What if Colleges Truly Required Test Scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think they trigger the other group

+1. Test optional parents aren’t even on this board. They are relaxing and enjoying life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I agree. I think it’s the parents of high scorers who can’t believe a student can show intelligence/ talent/ potential/ ambition/ drive in another way. Test blind has worked out just fine for California schools

Which is why the Caltech professors basically had a mutiny after only two years test blind to go back to test required and UCSD has had to start offering basic algebra classes? I hate to see your definition of not going well.

UCSD is a California education problem. 40% of students who placed in the “basic algebra class” took AP calculus.

No, it’s an admissions problem. Most kids who take AP Calculus learn AP Calculus. The majority of UCSD freshmen place into calculus, or beyond, when they arrive at UCSD. It’s in the same report. The problem is that without the SAT, admissions can’t tell which are which.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think they trigger the other group

+1. Test optional parents aren’t even on this board. They are relaxing and enjoying life.

Every kid I know who went test optional did so after at least two rounds of full-blown in-person test prep. These people are not laid back at all. The only difference is that their kids just can’t seem to get the scores the parents want to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, here are some other studies (actual studies, not screenshots from X):

High School GPAs and ACT Scores as Predictors of College Completion: Examining Assumptions About Consistency Across High Schools: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110

Contextualized High School Performance: Evidence to Inform Equitable Holistic, Test-Optional, and Test-Free Admissions Policies https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584231197413

Is the Sky Falling? Grade Inflation and the Signaling Power of Grades
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X13481382

Predicting College Success
How Do Different High School Assessments Measure Up?
https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-success-how-do-different-high-school-assessments-measure-2019

You forgot the UC study that looked at ALL the research and found that test scores were statistically significant in predicting college success. I believe that Purdue released similar research when they returned to test required.

No, I’m not forgetting that study. I’m noting that there are lots of studies with lots of different conclusions. Anyone saying that there’s a clear answer based on one study is not interested in the messy reality.

Which is why I’m a fan of test optional and holistic admissions—let schools figure out how to incorporate test scores. Let students emphasize their strengths. This is not a black and white issue, no matter how much you want it to be.

The larger and more comprehensive studies show that test scores are good (often the best) predictors of college performance. A few small underpowered studies showing something else aren’t particularly convincing. Even before the UC study Kuncel and Sackett at UMN used standardized test scores for millions of students and pretty conclusively showed that they’re the best predictor of college performance.

You have to actually clarify that claim, you can’t just skip over it. This is essentially “I disagree with it, so the conclusions must be wrong.”

No I’m saying that studies with millions of data points are much more convincing than studies with thousands, especially when (as in the case of the UC study) they wanted to find that test scores didn’t matter. Using the term “underpowered” was indeed inappropriate without actually running through specific analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most privileged / wealthy parents benefit from these “wholistic review” and “test-optional” admissions policies.

The entire country’s university system would benefit from basing admission on objective performance on the two accepted standardized tests: the SAT and ACT.

Next: I hope they stop allowing 50% extra time for the frequently-fraudulent claims of mental disability, such as “adhd.”

Yes PLEASE. It has gotten to the point where when I hear a kid took the ACT, I assume they are a fraud (NYC has limited testing options for the ACT - you have to go out of your way. But the ACT is far more game-able with extra time, which is why the fraudsters prefer it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

Washu, Columbia, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Notre Dame, CMU, Umich, Uva, are TO. UCB and UCLA are blind, but they arent shit schools?

Most of the Top 10 test required. All but 2-3 of the above are not T10 and/or not truly elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think they trigger the other group

+1. Test optional parents aren’t even on this board. They are relaxing and enjoying life.

Every kid I know who went test optional did so after at least two rounds of full-blown in-person test prep. These people are not laid back at all. The only difference is that their kids just can’t seem to get the scores the parents want to see.

this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, here are some other studies (actual studies, not screenshots from X):

High School GPAs and ACT Scores as Predictors of College Completion: Examining Assumptions About Consistency Across High Schools: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110

Contextualized High School Performance: Evidence to Inform Equitable Holistic, Test-Optional, and Test-Free Admissions Policies https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584231197413

Is the Sky Falling? Grade Inflation and the Signaling Power of Grades
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X13481382

Predicting College Success
How Do Different High School Assessments Measure Up?
https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-success-how-do-different-high-school-assessments-measure-2019

You forgot the UC study that looked at ALL the research and found that test scores were statistically significant in predicting college success. I believe that Purdue released similar research when they returned to test required.

No, I’m not forgetting that study. I’m noting that there are lots of studies with lots of different conclusions. Anyone saying that there’s a clear answer based on one study is not interested in the messy reality.

Which is why I’m a fan of test optional and holistic admissions—let schools figure out how to incorporate test scores. Let students emphasize their strengths. This is not a black and white issue, no matter how much you want it to be.

The larger and more comprehensive studies show that test scores are good (often the best) predictors of college performance. A few small underpowered studies showing something else aren’t particularly convincing. Even before the UC study Kuncel and Sackett at UMN used standardized test scores for millions of students and pretty conclusively showed that they’re the best predictor of college performance.

You have to actually clarify that claim, you can’t just skip over it. This is essentially “I disagree with it, so the conclusions must be wrong.”

No I’m saying that studies with millions of data points are much more convincing than studies with thousands, especially when (as in the case of the UC study) they wanted to find that test scores didn’t matter. Using the term “underpowered” was indeed inappropriate without actually running through specific analysis.

That doesn't have to be true. They can be equally valuable. This really depends on what the research questions and design were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

D1 schools don’t care about test scores other than athletes meet minimum scores (which are very low).

This varies greatly by school and by sport. Minimum SAT for recruiting in my daughter's sport at T20 non-Ivy school is 1400.

Duke has and will continue to accept basketball players with 1000 or 1100 scores…Stanford has and will continue to take football players with 1150 or 1200 scores…Vanderbilt has and will continue to take baseball players with 1000 or 1100 scores.

Revenue sports have tons more leeway. You are probably correct they aren’t going to go down too low for field hockey or other sports that people could give two shits about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I agree. I think it’s the parents of high scorers who can’t believe a student can show intelligence/ talent/ potential/ ambition/ drive in another way. Test blind has worked out just fine for California schools

ROTFLMAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a horror.

I don’t know. I think colleges want to be able to reject a 1600 scores whose teacher recs say the kid is a cheater.

What about the kid who scores 1600 but has lots of Bs or didn't take any challenging classes? Why should a 3 hour test be more important than 4 years of performance?

Unlike the TO folks, people are saying that standardized tests should be required in conjunction with GPA and rigor. Nobody is arguing that grades should be ignored. It would be crazy to ignore data that allows you to make better decisions right?

What possible reason would people have to ignore that data?

[Anonymous]

If you change the rules to just accepting by test scores and nothing else, the rich will still end up taking more than their fair share because they will spend all their money on test prep and what not and then will print much higher scores.

They just play by the current rules of the game which isn’t all about test scores.

Even looking at athletes, if Harvard now said we need all lax players to score 1550+, well now a bunch of D3 recruits will get recruited to Harvard because they have the stats (but just weren’t as strong a lax player for D1 under the old system).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 'holistic review' and 'ban SAT' policies might sound nice.

But, in reality, these policies merely allow the most wealthy and powerful to virtue signal while getting an edge for their children’s admission to the top universities (especially private universities).

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I mean, tell it to the guy who wrote and published a whole research paper about it.

LOL. That link goes to a screenshot of an abstract. Not a full paper, no source, not clear if it’s peer-reviewed.

DP

Judging by the authors, it is a paper by Opportunity Insights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

Ah, yes, this is clearly a question asked in good faith. But I’ll answer.

I don’t think standardized test scores have meaningful bearing on college performance. There have been a ton of studies on this topic and no consensus; to the extent that the studies have found that GPA or test scores have predictive value for college performance, the effects are generally quite small.

And then anecdotally I’ve observed so many kids who did not have high test scores thrive at highly selective colleges (including one of my own).

In my observation (including working at a highly selective university), social factors are what predict success in these environments. With some supports (e.g., first-gen programs), student performance is equalized.

And to your final question, I think that having a population of college graduates that is demographically representative is critical to ensuring our country functions effectively.

The quick abandonment of test optional (or test blind)policies suggests the contrary. Also the UCSD issues with students ability to do even basic high school and middle school math under a test blind policy.

95% of schools are still TO, including half of the top 25 national universities and virtually all of the top 25 LACs.

We can also look at the comprehensive study the UC system paid for which found test scores have a statistically significant impact on predicting college performance, particularly in an environment of high grade inflation.

One study among many with varying outcomes, rarely so dramatic as to be determinative (again, in either direction—GPA or test scores). And the UCs are still test-blind.

DP

It's not one study amongst many. Almost every study on testing says the same thing.