Stanford - test required announcement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, all the elite universities should admit at least 50% of their students from URM to compensate historical injustices, especially STEM majors. Until 25% of all STEM Nobel prizes go to URMs.

I hate when people put stupid, never gonna happen scenarios into threads where a serious conversation is going on. Let the adults talk and stop,trolling.

Mr. Ibram X. Kendi has many policy proposals that will never materialize because of the existence of racism everywhere, but this does not make Mr. Kandi a troll or stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certain schools will undoubtedly bring back standardized testing requirements but plenty of other colleges will remain test optional or test blind.

Dummies need somewhere to go.

Lower ranked schools are fearful of getting enough students so will remain TO.

There will be a chasm. Elite schools aren’t going to let other schools report higher test score averages when they are using only 25% of total accepted to achieve those averages and the elites are using 100% of students.[b]

This. Hopkins is going to sink. You can’t have fewer students TO submitting scores and use it against a 100% test required school. Elites are falling like Dominoes.

The elites have been doing fine. With all this data, no one has shown any significant changes in yield. The TO kids are still smart students, they are graduating fine, and the elite schools are still elite. The only people struggling from TO are admissions departments.

Literally every school that went test optional due to COVID has said the opposite but ok, stay in denial.

+1. and the most recent studies have shown that test optional was a failure, which is shy school after school is droping it

Love to see the raw data on these “studies.” Many reasons TO is being dropped; the press release version you give is one of many. Another is the increasing use of AI to cull applicants. You think these schools don’t already have big data on zip codes and low-performing schools and they need test scores to find talented applicants? Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certain schools will undoubtedly bring back standardized testing requirements but plenty of other colleges will remain test optional or test blind.

Dummies need somewhere to go.

Lower ranked schools are fearful of getting enough students so will remain TO.

There will be a chasm. Elite schools aren’t going to let other schools report higher test score averages when they are using only 25% of total accepted to achieve those averages and the elites are using 100% of students.[b]

This. Hopkins is going to sink. You can’t have fewer students TO submitting scores and use it against a 100% test required school. Elites are falling like Dominoes.

The elites have been doing fine. With all this data, no one has shown any significant changes in yield. The TO kids are still smart students, they are graduating fine, and the elite schools are still elite. The only people struggling from TO are admissions departments.

Literally every school that went test optional due to COVID has said the opposite but ok, stay in denial.

+1. and the most recent studies have shown that test optional was a failure, which is shy school after school is droping it

Every study, and yet the only change has been yield rates. The ivies have no graduation crisis currently. Clearly, it is just too much work for the admissions departments to differentiate through applications, so they need another filter. For decades, they've admitted they can hit a randomize button and build a perfectly fine class. It's an overblown admissions problem, not a student one.

What are you even blathering on about?! The UT - Austin study already blew your position sky high, FFS. There was nearly a - 0.75 grade point difference between the enrolled students who had applied TO vs. the ones who had applied with test scores. Persisting with the TO or test blind evangelism at this point is insanity.

It was actually worse than that:

"Of 9,217 first-year students enrolled in 2023, those who opted in had an estimated average GPA of 0.86 grade points higher during their first fall semester, controlling for a wide range of factors, including high school class rank and GPA. Those same students were estimated to be 55% less likely to have a first semester college GPA of less than 2.0, all else equal."

So, normalizing on everything except test scores, TO kids were close to one full letter grade lower.

That's because UT has a terrible admissions system in general in the name of "fairness." Their top 10% rule means anyone from podunk Texas to the most competitive suburbs qualify for automatic admission and make up 75% of the college. When you have that massive of a range in differentiation between student, of course, test scores matter, because a valedictorian at one school could be bottom of the class at a public magnet. UT also has so few resources to help its students and, like every state institution, has massive classes. They don't have resources to help you when you're lost, so you need to be at the top for engineering or business or cs.

Now, back to the top colleges. Stanford does not have this issue, neither do most of the top colleges going test required. Their applicant pools are filled with highly rigorous, smart top-of-the-line students. They are deciding between Choate's valedictorian and TJ's. This is a much less significant issue for the actual students, but the admissions offices are now clogged with applications.

Nice try, but the UT study controlled for those factors (which you would know, if you bothered to inform yourself about it before spouting off). Not to mention, my kid didn't attend UT, but we did take the campus tour, and the support services available there were more extensive than any other campus we visited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certain schools will undoubtedly bring back standardized testing requirements but plenty of other colleges will remain test optional or test blind.

Dummies need somewhere to go.

Lower ranked schools are fearful of getting enough students so will remain TO.

There will be a chasm. Elite schools aren’t going to let other schools report higher test score averages when they are using only 25% of total accepted to achieve those averages and the elites are using 100% of students.[b]

This. Hopkins is going to sink. You can’t have fewer students TO submitting scores and use it against a 100% test required school. Elites are falling like Dominoes.

The elites have been doing fine. With all this data, no one has shown any significant changes in yield. The TO kids are still smart students, they are graduating fine, and the elite schools are still elite. The only people struggling from TO are admissions departments.

Literally every school that went test optional due to COVID has said the opposite but ok, stay in denial.

+1. and the most recent studies have shown that test optional was a failure, which is shy school after school is droping it

Every study, and yet the only change has been yield rates. The ivies have no graduation crisis currently. Clearly, it is just too much work for the admissions departments to differentiate through applications, so they need another filter. For decades, they've admitted they can hit a randomize button and build a perfectly fine class. It's an overblown admissions problem, not a student one.

What are you even blathering on about?! The UT - Austin study already blew your position sky high, FFS. There was nearly a - 0.75 grade point difference between the enrolled students who had applied TO vs. the ones who had applied with test scores. Persisting with the TO or test blind evangelism at this point is insanity.

It was actually worse than that:

"Of 9,217 first-year students enrolled in 2023, those who opted in had an estimated average GPA of 0.86 grade points higher during their first fall semester, controlling for a wide range of factors, including high school class rank and GPA. Those same students were estimated to be 55% less likely to have a first semester college GPA of less than 2.0, all else equal."

So, normalizing on everything except test scores, TO kids were close to one full letter grade lower.

That's because UT has a terrible admissions system in general in the name of "fairness." Their top 10% rule means anyone from podunk Texas to the most competitive suburbs qualify for automatic admission and make up 75% of the college. When you have that massive of a range in differentiation between student, of course, test scores matter, because a valedictorian at one school could be bottom of the class at a public magnet. UT also has so few resources to help its students and, like every state institution, has massive classes. They don't have resources to help you when you're lost, so you need to be at the top for engineering or business or cs.

Now, back to the top colleges. Stanford does not have this issue, neither do most of the top colleges going test required. Their applicant pools are filled with highly rigorous, smart top-of-the-line students. They are deciding between Choate's valedictorian and TJ's. This is a much less significant issue for the actual students, but the admissions offices are now clogged with applications.

Nice try, but the UT study controlled for those factors (which you would know, if you bothered to inform yourself about it before spouting off). Not to mention, my kid didn't attend UT, but we did take the campus tour, and the support services available there were more extensive than any other campus we visited.

You must’ve attended pretty shit schools if UT has more resources per student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certain schools will undoubtedly bring back standardized testing requirements but plenty of other colleges will remain test optional or test blind.

Dummies need somewhere to go.

Lower ranked schools are fearful of getting enough students so will remain TO.

There will be a chasm. Elite schools aren’t going to let other schools report higher test score averages when they are using only 25% of total accepted to achieve those averages and the elites are using 100% of students.[b]

This. Hopkins is going to sink. You can’t have fewer students TO submitting scores and use it against a 100% test required school. Elites are falling like Dominoes.

The elites have been doing fine. With all this data, no one has shown any significant changes in yield. The TO kids are still smart students, they are graduating fine, and the elite schools are still elite. The only people struggling from TO are admissions departments.

Literally every school that went test optional due to COVID has said the opposite but ok, stay in denial.

+1. and the most recent studies have shown that test optional was a failure, which is shy school after school is droping it

Every study, and yet the only change has been yield rates. The ivies have no graduation crisis currently. Clearly, it is just too much work for the admissions departments to differentiate through applications, so they need another filter. For decades, they've admitted they can hit a randomize button and build a perfectly fine class. It's an overblown admissions problem, not a student one.

What are you even blathering on about?! The UT - Austin study already blew your position sky high, FFS. There was nearly a - 0.75 grade point difference between the enrolled students who had applied TO vs. the ones who had applied with test scores. Persisting with the TO or test blind evangelism at this point is insanity.

It was actually worse than that:

"Of 9,217 first-year students enrolled in 2023, those who opted in had an estimated average GPA of 0.86 grade points higher during their first fall semester, controlling for a wide range of factors, including high school class rank and GPA. Those same students were estimated to be 55% less likely to have a first semester college GPA of less than 2.0, all else equal."

So, normalizing on everything except test scores, TO kids were close to one full letter grade lower.

That's because UT has a terrible admissions system in general in the name of "fairness." Their top 10% rule means anyone from podunk Texas to the most competitive suburbs qualify for automatic admission and make up 75% of the college. When you have that massive of a range in differentiation between student, of course, test scores matter, because a valedictorian at one school could be bottom of the class at a public magnet. UT also has so few resources to help its students and, like every state institution, has massive classes. They don't have resources to help you when you're lost, so you need to be at the top for engineering or business or cs.

Now, back to the top colleges. Stanford does not have this issue, neither do most of the top colleges going test required. Their applicant pools are filled with highly rigorous, smart top-of-the-line students. They are deciding between Choate's valedictorian and TJ's. This is a much less significant issue for the actual students, but the admissions offices are now clogged with applications.

Nice try, but the UT study controlled for those factors (which you would know, if you bothered to inform yourself about it before spouting off). Not to mention, my kid didn't attend UT, but we did take the campus tour, and the support services available there were more extensive than any other campus we visited.

I’ve read the article. No where does it account for the things the previous poster was discussing. It does discuss that students who submitted sat scores had an average nearly 300 points higher than those who didn’t and that those students earned better gpas. I actually think this much confirms what the person you’re arguing with is saying. People from better schools and who are valedictorians at these places do better on the sat than those from worse schools in Texas. Most top colleges don’t accept any valedictorian from any poor-performing school, but the best valedictorians at the highest performing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The UCs will remain test optional as long as they hold the line at 20% max OOS. It is the left’s compromise between equity and taxes.

There is no perfect. But the advantage they hold is sheer numbers and the likelihood of taking the cream off the top, regardless of the mextrix of measurement.

Cal and UCLA are so desirable, I think they will be able to do this for a long time. Not sure it’s correct, but it definitely is what it is.

I say this as a moderate lefty originally from the Bay Area. And before you have a pissing contest, ask yourself which state’s taxes are powering the country. If only because you need a rational lens before attacking.

I would like to see the return of testing. But I’m pretty sure their bet to ignore it won’t harm their standing/research/rankings. No matter how much it pisses off the East Coast (as defined by either DC to Boston, or Florida to Maine, per the recent argument on a different thread.)

Without testing, how will they know if they are skimming cream or dross without objective measures of merit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge is paying for test prep. Affluent families who pay big money for someone to help their kids with test prep give their kids a huge advantage in this test required world. Until someone figures out how to normalize for that, the whole system is still going to be messed up - test optional, test required, or whatever else! Maybe scores should be reduced by 0.1 point for every dollar you pay for test prep (pay $1000 your score gets reduced 100 points) and require a legally binding agreement that if you lie about your costs you forfeit your acceptance

If it were true that test scores are inflated for wealthier kids, you would expect the wealthy kids to underperform the poorer kids with the same test score, but we don't.
Test scores track college performance regardless of family income.
Research by harvard's "opportunity insights" has published research showing that test scores do not seem ot overpredict performance for wealthier kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, all the elite universities should admit at least 50% of their students from URM to compensate historical injustices, especially STEM majors. Until 25% of all STEM Nobel prizes go to URMs.

I hate when people put stupid, never gonna happen scenarios into threads where a serious conversation is going on. Let the adults talk and stop,trolling.

Mr. Ibram X. Kendi has many policy proposals that will never materialize because of the existence of racism everywhere, but this does not make Mr. Kandi a troll or stupid.

That's Dr. Irbam Kendi X PhD.
And he is a fraud not a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, all the elite universities should admit at least 50% of their students from URM to compensate historical injustices, especially STEM majors. Until 25% of all STEM Nobel prizes go to URMs.

I hate when people put stupid, never gonna happen scenarios into threads where a serious conversation is going on. Let the adults talk and stop,trolling.

Mr. Ibram X. Kendi has many policy proposals that will never materialize because of the existence of racism everywhere, but this does not make Mr. Kandi a troll or stupid.

That's Dr. Irbam Kendi X PhD.
And he is a fraud not a troll.

He's just a shit leader and the average academic who doesn't make money for an institution. Social science research by and large is unprofitable drivel and "anti-racism" makes no money. If BU was dumb enough to believe his research center was gonna make profit, they really mustn't have the brightest administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UCs will remain test optional as long as they hold the line at 20% max OOS. It is the left’s compromise between equity and taxes.

There is no perfect. But the advantage they hold is sheer numbers and the likelihood of taking the cream off the top, regardless of the mextrix of measurement.

Cal and UCLA are so desirable, I think they will be able to do this for a long time. Not sure it’s correct, but it definitely is what it is.

I say this as a moderate lefty originally from the Bay Area. And before you have a pissing contest, ask yourself which state’s taxes are powering the country. If only because you need a rational lens before attacking.

I would like to see the return of testing. But I’m pretty sure their bet to ignore it won’t harm their standing/research/rankings. No matter how much it pisses off the East Coast (as defined by either DC to Boston, or Florida to Maine, per the recent argument on a different thread.)

Without testing, how will they know if they are skimming cream or dross without objective measures of merit?

They have decades of data on performance from schools in California. They know who is and is not the best student from the best universities in California. They've effectively standardized California public educational curriculum and have their own calculated Gpa on student's transcripts. They really don't need an exam, because they have historic data, which has massively paid off in their high retention rates. Data is king and the UC knows this.