Colleges should require scores if test is taken

[Anonymous]

These posts of what others SHOULD do is so pointless. If the OP has such strong convictions, call college’s admission office or write to your congressman. Why post here-we have no authority.

[Anonymous]

IME people who complain about “social engineering” actually mean they’re upset forces out of their control are disrupting the social circumstances they themselves have been desperately trying to control — and a social order to which they feel entitled.

It would be one thing is they were an aptitude test. They are not. They are an achievement test, which is a misnomer since there is no national curriculum like, say, the UK’s A levels.

[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.

Your summaries severely distort the report. They recommended keeping scores because the admissions office was renorming scores by cohort. It wasn’t using a single yardstick as an arbitrary cutoff. So, regarding your utopian ideal of everyone scoring at or higher than what your kid scored getting admitted that’s not what the study says should happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IME people who complain about “social engineering” actually mean they’re upset forces out of their control are disrupting the social circumstances they themselves have been desperately trying to control — and a social order to which they feel entitled.

It would be one thing is they were an aptitude test. They are not. They are an achievement test, which is a misnomer since there is no national curriculum like, say, the UK’s A levels.

This. 1000%. OP doesn’t like that others who are different from their kid might get a place at a school OP feels entitled to.

[Anonymous]

From another thread.

Oh why won’t admissions offices who have been doing this for years and seen more applicant files in a day then I’ve seen in my life adopt a practice I pulled out of my ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your summaries severely distort the report. They recommended keeping scores because the admissions office was renorming scores by cohort. It wasn’t using a single yardstick as an arbitrary cutoff. So, regarding your utopian ideal of everyone scoring at or higher than what your kid scored getting admitted that’s not what the study says should happen.

No, my summary is accurate. I have no idea where the strawman argument you put up came from. I'm not saying there should be some threshold that's set at "my kids" score. What I actually said was: "A better predictor is obviously standardized test scores along with grades.". There's one side that wants to throw out data points that have consistently been shown to predict some level of success in college; the other side is simply arguing that all predictive data should be used.

From the report: "Analyses of the relationship between standardized tests and college success show that standardized tests add value to the prediction of college outcomes beyond HSGPA alone."

I think table 6 illustrates this the best: https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/sat-act-study-report.pdf

For kids in the top 4.23-4.61 bucket (I.e. excellent HS grades) the 4 year graduation rate is 57% in the lowest SAT band and 83% in the highest SAT band. And this doesn't even take into account the majors the kids are in. Why on earth would anybody who honestly was trying to assess kids for college readiness throw out standardized test scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your summaries severely distort the report. They recommended keeping scores because the admissions office was renorming scores by cohort. It wasn’t using a single yardstick as an arbitrary cutoff. So, regarding your utopian ideal of everyone scoring at or higher than what your kid scored getting admitted that’s not what the study says should happen.

No, my summary is accurate. I have no idea where the strawman argument you put up came from. I'm not saying there should be some threshold that's set at "my kids" score. What I actually said was: "A better predictor is obviously standardized test scores along with grades.". There's one side that wants to throw out data points that have consistently been shown to predict some level of success in college; the other side is simply arguing that all predictive data should be used.

From the report: "Analyses of the relationship between standardized tests and college success show that standardized tests add value to the prediction of college outcomes beyond HSGPA alone."

I think table 6 illustrates this the best: https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/sat-act-study-report.pdf

For kids in the top 4.23-4.61 bucket (I.e. excellent HS grades) the 4 year graduation rate is 57% in the lowest SAT band and 83% in the highest SAT band. And this doesn't even take into account the majors the kids are in. Why on earth would anybody who honestly was trying to assess kids for college readiness throw out standardized test scores?

The report you cited (which is just a summary of the actual report that I read) doesn’t even agree with you.

It just says it adds value. HSGPA is a better predictor of first year retention, graduation rate and graduation GPA. It is equal to test scores for first year GPA.

The main takeaway is that they are moderate predictors of GPA and weak predictors of student retention and graduation. So it’s better but it’s like saying you are the best C student in your class.

The other point is that the report is aimed at using standardized test scores not for admissions but primarily to identify students who may need academic support.

Suffice to say this thread is only about people wanting a system they think will benefit their kids in college admissions so it’s disingenuous to use this report to support those assertions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your summaries severely distort the report. They recommended keeping scores because the admissions office was renorming scores by cohort. It wasn’t using a single yardstick as an arbitrary cutoff. So, regarding your utopian ideal of everyone scoring at or higher than what your kid scored getting admitted that’s not what the study says should happen.

No, my summary is accurate. I have no idea where the strawman argument you put up came from. I'm not saying there should be some threshold that's set at "my kids" score. What I actually said was: "A better predictor is obviously standardized test scores along with grades.". There's one side that wants to throw out data points that have consistently been shown to predict some level of success in college; the other side is simply arguing that all predictive data should be used.

From the report: "Analyses of the relationship between standardized tests and college success show that standardized tests add value to the prediction of college outcomes beyond HSGPA alone."

I think table 6 illustrates this the best: https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/sat-act-study-report.pdf

For kids in the top 4.23-4.61 bucket (I.e. excellent HS grades) the 4 year graduation rate is 57% in the lowest SAT band and 83% in the highest SAT band. And this doesn't even take into account the majors the kids are in. Why on earth would anybody who honestly was trying to assess kids for college readiness throw out standardized test scores?

The report you cited (which is just a summary of the actual report that I read) doesn’t even agree with you.

It just says it adds value. HSGPA is a better predictor of first year retention, graduation rate and graduation GPA. It is equal to test scores for first year GPA.

The main takeaway is that they are moderate predictors of GPA and weak predictors of student retention and graduation. So it’s better but it’s like saying you are the best C student in your class.

The other point is that the report is aimed at using standardized test scores not for admissions but primarily to identify students who may need academic support.

Suffice to say this thread is only about people wanting a system they think will benefit their kids in college admissions so it’s disingenuous to use this report to support those assertions.

And opposition to the proposal from people wanting to preserve the status quo because it already benefits their kids in college admissions.

[Anonymous]

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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

[Anonymous]

The end result is that kids would not take the test.

[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?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

[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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

[Anonymous]

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).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

Whoa - didn’t realize the SAT was that important. Saving our species indeed.

[Anonymous]

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).

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?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The end result is that kids would not take the test.

And James Madison, George Mason, and Radford are fine schools for those kids.