balance the demographics of their classes as they wish, thus they’re being phased out.

Source? And please don't cite the college board or test prep organizations.

I found these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/
"Grade point averages are a much better predictor of success at college than standardized tests, according to new research."

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
"Students’ high-school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new study from the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research."

Feel free to read the UC report. This was a massive data set, covering all types of students/schools in the UC system.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Here's a study by University of Minnesota researchers (again, a huge data set, 150K students) showing that the SAT helped in predicting college success and wasn't substantially effected by SES

https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/the-role-of-socioeconomic-status-in-sat-grade-relationships-and-i

Here's another from the same researchers showing that the vast majority of the relationship between college performance and test scores was unrelated to SES.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19210051/

Here's a study that shows that test prep by different groups/ses levels. One of the key findings:
"Black non-Hispanic students are more likely to participate in test prep, and there are also significant interaction effects of race and grade level on prep, with black 11th graders having the highest predicted probability of prep."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01326.x


Grades are important obviously, but the data is clear that SAT/ACT scores are also important in determining who succeeds in college. MIT recently added test requirements back in because they were unable to select a class that would do as well at MIT without them.

And despite what you say, the UCs have completely eliminated SAT/ACT tests from the application process. If they were such good indicators, why would they do that?

Well, all the professors/researchers involved in the study recommended NOT eliminating the SAT/ACT tests for admissions, so my assumption is that the regents were politically motivated.

[RTB]

Anonymous wrote:Tests are stupid and useless only if your kid did poorly.

Not so. I did extremely well on the SAT, but always thought that testing for obscure words that were hardly ever used was just silly. Apparently the College Board agreed because they eventually dropped it. Tests are just tools created by people. I think a healthy skepticism towards standardized tests is a good thing, while recognizing that they can be one useful measure of college preparedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when applying to UMD a candidate can send the SAT score (if that's good enough) or not. The acceptance criteria don't take into consideration that score at all, right? If that's the case, how do they decide who's academically fit? High School grades?

Maybe middle school.

They know what they need to see and have realized that kids who prep for a 4 hour test and do well are not the kids who do well over the course of 4 years. Add in a good essay and extra curriculars and suddenly the standardized tests don't mean much.

Look up information about Wake Forest and why they don't use it.

Please, they have known the whole time that SAT does not measure anything except how much families can pay for prep courses and therefore tuition. You all get that college admissions are actually not a meritocracy?

There is a ton research out there showing that SAT scores predict college success; most times better than HS grades. When the UC system looked into it they found that standardized tests were the single best predictor of college performance. When you add parental education as a variable, HHI becomes significantly less predictive of standardized test scores. In other words, HHI is an inexact proxy for parental education. Free high quality prep is easily available. Asians prep the most, but both Hispanics and AA prep more than whites do, and there are many studies that show that on average prepping only raises scores 30-60 points.

Bottom line, standardized tests work as intended; they act as a relatively unbiased tool to measure college readiness. They’re almost certainly the most objective measurement currently used for college admissions. Unfortunately, that does not allow colleges to balance the demographics of their classes as they wish, thus they’re being phased out.

SAT/ACT are not an unbiased tool. Free prep tools are not the same as those that cost $100+/hour (some way more than that). And average prepping raises scores much more than 30-60 points, unless you are already at a 1500. My own kid did 4 hours of 1 on 1 test prep and raised their score 150 points to a 1500. And all future tests and prep tests had them score within 20 points of 1500. But those initial 4 hours cost me $500. And my kid had to have the time to work for another 3-4 hours outside of those 4 hours. And we continued doing "prep tests" with 1-2 hours of review in between to ensure that kid was going to score well on the ultimate real SAT. That is not available to lower income students, or students who have to work 10-20 hr/week in HS to help support their families.

Btw, if my kid had wanted to, we could have paid for another 10-20 hours of intensive one-on-one test prep and likely gotten to 1550/1560. I am certain that is not an option for majority of college bound students (maybe the top 10%).

Rich people hire tutors and consultants to boost GPA and ECs
They send their kids to private schools which are more advantageous admitting to colleges.
What's the point???
SAT is actually one of the most fair things.

I agree the emphasis on EC's is BS and discriminatory against low and middle-income students. You have low/middle-income students working part time jobs in high school instead of participating in $1k+ voluntourism trips in Africa or $1k+ per season sports.

Grades are different though, because students are actually being tested on material their teachers taught.

The AP tests are the fairest testing mechanism for academic achievement. I understand the ACT tries to test students on actual academic material rather than logic puzzles, but the scoring mechanism is terrible.

[Anonymous]

RTB wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tests are stupid and useless only if your kid did poorly.

Not so. I did extremely well on the SAT, but always thought that testing for obscure words that were hardly ever used was just silly. Apparently the College Board agreed because they eventually dropped it. Tests are just tools created by people. I think a healthy skepticism towards standardized tests is a good thing, while recognizing that they can be one useful measure of college preparedness.

Nobody said it shouldn't improve and evolve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when applying to UMD a candidate can send the SAT score (if that's good enough) or not. The acceptance criteria don't take into consideration that score at all, right? If that's the case, how do they decide who's academically fit? High School grades?

Maybe middle school.

They know what they need to see and have realized that kids who prep for a 4 hour test and do well are not the kids who do well over the course of 4 years. Add in a good essay and extra curriculars and suddenly the standardized tests don't mean much.

Look up information about Wake Forest and why they don't use it.

Please, they have known the whole time that SAT does not measure anything except how much families can pay for prep courses and therefore tuition. You all get that college admissions are actually not a meritocracy?

There is a ton research out there showing that SAT scores predict college success; most times better than HS grades. When the UC system looked into it they found that standardized tests were the single best predictor of college performance. When you add parental education as a variable, HHI becomes significantly less predictive of standardized test scores. In other words, HHI is an inexact proxy for parental education. Free high quality prep is easily available. Asians prep the most, but both Hispanics and AA prep more than whites do, and there are many studies that show that on average prepping only raises scores 30-60 points.

Bottom line, standardized tests work as intended; they act as a relatively unbiased tool to measure college readiness. They’re almost certainly the most objective measurement currently used for college admissions. Unfortunately, that does not allow colleges to balance the demographics of their classes as they wish, thus they’re being phased out.

Source? And please don't cite the college board or test prep organizations.

I found these:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/
"Grade point averages are a much better predictor of success at college than standardized tests, according to new research."

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
"Students’ high-school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new study from the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research."

Feel free to read the UC report. This was a massive data set, covering all types of students/schools in the UC system.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Here's a study by University of Minnesota researchers (again, a huge data set, 150K students) showing that the SAT helped in predicting college success and wasn't substantially effected by SES

https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/the-role-of-socioeconomic-status-in-sat-grade-relationships-and-i

Here's another from the same researchers showing that the vast majority of the relationship between college performance and test scores was unrelated to SES.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19210051/

Here's a study that shows that test prep by different groups/ses levels. One of the key findings:
"Black non-Hispanic students are more likely to participate in test prep, and there are also significant interaction effects of race and grade level on prep, with black 11th graders having the highest predicted probability of prep."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01326.x


Grades are important obviously, but the data is clear that SAT/ACT scores are also important in determining who succeeds in college. MIT recently added test requirements back in because they were unable to select a class that would do as well at MIT without them.

And despite what you say, the UCs have completely eliminated SAT/ACT tests from the application process. If they were such good indicators, why would they do that?

Household income drives SAT/ ACT scores.

But most colleges are already test optional, so there's that.