The Misguided War on the SAT

[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.

No.

TO is signaling that standardized testing is no longer high-stakes in nature for college admissions. And that's OK.

[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.

No.

Test optional is a way to give spots to mediocre and middling upper middle class kids while passing over smart poor and minority kids.

[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.

I’m anti-TO, but that’s just dumb. No one made your daughter hide her strong score. You can’t blame her purposefully making her application weaker for any disappointing results. And it was her decision, not one that “we” agonized over.

[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.

Your DD did "really well " on the SAT but chose NOT to submit under....wait for it....test OPTIONAL

That's on you.

Using TO and implicitly criticizing TO simultaneously.

Nice.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

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

It is though.

[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.

Hard to guess why one wouldn't submit a strong score, even if it's on the low end for the school. Sorry to be critical of this decision-making, but personally, I think that's a mistake. Submit and then let the chips fall, rather than let the college assume the score was worse.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

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

It is though.

+1. I was amazed that the article said the quiet part out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, the tide seems to be turning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes.

The entire point of the SAT was to move beyond all the advantages that wealthy families have. It allowed smart but otherwise disadvantaged students to show their chops.

TO works for the rich and hurts everyone else. It creates even more stress for middle class families. It's one more thing to game. Spend the money on tutors to bump up a 1360 to a 1510. Don't have the money, well too bad. Your middle class student is shut out of the top 40 schools. But the ones who have the money are fine. As are the hooked who don't have to submit.

It's not a good system. It's inequitable. A lot of real talent is shut out. And privileged mediocrity - whether wealthy or DEI or athletes - get the spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hard to guess why one wouldn't submit a strong score, even if it's on the low end for the school. Sorry to be critical of this decision-making, but personally, I think that's a mistake. Submit and then let the chips fall, rather than let the college assume the score was worse.

Because the average scores are so high now that you need a near perfect score to submit.

Of course we cannot know for sure, but TO colleges say they do not assume the scores were worse if not submitted. Thats what makes TO so wrong to me, it’s a guessing game now. A game that most SES and URM will not know how to play and this TO ends up hurting them rather than helping.

[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.

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

Those schools aren’t going bankrupt. That means they’re hitting their targets for full-pay students even while being nominally need-blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, the tide seems to be turning.

Let us hope that the momentum for common sense continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m anti-TO, but that’s just dumb. No one made your daughter hide her strong score. You can’t blame her purposefully making her application weaker for any disappointing results. And it was her decision, not one that “we” agonized over.

But bear in mind -- some kids get bad advice from their counselors. Some panic when they see those reportered "averages" of 1480. etc. And some get their ideas from their peers, who might be having their own misinformed meltdowns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes.

The entire point of the SAT was to move beyond all the advantages that wealthy families have. It allowed smart but otherwise disadvantaged students to show their chops.

TO works for the rich and hurts everyone else. It creates even more stress for middle class families. It's one more thing to game. Spend the money on tutors to bump up a 1360 to a 1510. Don't have the money, well too bad. Your middle class student is shut out of the top 40 schools. But the ones who have the money are fine. As are the hooked who don't have to submit.

It's not a good system. It's inequitable. A lot of real talent is shut out. And privileged mediocrity - whether wealthy or DEI or athletes - get the spots.

You guys missed the major point—-lower scores by low income URM are ok to submit and if they do mediocre they say the kid has potential. They don’t expect them to have top scores. It says that right in the article. It says it actually helps them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, the tide seems to be turning.

Let us hope that the momentum for common sense continues.

+100

I fear it’s too late for my Senior, but I think it will be an entirely different game for my sophomore. That’s usually how it goes in our household- the younger one always gets lucky. The older one will get the notoriously awful teacher, have standards change and the younger one always has things go his way.