Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

I don’t see a false statement that says all of the T20 schools “could” do that. Maybe I missed it.

I think the statement was that no college wants that. And if a college like Harvard wanted to, they certainly could try since they only accept 2000 or so students.

I’m not sure you’ve blocked anything here. But thanks for playing I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

"they could"

The reply was in response to that false statement. They cannot all come close to filling even 5% of their class with unicorns. So if you continue to downplay the incredibly low probability of finding a unicorn for the purpose of degrading what makes a unicorn a unicorn, don't be surprised when someone blocks that noise into the third row.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

But I'd rather have the 1520/3.9UW/8AP+ who has stellar ECs and/or stellar volunteering and recommendations. I want someone who is going to be a game changer and make a difference in the world. And I don't think the80 point difference and not perfect gpa means they are "any less". In fact plenty of them are much more what the schools want. Hence why they are fine with TO.

The real issue is that some of you as parents have spent the last 18 years telling your kid that the key to success is a 4.0 and 1600 and now when you realize it's not quite that you feel cheated. It never was that---it was just you wanting to believe it.

The T25 schools are not accepting "losers" when they turn down your "perfect kid". They are accepting who they think will be the better game changer. Look around you in real life. Highly doubt you work with only people from T25 schools or only people who had 1580+ on their SATs eons ago. Your boss might just be the 1100/2.8 kid who went to state U ranked 200, yet now they are managing you and getting paid more. Why? Because where you go does not matter, nearly as much as what you do while there.

Anonymous wrote:Ok then. Just don’t apply to schools that don’t then.

This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Well my Kid with learning issues, anxiety driven, and no EF simply doesn't test well. Was a 3.5UW kid in HS and almost 3.5 in college (had bad first year in premed courses). Did 35+ hours of tutoring for SAT/ACT and none of it really helped. Score on each test never went up more than 1 point ACT and 30 points SAT, despite all the studying and prepping. Every test resulted in the same damn result.

However, that kid attended a T80 school, graduated in 4 years despite a major change, had almost a 3.5 in college (after ruining gpa freshman year that was a huge accomplishment). Had a job starting 2 weeks after graduation at a good company. In the top 25% of new workers at said company (based on first and 2nd year raises and performance reviews which rank them). Kid is doing well at their job and life. I'd say their SAT/ACT ability has nothing to do with their success in life. And am thankful that colleges outside the T50 recognize that and don't care. Life is about much more than a 4 hour standardized test!

3.5 with 30 ACT sounds like a good fit for a T80 and indeed it all worked out really well. Congrats!

It was a 26 ACT---they could only raise their SAT by 30.

But main point is that despite the inability to "improve on SAT/ACT" they are still excelling in life, and were not relegated to a T300 school. Their GPA demonstrated more about their work ethic and ability than the 4 hour test

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

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.

Yeah, we get it. You love the TO revolution. It allows your kid to cloak a critical area of weakness, and unlocks accessibility to prestigious educational opportunities that they would never have been considered eligible for in the past. Just say "Works for me!" and save all of us the time wondering whether you had these hardened views before or after the TO era began.

There it is: You somehow think that the SAT is this amazing window into which kids are smart and which kids aren’t. It is this all-knowing decider between which kids can handle a prestigious school and which kids can’t. You don’t believe there are any biases or flaws with this test. And the best part is that kids who have enough money can pay one of the hundreds of test prep programs and personal tutors to help them uncloak their critical area of weakness.

Got it.

The actual issue is that YOU think that a student's GPA and class ranking, which are both subjected to a tremendous amount of pressure - specifically, grading variability and manipulation by students, parents and teachers, alike - from school to school, etch that student's achievement capacity in stone. They clearly don't.

There is so much unregulated jockeying for grades that occurs at the HS level these days. That's why the GPA is only directionally helpful, and barely so. And that's why a better method of assessing students during college application season would be to establish broader ranges of achievement / thresholds that directionally indicate how well an applicant is likely to do in college.

Everyone seems to want to say a 1540 is essentially the same as a 1600, but I don't hear anyone saying that a 3.8 is essentially the same as a 4.00 unweighted GPA.

Kid in our neighborhood took the SAT in August, September and November and scored a 1540, a 1390, and a 1510. The test is a moment in time and everyone should recognize that.

But the GPA shows how they perform over time. Why would anyone discount that? If the school inflates grades as a matter of course it is seen. The school's datasheet shows that. The AOs plug it all into their algorithm.

Plus a lot of what might seem like grade inflation is really just the demographics of the students.

My kids attended HS where 85% go to a 4 year college, and another 10-12% start at 2 year (we have great options for that and it almost guarantees transfer to State U after 2 years). So 95% of the kids are going to college----most come from households where both parents graduated college and over 60% of the households have both parents with advanced degrees (MS/PHD/Law/Medschool/etc). So the kids grow up knowing education is important in their household.

600 kids in the graduating class. HS does not weigh GPA. about 50% graduate with a 3.5+. Over 450 of them take at least 1 AP course. Over 250 take at least 5+ AP courses. My kids did not see grade inflation. Nobody rounds up---they put it in the syllabus so parents/kids don't ask for it or for extra credit if they are close (we have helicopter parents). My kid had a honors history course freshman year that was as hard as APUSH (teacher used to teach that and thought her job was to teach freshman as if it was a AP course). My kid learned to study for the first time in that course.
HS also did not rank---thankfully as that would be ridiculous. It was basically a high pressured public HS. At least 20+ kids get into T25 schools each year (not on the East coast so that's even more impressive as many kids simply want to stay closer to home---not be 2-3K miles from home).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

So what? The point is that college admissions isn’t a foot race where the first three who cross the finish line win. You keep trying to make it that and it’s just not.

The pool of students who can academically succeed at a T20 college is deep. Isn’t that the point you’re all making about how great students exist anywhere?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

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.

Guess what? my kid knows how to play the game and is at a top school by dcum standard. I just laugh at all those of you who claim that your DC is a straight A student but is not a good test taker. Yeah right! Pretty sure that many of these kids have also prepped like crazy but couldn't hack a decent score because guess what? not everyone has the ability to get to 1500s. For all those who argue that GPA is a better indicator of college success, I guess you've never heard of grade inflation and unlimited retakes until students get an A. I'm in a parents facebook group for DC's college, and there are so many parents complaining about their previously straight A students struggling or failing their intro classes.

My HS senior attends a DMV school where there are NO test retakes. How do I know? I teach at a DMV public. So forgetting this little debate regarding TO or not, I am so sick of my kid having to compete against all of those who have been retaking their tests since middle school. See how this all works? There will always be something to compare to and complain about so if not TO it will surely be something else.

Well for MS/HS especially, as a teacher you should recognize that the entire purpose of school is ofor the kid TO LEARN. Done correctly, the retake process does just that, it allows the kids to actually learn the material and show mastery. If not the first try, on the retake. And I have never seen anywhere that the kids just get to retake and it totally replaces the first grade. For my kids, it was always, go trhu each question on original test and submit corrections/explanations. Then retake and you got back at most 1/2 the points you got wrong on the first test. So if you had a 70, you could at most get 15 points back.

Also, my kid is at a T30 college, and in most math/STEm courses, the kids do get opportunity to demonstrate they have learned the material. Ex: Math class has a final worth 40%, 3 midterms each worth 15%, and HW/Particpation/Quizzes worth 15%. The final covers the entire course (ie all 3 midterms). If you grade on the final for "Midterm #1 portion" is Higher than your actual Midterm #1 grade, the "final grade for MT1 portion" replaces your midterm #1. And so on. Why? Because the entire purpose is to learn the material. Math builds upon itself (as do most STEM classes). So if a student masters the material for the final and scores better than the midterms, they get the higher score. Because they mastered the material, which is the ultimate goal of learning

Anonymous wrote:If test optional is so great, why not grades optional? ECs optional? Essays optional? Just submit the things that make you look good and leave out everything else.

Because the colleges who are admitting the students set the requirements. Start your own college if you want to require test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

Yikes!

Why Yikes? If the system they came from "is so much better" they are free to send their kid to college in that system. Yet for some reason, everyone still wants to come here for school---wonder why that is?

Fact is there are plenty of places around the world where EC are not a part of college app. It's grades and standardized test scores only. So if that's the life you want, then those schools already exist.

Yikes! because I didn't see where the individual identified their native country as India.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

Are you really trying to say that kids who don’t test well are lazy or something? Take your asinine theory and shove it.

I don’t think they’re lazy. I just don’t think they should be able to rely on litigious parents who use bulldozer tactics to knock down natural barriers that were designed to match capacity with suitable opportunity.

Well la di da for you. Colleges removed those barriers because they realized it was NOT the best indicator of success at their university. Colleges are happy with how they select students. Nobody is attempting to create a class with all 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students---they could yet somehow nobody wants that. Perhaps because they know something...

There are less than 1,000 1600/4.0UW/10AP+ students in any graduating class.

If you throw in ACT scores of 36, it's still less than 2,500.

2,500 prospects for 65,000 T20 seats in their collective freshman class.

That's one of the major problems here. Too many of you believe the fabricated nonsense that the 1600/36 + 4.00 unweighted + 10 AP+ unicorn is a dime a dozen; when in fact, they are less than enough to fit even 5% of the incoming classes for T20 programs. And if you limited it to single attempts for the ACT/SAT, it's more like less than 2% of the incoming classes.

If test optional is so great, why not grades optional? ECs optional? Essays optional? Just submit the things that make you look good and leave out everything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

So, without significant intervention, your kid didn't test well. It required diagnosis, training, and medication. What about kids without the resources and time and knowledge to get those things? For whom standardized tests don't actually reflect their cognitive abilities or their knowledge?

PP you replied to. Too bad for them. I think we should have universal healthcare and neuropsychs should be covered by insurance. I think meds should be cheaper.

But it’s incredibly frustrating to dumb down the whole process just for a minority of kids.

***I would feel that way EVEN if my kid had bad scores!***

My native country has no accommodations or services in school for kids with disabilities. My ADHD hindered me significantly. But I do appreciate that they still hold students to high academic standards. It’s all about grades and test scores. No extra-curriculars, hooks or nonsense allowed.

Yes, yes we know where you are from. Could you put that in the OP next time and every time in these college threads so we can skip them? And feel free to send your child to college in India.

Yikes!

Why Yikes? If the system they came from "is so much better" they are free to send their kid to college in that system. Yet for some reason, everyone still wants to come here for school---wonder why that is?

Fact is there are plenty of places around the world where EC are not a part of college app. It's grades and standardized test scores only. So if that's the life you want, then those schools already exist.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s my take. Some people are obsessed with limiting access to the most elite institutions: schools, neighborhoods, jobs. It’s comforting to know that whatever position you’ve secured in life is ultra competitive and off limits to the masses. But here’s the thing: many people go to college, most people succeed at work and there are a zillion different ways to measure brilliance, creativity, drive, etc that certainly can’t be captured in a standardized test score. I’d argue grades are modestly better as an assessment. And while I agree that TO takes away one of many arbitrary measures, it’s beyond me why any parent of a good test taker cares. Your 1560 score will still serve you. But the reality is that many many kids can thrive at these institutions … yes including many poor test takers. But for some reason that threatens you. Are you the same person who feels threatened when your investment bank hires a (gasp) state school graduate?

I'm with you 100% and it almost makes me tearful that people think it's a zero-sum game and we are keeping talented kids out like bully gatekeepers. I think I work with plenty of people who probably test(ed) well (and ditto for !!I passed my certification!!) but they can't think or lead or create for sh!t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think scores should be required, period.

The "doesn't test well" is a myth. My son with special needs didn't test well until we got him diagnosed, taught him organizational skills and half-medicated (he couldn't take the optimal dose of meds due to medical concerns, but a little was better than nothing).

The fact that you have a “special needs” child and the process of getting him help didn’t teach you a damn dose of empathy or understanding for similar or even worse off kids for whom the “solution” isn’t so neat and tidy says a lot about you. The universe tried to teach you a lesson to make you a better person and you failed.

No. You are wrong. The only way we can keep making progress in this world is to push the high-achieving people to the top of the chain, to give them opportunities to change the world.

I am humble enough to recognize that this may not be my family. My kids will find their place in the world, I don't worry about that. But as a species, we need to stay competitive, figure out a way to mitigate climate change, manage massive financial upheavals, travel to other planets, cure diseases, harness AI, etc. If you deliberately prevent the talented from rising, by eliminating the easiest, simplest and most efficient filters at our disposal, then you are NOT helping our species survive.

This isn't about my kid or your kid. It's about a more long-term approach to specie evolution.

Except success in life is much more about "high achieving EQ" than true academics. The 1400, 3.8, hard working/driven student is often the person who achieves more than the 1600/4.0UW kid. Sometimes (shocking I know for you to grasp) the 1300/3.4, hard working/driven student who works exceptionally well with teams and everyone will outshine all of "those above them"