Reply to No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It's a ZERO SUM GAME.

If a lower score kid got lucky and got in with TO when otherwise wouldn't have even applied, there's another kid with higher score didn't get in.

[/quote]
Exactly.  [/quote]

Just because one kid had a higher test score doesn't mean they were overall a better applicant. [/quote]

Higher score kids are usually overall a better applicant.

[/quote]

Where was this study researched? [/quote]

MIT research and UC research but you can easily see.

Check out the test scores for competitive elites schools and mediocre schools.

Big difference in test scores.  Why do you think it's that?

[/quote]

Plenty TO schools disagree with this claim. [/quote]

+1. For the slow ones in the back, test scores are only one metric of student performance. It is not the most important metric.

And test scores are not indicative of workplace or life success. Universities are looking at the whole person.  You can not like this approach and continue to argue on anonymous message boards, but your view on test scores is not shared by many universities. Get over it. [/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