Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's about making people happy. Their data points to testing being pretty useless in their pool.

Can you clarify what you are saying?

Their middle 50% being 780-900 is telling us that they have thousands of people with scores that are almost identical. We're talking people who get 1 questions wrong vs. people who got 2 questions wrong.

What's more, a new SAT is going in place. If they were really doing this properly, they'd wait for studies to come out. They aren't, which makes me think this isn't about actually using test scores in the application review. I think this is a way to cut down on shutgun apps and make people like the ones here happy. I am certain there are other sectors that are disappointed with this move.

They can eliminate 5 questions wrong 10 questions wrong, so they can manage the applicaitons.

What's more, a new SAT is going in place. If they were really doing this properly, they'd wait for studies to come out. They aren't, which makes me think this isn't about actually using test scores in the application review. I think this is a way to cut down on shotgun apps and make people like the ones here happy. I am certain there are other sectors that are disappointed with this move.

This. Most schools are still collecting and analyzing data on their students who were admitted TO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's about making people happy. Their data points to testing being pretty useless in their pool.

Can you clarify what you are saying?

Their middle 50% being 780-900 is telling us that they have thousands of people with scores that are almost identical. We're talking people who get 1 questions wrong vs. people who got 2 questions wrong.

What's more, a new SAT is going in place. If they were really doing this properly, they'd wait for studies to come out. They aren't, which makes me think this isn't about actually using test scores in the application review. I think this is a way to cut down on shutgun apps and make people like the ones here happy. I am certain there are other sectors that are disappointed with this move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

Maybe. The digital SAT will be shorter in length and easier to take. Yes, there will still be an advantage to those who have more money, but overall, you'll likely see a lot more 1500s and "SAT inflation." Then what? Either way, the SAT is losing its "high stakes" relevance.

My kids haven’t taken the Sat yet, and I was unaware it is being shortened and made digital. Wow, that’s great news. I thought there is a “curve” to the grading of the test, though, so wouldn’t more kids getting a larger percent of the test questions correct mean the curve is less so about same numbers get 1400, 1450, 1500, etc.

The only thing this will impact is their workload, which will go down. Rest of it will be the same. Asian students will find it about as difficult as it was with TO to get in. Whites too to a lesser degree. Esp. men.

Anonymous wrote:No, it's about making people happy. Their data points to testing being pretty useless in their pool.

Can you clarify what you are saying?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

How many times does this have to be explained to you: standardized admissions tests do not measure intelligence.

And, you need much more than intelligence to do well in college.

This doesn't really match my experience. The kids who did well on tests were clearly brighter than that kids who didn't.

Looking at SAT, GPA, courses taken (highest rigor and such) and AP scores together will give a fair idea about the applicant' s capabilities

Obviously it doesn’t, or MIT wouldn’t have started requiring SAT scores again.

No, it's about making people happy. Their data points to testing being pretty useless in their pool.

That was a long way of saying “We had too many test optional kids flunk out.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

How many times does this have to be explained to you: standardized admissions tests do not measure intelligence.

And, you need much more than intelligence to do well in college.

IQ test should be part of the package

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

How many times does this have to be explained to you: standardized admissions tests do not measure intelligence.

And, you need much more than intelligence to do well in college.

This doesn't really match my experience. The kids who did well on tests were clearly brighter than that kids who didn't.

Looking at SAT, GPA, courses taken (highest rigor and such) and AP scores together will give a fair idea about the applicant' s capabilities

Yup. They see the value in standardized tests.

This is good news!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

How many times does this have to be explained to you: standardized admissions tests do not measure intelligence.

And, you need much more than intelligence to do well in college.

Out salutatorian did "well" in college but flopped the GREs. She was a horrible test taker, couldn't follow lectures, would interrupt and give wrong info to those being tutored, and switched advisors 9 times in 8 semesters. She didn't get into grad school at a time grad programs were begging. She got stuck in a job consulting in a boonie town making about $50K (below everyone else). She did know who to pick on and would block people from going to class, and call people dumb right before exams. Also had a very aggressive, strong personality for disputes. Taking as many of the easiest courses and being able to drop courses is a far worse measure of intelligence. In subjective departments though, getting "A"s is a great measure of the ability to get married. Everyone I know with all "A"s gets married easily and surface-ly comes off as put together for adults. For this reason, I strongly encourage good grades. For "Smarts", not "Intelligence". If a task needs intelligence, ALWAYS hire the proven competence/better tester/data-driven/etc candidate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

How many times does this have to be explained to you: standardized admissions tests do not measure intelligence.

And, you need much more than intelligence to do well in college.

This doesn't really match my experience. The kids who did well on tests were clearly brighter than that kids who didn't.