The Misguided War on the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

And on the flip side if this, instead of those high-potential disadvantaged kids, super-polished affluent kids who have all the bells and whistles on their application, but aren’t actually that bright or ready for rigorous elite college work, are slipping through with TO.

It's complex, but THIS is one of the things I worry about in terms of equity and fairness. One of the major arguments about the SAT was that it is a reflection of opportunity, more than it is an indicator of potential. That's a good point. But in isolating the SAT to throw out (or make optional), we're ignoring that all of the OTHER indicators of merit/readiness/specialness are likely JUST as loaded with opportunity. I'm noticing now that admissions care a lot more about extra curriculars. And I'm watching my upper middle class friends figure out how to get their kids into the right balance of activities, pay for them, drive them there, etc. I just find it disingenuous to act like this is LESS biased and loaded with opportunity.

That being said, I like test optional because students CAN use that SAT as one way to demonstrate readiness, but they don't have to use the SAT. That feels to me like it leaves more paths open.

Yeah, I think ECs should be the least important factor, but it seems like colleges are making them more and more important. Which is absolutely inequitable.

This x1000!!! It’s performative and probably more often than not, absolutely not an indicator of the students’ character, but instead, they’re racking up a resume that looks good to the outside. Not for my kid. I want my child to succeed by being himself.

That said, if ambitious pursuits are reflected in self directed achievements, then more power to the student. That’s awesome. But doing study abroad charity work with the goal to pass your resume, that’s just disingenuous. Blech

Yeah, like good for the students who do interesting things with their time outside of school— that should probably be considered by admissions officers. It just sucks for the kids who have to work a minimum wage job or watch little siblings instead, and who don’t have the leisure time (and neither does their single parent) to pursue travel squash or debate.

The kids with the minimum wage jobs or watching siblings are golden these days, assuming they re pell eligible, urm or first gen. It’s the kids in the middle (neither itch nor poor) who are losing oit on the current system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous that we have to expend energy, time and resources to go back to what we always historically did, because a group of progressive radicals in education shouted enough about some ridiculous theory that went against common sense, but somehow had enough support to get implemented.

Why do educational institutions cater to the loudest, dumbest most unproven voices?

Because test optional allows a school to admit a full-pay student with a 1200 over a middle class student with a 1350, while flattering the full-pay family by maintaining that admissions are based on merit.

Colleges have always had the power and flexibility to admit students with a wide range of test scores above and below their average. I know this because when I was a college applicant 20 years ago, my SAT score was below the average and I still was admitted.

TO is much more about signaling that you are willing to make life easier for students because we’ve all decided as a society that life is too hard and unfair for them so we lower or remove expectations and standards left and right in an attempt to appear or seem modern and progressive.

Things changed because U.S. news started using test scores as a ranking criteria. Colleges would solve many of their problems by just opting out of the useless rating system as top grad schools hav.e

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

Oh there you go again...
But no, I disagree. Precise score DOES matter in some situations. For example, majors such as engineering, the colleges will want to see a high score in math/science. If they get a 36 on the English and Reading sections, but a relatively low score in math, the colleges should know that. Only giving a "range" of the composite score won't tell the admissions office what they need to know.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Using your example, they could of course say “we need to see a 1400 AND at least a 750 in math” or whatever. But splitting hairs between a 770 and 790 is nonsense. So, MIT could just ask TCB to report whether, both, one, or none of the conditions are met. They can still admit whomever they want if they think the SAT doesn’t reflect true ability. Maybe the math competition champ had a bad SAT day or didn’t like the format.

Nothing obtuse about it. "We want to see a range of 25-36 ACT" and the student that got 19 Math, 17 Science, but 36 on English and reading gets admitted to the honors Engineering program.

They essentially already used to do this; there was a general, rule of thumb threshold at most competitive schools (over 700 in each for example). It is not ironclad; they may take a few under it for good reason. But above a given number, they are NOT using scores to choose between students. Test optional has made this more challenging though, because now it is all about cultivate a set of reported numbers that creates a false impression of the class as a whole. I mean, the reality that you will comfortably report a 1480 to Georgetown, but hesitate to submit the same to a less prestigious school that wants to up their stats is ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous that we have to expend energy, time and resources to go back to what we always historically did, because a group of progressive radicals in education shouted enough about some ridiculous theory that went against common sense, but somehow had enough support to get implemented.

Why do educational institutions cater to the loudest, dumbest most unproven voices?

Because test optional allows a school to admit a full-pay student with a 1200 over a middle class student with a 1350, while flattering the full-pay family by maintaining that admissions are based on merit.

Not if they are a need-blind school, which many of the test optional schools are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is other excellent research that questions the ability if test scores to determine acumen or college success. TO is a good approach -- consider test scores if you want to submit. So, that rural kid w/unknown school can use that as part of their portfolio.

So tired of people trying to make this a thing again and again. If you invested in enrichment to yield high scores and expect that to mean more than it does (looking at you, mag parents who have kids submit SAT and ACT), that's on you. How about you focus on helping your kid present the best portfolio they can.

My 2c..

- Rich people whose kids didn't do well in the SAT are against testing, but couch their opposition as them supporting equity. Like cheap-asses not spending money on a water bottle because 'its against the environment'.
- Rich people whose kids do well in the SAT are for testing and so are most Asians (regardless of SES)
- All other don't have time to come here and share their opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous that we have to expend energy, time and resources to go back to what we always historically did, because a group of progressive radicals in education shouted enough about some ridiculous theory that went against common sense, but somehow had enough support to get implemented.

Why do educational institutions cater to the loudest, dumbest most unproven voices?

Because, as mentioned in the article, colleges tend to be full of ultra liberal people who are just as bad as ultra conservatives at throwing out evidence that does not support their goals

[Anonymous]

^ nah.

Any parent with a kid that does exceptionally well on testing is pro-test, not just the rich.

And it will depend on kid too. I’m very pro-test currently because of my Senior’s very high ACT scores.

If my next kid bombs SAT/ACT I will change my stance. Lol!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous that we have to expend energy, time and resources to go back to what we always historically did, because a group of progressive radicals in education shouted enough about some ridiculous theory that went against common sense, but somehow had enough support to get implemented.

Why do educational institutions cater to the loudest, dumbest most unproven voices?

Because, as mentioned in the article, colleges tend to be full of ultra liberal people who are just as bad as ultra conservatives at throwing out evidence that does not support their goals

The evidence of SAT being a better predictor than GPA is new--prior evidence found GPA + course rigor to be a much better predictor. But grade inflation and expansion of AP to include less rigorous courses have changed the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One might wonder if the very fact of this article appearing in the NYT today is an indication of a move back toward tests, whether required or at least recommended rather than "optional."

+1 this is the first common sense I've seen on this topic in a very long time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores. Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated. Source: UC system and Purdue research.

My annoyance is that my DD studied hard and did really well on the SAT - similar to her sisters that got into top 20 schools. But, we went TO b/c the scores that are now reported are much higher as no one is reporting. We agonized over this decision. She lost a valuable side to her application. And, I think every year scores will continue to go up as those on the 25-50% will no longer report. Just a horrible decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores. Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated. Source: UC system and Purdue research.

My annoyance is that my DD studied hard and did really well on the SAT - similar to her sisters that got into top 20 schools. But, we went TO b/c the scores that are now reported are much higher as no one is reporting. We agonized over this decision. She lost a valuable side to her application. And, I think every year scores will continue to go up as those on the 25-50% will no longer report. Just a horrible decision.

We reported an 1140 that was made up of a very high verbal and a very low math score. Why? One, I wanted colleges to get an idea of what kind of student they'd be getting, and two, I figured that any college that excluded because of that low math score wasn't a place I'd want to pay.

You have the option of playing stupid games to get overinflated prizes... or not. In our case, the acceptances are rolling in, so it seems to have worked.

[Anonymous]

An addendum: One of the schools we applied to has 10% of students reporting their sat scores. Ten percent, a number so low it's meaningless.

We haven't heard from them yet. I admit I'm curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

+1

Some are trying to politicize TO like it's the academic CRT or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why this was deleted. Maybe because I pasted the particle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/briefing/the-misguided-war-on-the-sat.html

When I have asked university administrators whether they were aware of the research showing the value of test scores, they have generally said they were. But several told me, not for quotation, that they feared the political reaction on their campuses and in the media if they reinstated tests. “It’s not politically correct,” Charles Deacon, the longtime admissions dean at Georgetown University, which does require test scores, has told the journalist Jeffrey Selingo.

MIT
Without test scores, Schmill explained, admissions officers were left with two unappealing options. They would have to guess which students were likely to do well at M.I.T. — and almost certainly guess wrong sometimes, rejecting qualified applicants while admitting weaker ones. Or M.I.T. would need to reject more students from less advantaged high schools and admit more from the private schools and advantaged public schools that have a strong record of producing well-qualified students.

“Once we brought the test requirement back, we admitted the most diverse class that we ever had in our history,” Schmill told me. “Having test scores was helpful.”

I 100% agree that omitting the SAt and going test optional hurts smart poor and minority kids and helps mediocre rich kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article backs up what I’ve long thought. I attended low quality public schools in a rural area, and the quality of instruction was so low I could barely bother to pay attention and spent most of my classes reading, which I loved doing. As such I had very good but not perfect grades but a really strong SAT score. Got in pretty much everywhere I applied and live in different circumstances today. Kids I knew with better grades but weaker scores back then haven’t done as well. I do think a strong score from an under resourced area means something.

Yes!!