| It would be absurd to require all the scores to be reported. Kids would stop taking the test and apply to test optional programs. |
Because it’s all a game and only a measure of how well the students prepped; it’s also not predictive of how well a student will do in college. If parents pay for test prep, their kids will generally do well — my son increased his score by 100 points (to an 1480) after we paid a lot of money for test prep. My DD, on the other had, opted to take the test only once with no prep, got a 1380, and decided she would go TO. That said, she is a far better student than my son, had a higher gpa and 5s and 4s on her AP tests (my son got 3s). I really don’t believe SATs and the like really tell what a student is like, While my son is certainly capable (and he’s doing well in college), he has to try harder than my daughter. |
+1 no one wants to say it but this is education in america. which is why I'm sending my kids overseas. |
You know who is innovative? Creative people. Who may or may not test well. Lets have a test that demonstrates innovation. The SAT/ACT is not it. |
Thank goodness! Please keep us updated. Maybe this will be a new trend. Where are you thinking? |
If the aspirational schools required testing, then those kids would either test or be part of the solution of reducing these ridiculous application rates. Test optional has unlocked Pandora’s box for everyone, and it’s disappointing that not enough people are capable of looking beyond their own interests to see that it hasn’t been for the better overall. |
I’m all for restoring the ACT/SAT and adding a creativity measure that’s been validated. Sure, why not? Certainly better than TO, which will just go down as the defective “everyone gets a trophy” era. |
| Test optional started slowly before Covid and then took off everywhere. It has remained because 1) colleges want to be able to admit low-income/URM students who would otherwise have low scores, and 2) because colleges love that their average SATs look so high now. This isn’t about applicants getting away with anything. It’s all about the benefits to colleges. |
I certainly understand the value of diversity, albeit definitely not at a rigid 1:1 proportional level just for the sake of diversity. But what’s most astonishing in this “what they love” argument is that it essentially suggests that each and every low SES / URM is viewed as a super high achiever just waiting to be discovered and nurtured. Frankly, if honesty matters, that’s not only untrue, it’s not even adjacent to the truth. |
It's stunning when an adult has an experience and comes to dcum to proclaim that all people have that experience. How dumb can one be? My kid has special needs, was diagnosed young, has worked with executive functioning coaches forever and still struggles with test taking despite being brilliant. Nah, can't happen says prior poster who is clearly an expert in disabilities. |
It’s more a case of tearing down the gatekeeping and removing barriers to entry. Your premise is that these tests are meaningful. Not many people believe that. Ergo your premise is invalid. |
Attempting to ask this question as considerately as possible: How do you assess / determine / measure the kid’s brilliance without a standardized test? |
Ironic since the best students overseas clamor to get into American universities. |
wow, what a racist statement! I'm from a European country and our school system is as the PP described hers. No EC, hooks, URM, legacy. It's all about test scores! |
Go ahead and restrict your kid to applying only to schools you think have legitimate admissions practices. Guess what? No one else cares. |