Reply to University Of California Reaches Final Decision: No More Standardized Admission Testing

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "University Of California Reaches Final Decision: No More Standardized Admission Testing"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This really would have hurt me. I was a great student, but I know that my score of 1500 on the SAT is what got me into my top college. [/quote]

But you don't know that. You were already a great student. You probably had great letters of recommendation. You probably wrote well. Did they REALLY need the SAT to tell them you were qualified/competitive/etc?[/quote]

DP.  Two candiates with equal applications, but one has a 1500 and the other has 1300 - the 1500 is more qualified.  This is about chosing between people.  [/quote]

The severe and mistaken presupposition this position and ones like it begin with is that admissions is like a track meet where the fastest times rank  and claim the available prizes.

It isn't.

The colleges get to pick who they want to build the class they want.  It they want to pick a candidate who is lower in every single academic category because they think they are a nice kid who will be an asset on the campus, they get to.  That's it.  They get to, as long as they violate no laws.  Even if you think that is a bad decision by them, it is their decision to make.

Once you understand that, you understand why many people feel test scores are a detriment to the process.

For the record I am not anti-test and both my kids did well on theirs, including a first-time 36 and I am sure that helped their Ivy admission.  But the schools get to choose who they want, just like employers get to hire who they want based on their own criteria - they don't have to hire the highest GPA.[/quote]

Nobody is demanding that the schools ONLY consider test scores.  But you're deluded if you think that test scores are meaningless if you're comparing two otherwise identical candidates.  The higher score means higher IQ means smarter.  That's just how it is.  Of course the school in assembling class can still consider other factors.  But taking away one instrument just seems extremely short-sighted.  I imagine that highly selective schools have their "slots" for different types of candidates.  If you're in the "top scores top grades" slot then ... you're going to lose to the kids with better grades and better scores.  [/quote]

Please read the post you are replying to.  You have perfectly illustrated my point as nowhere does it say test scores are meaningless.  It means a college gets to pick based on any legal criteria they want, regardless.  And since there is such an overwhelming number of great candidates, selective colleges tend to get whoever they want easily.  The won't make "mistakes" if they disregard test scores.  They'll still get the class they want, and by their criteria, probably a better one.

"By [b]their[/b] criteria" being the key phrase.

You completely understand and accept how this works in employment and hiring. For some reason you refuse to accept that it works the same way at American colleges in that it is not a decision based on narrow, measurable criteria, so your insistence that they use them is futile and demands they go against their experience and mission.[/quote]

I think the point is, are they actually voluntarily deciding not to use SAT scores, and, for a public intsitution, who does that hurt?  Public colleges are not private employers who can hire and fire at whim.  As for private selective institutions - the truly selective ones like MIT affirm that SAT scores are still important.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics