Columbia University becomes first Ivy League institution to go permanently test-optional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

I have a very similar story. My LSAT was low, yet I graduated Summa Cum Laude. I had no idea how to prepare, my parents were not involved at all (and were not paying), and I had not gone to a school that had any sort of pre-law counseling or many students applying to law school. I was so underestimated going into law school, but proved everyone wrong. My kids had the advantage of prep and better schools.

Both of you are failing to point out the one thing you both have in common that allow you to move to the top. You are both WHITE. No one is taking a chance on a black guy from PG county.... You are probably the lowest of the whites but guess what, you still have the upper hand because you are white.

[Anonymous]

Ultimately, I think we see schools move back to testing once the college board perfects the next generation test (already in the work#), coupled to an end of super scoring

No. The new digital SAT will be shorter and allow students to take the test, and then only retake specific sections on future tests. Given this feature and the reduction in time to take the test, it will encourage kids to continue to take multiple tests and super score. This generates more revenue for the College Board and test prep companies and pushes test scores higher, for the schools (for the kids that have the time and money).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ultimately, I think we see schools move back to testing once the college board perfects the next generation test (already in the work#), coupled to an end of super scoring

No. The new digital SAT will be shorter and allow students to take the test, and then only retake specific sections on future tests. Given this feature and the reduction in time to take the test, it will encourage kids to continue to take multiple tests and super score. This generates more revenue for the College Board and test prep companies and pushes test scores higher, for the schools (for the kids that have the time and money).

Whether or not to accept super scores is entirely at the discretion of the schools, not the college board.

[Anonymous]

NP. Ivy athletics is about to become even more international than it already is, and probably a lot more dominant.

No more path to the Ivies through athletics for most regular HS seniors who are also athletes.

[Anonymous]

Whether or not to accept super scores is entirely at the discretion of the schools, not the college board.

Sure, but 95% of schools accept super scores. It's a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per the report above, in Michigan in 2022, 3 pct of African Americans broke 1200, 19 pct of whites did and 47 pct of Asians did. Sorry, it’s just reality. Now you can argue it’s because of racism (America is systematically Asian supremacist I guess) but the issue at hand is that blacks and Hispanics do consistently underperform on standardized tests and not slightly. It’s enormous.

All this report proves is that less economically privileged communities underperform compared to more affluent groups. Also in Michigan in 2022, the median income for black families was $41,570; for white families, $70,144; and for Asian families, $96,741. Wealthy kids do better on the SAT, and wealthy kids go to top universities. As reported in the New York Times in 2017, more students at 38 colleges -- including five in the Ivy League -- came from families in the top one percent of the income scale than from the entire bottom sixty percent.

https://www.micalhoun.org/index.php?module=DemographicData&controller=index&action=index

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

I have a very similar story. My LSAT was low, yet I graduated Summa Cum Laude. I had no idea how to prepare, my parents were not involved at all (and were not paying), and I had not gone to a school that had any sort of pre-law counseling or many students applying to law school. I was so underestimated going into law school, but proved everyone wrong. My kids had the advantage of prep and better schools.

Both of you are failing to point out the one thing you both have in common that allow you to move to the top. You are both WHITE. No one is taking a chance on a black guy from PG county.... You are probably the lowest of the whites but guess what, you still have the upper hand because you are white.

I am one of the above. I agree. My point was the test do not predict success. I agree that a POC may not have been accepted with the same stats I had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the report above, in Michigan in 2022, 3 pct of African Americans broke 1200, 19 pct of whites did and 47 pct of Asians did. Sorry, it’s just reality. Now you can argue it’s because of racism (America is systematically Asian supremacist I guess) but the issue at hand is that blacks and Hispanics do consistently underperform on standardized tests and not slightly. It’s enormous.

All this report proves is that less economically privileged communities underperform compared to more affluent groups. Also in Michigan in 2022, the median income for black families was $41,570; for white families, $70,144; and for Asian families, $96,741. Wealthy kids do better on the SAT, and wealthy kids go to top universities. As reported in the New York Times in 2017, more students at 38 colleges -- including five in the Ivy League -- came from families in the top one percent of the income scale than from the entire bottom sixty percent.

https://www.micalhoun.org/index.php?module=DemographicData&controller=index&action=index

Ok, so you believe Asian outperformance is a function of household income, fine. I guess a related question is why is Asian household income higher? But the debate here is whether or not blacks and Hispanics underperform whites and Asians in standardized tests. And empirically they do. By a lot. Whatever the reason. Hence standardized testing creates a problem for admissions officers in the context of racial preferences becoming explicitly disallowed. Hence, test optional.

[Anonymous]

Make it test blind or test required - nowadays every good school has a crazy high 25th-75th percentile range because only the best submit scores. Kids with a 31 at schools like UofM and UVA used to have a chance in-state. Not anymore since they’re a lower percentile but probably much higher than other test optionals.

[Anonymous]

I think it's problematic. No test scores needed....

and firing profs because their STEM class is just too hard and it's not fair (didn't that happen at NYU?)...

Is that what we are talking about when we say 'oh don't worry, these kids will be successful'? Just lower the standards and remove any impediment in their path?

I'm concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

I have a very similar story. My LSAT was low, yet I graduated Summa Cum Laude. I had no idea how to prepare, my parents were not involved at all (and were not paying), and I had not gone to a school that had any sort of pre-law counseling or many students applying to law school. I was so underestimated going into law school, but proved everyone wrong. My kids had the advantage of prep and better schools.

Both of you are failing to point out the one thing you both have in common that allow you to move to the top. You are both WHITE. No one is taking a chance on a black guy from PG county.... You are probably the lowest of the whites but guess what, you still have the upper hand because you are white.

Absolutely being white was instrumental in my being able to move to the top of my profession. It didn't make it easier for me to get top grades in law school though.

[Anonymous]

It’s well known that Columbia is full of weirdos for the last 15 years, this will just accelerate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essay optional is on the way. Between paid essay coaches and AI, there are too many equity issues, etc, and it will no longer be an indicator of a top applicant. If schools want writing samples, they will need to get them during timed standardized test situations.

Interviews may become mandatory. And at that point the interviewer can note "I don't like this kids attitude" and its game over -again.

They have time to interview the 50k-65k students that apply each year?

[Anonymous]

It’s hard to be a poor white kid because they’re typically in rural areas.

[Anonymous]

I am so torn about this. We are a UMC family in McLean, my kids will have college consultants and test prep starting 9th grade, I will throw best resources behind my kids because they have no HOOKS, so in a way money and hard work/grind is all we have. However, DH and I belong to MC stable families and went to top schools (no hooks). Sure, we were driven, motivated, worked really hard (although had no crazy resources like my kids) but back in the day competition was not as crazy, DH was full scholarship (UG and Grad) at UOI - Urbana Champaign.

Education changed our family trajectory from MC to UMC/Wealthy, my kids are working hard no doubt but they also have every resource and help they can dream of. My son is an exceptional student, who will make something truly good out of his life regardless of which college he attends (but we are not taking a chance), my daughter is an above average/solid student who is receiving help from best tutors to prop her to top 5% in her class. So many around us in McLean are doing the same. However, poor kids don't even have a fraction of these resources.

I strongly feel that poor kids should be given a preference over my kid, it will hurt but you know what every family deserves a chance to put them on a track to MC/UMC trajectory We got our chance, sure we got them based on merit but the world has changed in last 25-30 yrs. If families similar to mine keep on hoarding the opportunity, that will not be morally and ethically right.

I do not support preference to Black and Hispanic kids from wealthy families. I fully support preference to poor kids whether they are White, Asian, Brown or Black.

* Although, my heart truly goes out to true middle class White and Asian parents who don't have the wealth for prep and consultation and they don't have the FARMS and URM hooks either. My parents were in the same category 25 yrs back but competition was much sane.