Why Caltech is now requiring test scores

[Anonymous]

This will be controversial. I think it is because, Caltech type institutions usually rely on math olympiad/AIME type tests to identify MALES who are ready for their schools. However, if you have ever seen the results of these tests, winners/ high scorers are predominantly male. Like, heavily skewed male. Someone should have the numbers-- I was more familiar when DC was doing these tests. I think if you make it to the USJMO or similar as a female, you are automatically considered for the Caltech, MIT, etc.

If you are not a high scoring female in those Olympiads, I think they need to see other indicators that you can handle the coursework. They have probably decided SAT/ACT scores would do this (I am guessing, a female Math score will have to be perfect or otherwise high considering socioeconomic factors).

It does not mean that someone with an 800 Math SAT score can handle higher level math. It just means, they are pretty good at math and combined with high level courses, can probably handle the work at a Caltech (in lieu of consideration of scores from higher level competitions).

I think this is how females and URM may be considered only because they don't seem to have the same level of training/interest in studying for USJMO level math. That does not mean that they cannot handle higher level math. So, schools are just looking for other indicators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m on the fence about reinstating SAT. I’m all for moving toward tests as GPA’s can vary widely based on school policies/retakes/ grade inflation and vary even among teachers within schools. However, college board is a racket. It’s a poorly constructed test and frankly any test that signing up for an expensive prep course can raise your score 200 is not an effective test. I wish the US had something similar to the British school model with A levels.

The faculty are missing the mark. Correlation does not mean causation. Test blind or optional occurred at the same time during the pandemic. The sophomores that are so deficient missed foundational upper level math skills spending half their freshman and sophomore years in virtual. They jumped into junior year after 2 years of basically self learning and then crammed to get good scores on their tests and AP exams.

To get into Cal Tech, kids need AP Calc BC, Physics etc. Don’t tell me that a kid who can get an A in those classes and a 4 or 5 on the AP wouldn’t have been able to prep for the SAT.

No, the faculty petition addresses that. They say the top students are still well prepared despite the pandemic; the increasing number of failing students is due to lack of skill as indicated by SAT Math score.

No, you don’t understand. Cal Tech is still very competitive. You aren’t getting in without As in AP Physics,, CALC BC, high AP scores, math and science competition winners. This is the floor not the ceiling! You can have all those things and still not get in. There is no way that any of those students wouldn’t score 700 on the SAT math section. Heck my humanities kid, has a 700 on math.

What is far more likely is that the high schools created gaps in foundational learning during the pandemic. The students who are struggling now likely wouldn’t be struggling prepandemic. The pandemic took a toll on this cohorts mental health, increasing anxiety and reducing executive function. These mental health struggles absolutely impact your performance in a rigorous problem and aren’t going to show up on the SAT.
It’s also possible that going test optional opened doors for some of the top kids at Ivy schools. The Cal Tech faculty are missing that others schools are after top talent too and have been growing their STEM programs.

I used to work in higher ed and the one thing that always amazed me was how a faculty member could be brilliant in their slice of a particular field but utter idiots the minute they switched lanes.

So covid only impacted the bottom quintile of kids? Huh? And I think the point the professors are making is that SATs in fact do predict better than APs and grades. That’s the whole point. The difference between a grind with tutors and a naturally gifted student shows on the SAT but not grades/APs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be controversial. I think it is because, Caltech type institutions usually rely on math olympiad/AIME type tests to identify MALES who are ready for their schools. However, if you have ever seen the results of these tests, winners/ high scorers are predominantly male. Like, heavily skewed male. Someone should have the numbers-- I was more familiar when DC was doing these tests. I think if you make it to the USJMO or similar as a female, you are automatically considered for the Caltech, MIT, etc.

If you are not a high scoring female in those Olympiads, I think they need to see other indicators that you can handle the coursework. They have probably decided SAT/ACT scores would do this (I am guessing, a female Math score will have to be perfect or otherwise high considering socioeconomic factors).

It does not mean that someone with an 800 Math SAT score can handle higher level math. It just means, they are pretty good at math and combined with high level courses, can probably handle the work at a Caltech (in lieu of consideration of scores from higher level competitions).

I think this is how females and URM may be considered only because they don't seem to have the same level of training/interest in studying for USJMO level math. That does not mean that they cannot handle higher level math. So, schools are just looking for other indicators.

Caltech used to have abysmal graduation rates when they required SAT back in the day. I’m sure they’ve improved it, because us news and all, but a lot of these colleges (looking at uchicago) are just plain miserable and difficult places filled with research egos who act as “teachers.”
I say this as an alum who really found my time there disdainful, and the red flag triggered for me when the professor states essentially that the students need to be cream of the crop and that they don’t create scientists-sure Caltech, tell that to literally every other college in the country omg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m on the fence about reinstating SAT. I’m all for moving toward tests as GPA’s can vary widely based on school policies/retakes/ grade inflation and vary even among teachers within schools. However, college board is a racket. It’s a poorly constructed test and frankly any test that signing up for an expensive prep course can raise your score 200 is not an effective test. I wish the US had something similar to the British school model with A levels.

The faculty are missing the mark. Correlation does not mean causation. Test blind or optional occurred at the same time during the pandemic. The sophomores that are so deficient missed foundational upper level math skills spending half their freshman and sophomore years in virtual. They jumped into junior year after 2 years of basically self learning and then crammed to get good scores on their tests and AP exams.

To get into Cal Tech, kids need AP Calc BC, Physics etc. Don’t tell me that a kid who can get an A in those classes and a 4 or 5 on the AP wouldn’t have been able to prep for the SAT.

No, the faculty petition addresses that. They say the top students are still well prepared despite the pandemic; the increasing number of failing students is due to lack of skill as indicated by SAT Math score.

No, you don’t understand. Cal Tech is still very competitive. You aren’t getting in without As in AP Physics,, CALC BC, high AP scores, math and science competition winners. This is the floor not the ceiling! You can have all those things and still not get in. There is no way that any of those students wouldn’t score 700 on the SAT math section. Heck my humanities kid, has a 700 on math.

What is far more likely is that the high schools created gaps in foundational learning during the pandemic. The students who are struggling now likely wouldn’t be struggling prepandemic. The pandemic took a toll on this cohorts mental health, increasing anxiety and reducing executive function. These mental health struggles absolutely impact your performance in a rigorous problem and aren’t going to show up on the SAT.
It’s also possible that going test optional opened doors for some of the top kids at Ivy schools. The Cal Tech faculty are missing that others schools are after top talent too and have been growing their STEM programs.

I used to work in higher ed and the one thing that always amazed me was how a faculty member could be brilliant in their slice of a particular field but utter idiots the minute they switched lanes.

So covid only impacted the bottom quintile of kids? Huh? And I think the point the professors are making is that SATs in fact do predict better than APs and grades. That’s the whole point. The difference between a grind with tutors and a naturally gifted student shows on the SAT but not grades/APs.

In what way? I’ve known many academic slouches do well in the SAT. They weren’t bright or anything, just took precal later than everyone else so it was on the top of their mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

caltech, along with all T10s, IS trying to provide equity with acceptance policies, finding "diamonds in the rough" so to speak. There are kids like this, brilliant yet in a disadvantaged school and no ability to try the hard APs the top high schools have. it is just that SAT scores help find these kids and test blind was hindrance, like MIT, caltech, dartmouth...and on and on have said.

I agree that that’s what they say they’re trying to do, but in practice it’s really which Exeter/Groton full scholarship kid can we attract. Almost every top college does this- it’s the same issue when people noticed that Affirmative Action was just rich black and brown students from elite schools.

[Anonymous]

putnam compeition issue is clearly different from test optional. it makes sense that test optional lets too many average/poor performers in.

as for putnam, that's a separate issue. personally i would pick MIT over caltech because of location, size and reputation (better known internationally). i know some IMO kids abroad and several of them are gunning for MIT; also harvard, princeton (and cambridge). nobody ever mentioned caltech.

[Anonymous]

Cal Tech was not test optional, it was test blind. That is a significant difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:putnam compeition issue is clearly different from test optional. it makes sense that test optional lets too many average/poor performers in.

as for putnam, that's a separate issue. personally i would pick MIT over caltech because of location, size and reputation (better known internationally). i know some IMO kids abroad and several of them are gunning for MIT; also harvard, princeton (and cambridge). nobody ever mentioned caltech.

Caltech is an outlier…way more kids apply to MIT plus Ivy or Stanford than MIT and Caltech.

[Anonymous]

Schools have learned that you need some way to distinguish between the kids who earned their 4.5+ GPA and those that got the equity grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools have learned that you need some way to distinguish between the kids who earned their 4.5+ GPA and those that got the equity grade.

Can you dog whistle any harder? The US has had ridiculous grade inflation for decades.

[Anonymous]

Even back in 2020, the C calculus students performed far better in circuits class than the A students!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Even back in 2020, the C calculus students performed far better in circuits class than the A students!

I don’t know if you remember 2020, but the kids were all cheating then lmao

[Anonymous]

I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

For reals, it’s such shallow analysis too, but people here are eating it up because PhD follows the name. If a DCUM brought this same point up with the same graphs, people would mock her.

Then you have the equity warriors gaslighting the rest that Caltech gives half a rats butt about underprivileged students and that their test required policy won’t just reshuffle a few students around and kick out quite a few women from the pool. I also love that there’s no proof that these Caltech students at the bottom of the class are even test optional, just a fun assumption- cause that’s good statistics! Jesus, no wonder they can’t get a Putnam win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

For reals, it’s such shallow analysis too, but people here are eating it up because PhD follows the name. If a DCUM brought this same point up with the same graphs, people would mock her.

Then you have the equity warriors gaslighting the rest that Caltech gives half a rats butt about underprivileged students and that their test required policy won’t just reshuffle a few students around and kick out quite a few women from the pool. I also love that there’s no proof that these Caltech students at the bottom of the class are even test optional, just a fun assumption- cause that’s good statistics! Jesus, no wonder they can’t get a Putnam win.

It makes it hard to take you seriously when you still aren’t aware that CalTech was test blind for kids that entered in 2022. No one submitted test scores.