Anonymous wrote:Vassar and Pomona are also going test-optional next year, as are Tufts, BU and Davidson. Seems like the SAT’s days may be numbered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what will happen, practically speaking, is that good testers will take the tests and submit scores anyway.

If the tests are actually offered at some point again this year.

Plenty of juniors already have SAT scores, although may not have the chance to get it higher via retests. Our HS offered an SAT prep class in the Fall that was nearly all juniors and they all, including my DS, took it in December. Glad we got that done early!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what will happen, practically speaking, is that good testers will take the tests and submit scores anyway.

If the tests are actually offered at some point again this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what will happen, practically speaking, is that good testers will take the tests and submit scores anyway.

If the tests are actually offered at some point again this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But back to a key question from a prior post. Does anyone actually KNOW how test-optional colleges have been operating, or whether the UC system is going to operate differently? Is there any data out there?

By the way, Harvard actually lost its lawsuit after depositions were taken, although the case is on appeal. The people who sued emphasized the zero-sum theory of college admissions. If you act affirmatively in favor of one group, the argument goes, you are implicitly acting against other groups. Favoring athletes discriminates against non-athletes. Favoring legacies discriminates against non-legacies. Favoring underrepresented minorities discriminates against Caucasians and Asians. That's the argument.

In my opinion, and Harvard's, that kind of favoritism is not the same as "discrimination" toward any particular group, especially in the context of affirmative action. It's just a recognition that diversity within the school is good for the school and for society. Also, there are populations that tend to do well once admitted, and also do well after graduation, even though they don't do all as well on standardized tests. For this reason, many people are suspicious of standardized tests even though they do not discriminate in the traditional sense, in that the graders at the College Board don't know the race of any particular test taker. But the system as a whole can seem discriminatory, especially if the tests are accurate predictors for many students but not students from all groups.

_______________________________________________________

You've swallowed all the talking points that proponents of reverse discrimination traffic in; but, here's a test to prove me wrong: cite with specificity the empirical evidence that educational outcomes for all students improve as the direct result of racial diversity in the classroom. (I don't think this is a test you can pass.)

Second: since when did non-athletes and non-legacies become protected classes under the law? If the Asians used such an argument, or suggested such an argument, I very much doubt it was persuasive, let alone dispositive.

The Asians won their case because reverse discrimination, or race-based discrimination, is illegal as a matter of law (see Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment), even when practiced by a nominally private actor, such as Harvard. (Harvard is so entangled with the Feds financially that it falls under the aegis of the Constitution and protections afforded thereunder.)

I suspect that if Harvard is to prevail in its appeal, it will need to be able to pass the test I posed to you, above. And Harvard won't be able to do so. Because it's facially preposterous to argue, e.g., that white kids or Asian kids will be impaired and debilitated in terms of learning capacity and learning outcomes unless there are blacks and Hispanics in their classrooms.

Anonymous wrote:But back to a key question from a prior post. Does anyone actually KNOW how test-optional colleges have been operating, or whether the UC system is going to operate differently? Is there any data out there?

By the way, Harvard actually lost its lawsuit after depositions were taken, although the case is on appeal. The people who sued emphasized the zero-sum theory of college admissions. If you act affirmatively in favor of one group, the argument goes, you are implicitly acting against other groups. Favoring athletes discriminates against non-athletes. Favoring legacies discriminates against non-legacies. Favoring underrepresented minorities discriminates against Caucasians and Asians. That's the argument.

In my opinion, and Harvard's, that kind of favoritism is not the same as "discrimination" toward any particular group, especially in the context of affirmative action. It's just a recognition that diversity within the school is good for the school and for society. Also, there are populations that tend to do well once admitted, and also do well after graduation, even though they don't do all as well on standardized tests. For this reason, many people are suspicious of standardized tests even though they do not discriminate in the traditional sense, in that the graders at the College Board don't know the race of any particular test taker. But the system as a whole can seem discriminatory, especially if the tests are accurate predictors for many students but not students from all groups.

You've swallowed all the talking points that proponents of reverse discrimination traffic in; but, here's a test to prove me wrong: cite with specificity the empirical evidence that educational outcomes for all students improve as the direct result of racial diversity in the classroom. (I don't think this is a test you can pass.)

Second: since when did non-athletes and non-legacies become protected classes under the law? If the Asians used such an argument, or suggested such an argument, I very much doubt it was persuasive, let alone dispositive.

The Asians won their case because reverse discrimination, or race-based discrimination, is illegal as a matter of law (see Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment), even when practiced by a nominally private actor, such as Harvard. (Harvard is so entangled with the Feds financially that it falls under the aegis of the Constitution and protections afforded thereunder.)

I suspect that if Harvard is to prevail in its appeal, it will need to be able to pass the test I posed to you, above. And Harvard won't be able to do so. Because it's facially preposterous to argue, e.g., that white kids or Asian kids will be impaired and debilitated in terms of learning capacity and learning outcomes unless there are blacks and Hispanics in their classrooms.

Anonymous wrote:But back to a key question from a prior post. Does anyone actually KNOW how test-optional colleges have been operating, or whether the UC system is going to operate differently? Is there any data out there?

By the way, Harvard actually lost its lawsuit after depositions were taken, although the case is on appeal. The people who sued emphasized the zero-sum theory of college admissions. If you act affirmatively in favor of one group, the argument goes, you are implicitly acting against other groups. Favoring athletes discriminates against non-athletes. Favoring legacies discriminates against non-legacies. Favoring underrepresented minorities discriminates against Caucasians and Asians. That's the argument.

In my opinion, and Harvard's, that kind of favoritism is not the same as "discrimination" toward any particular group, especially in the context of affirmative action. It's just a recognition that diversity within the school is good for the school and for society. Also, there are populations that tend to do well once admitted, and also do well after graduation, even though they don't do all as well on standardized tests. For this reason, many people are suspicious of standardized tests even though they do not discriminate in the traditional sense, in that the graders at the College Board don't know the race of any particular test taker. But the system as a whole can seem discriminatory, especially if the tests are accurate predictors for many students but not students from all groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the university can still consider SAT/ACT scores for students who submit then, doesn’t that put students who don’t submit at a disadvantage?

Let’s say you have two applicants who are equally qualified....but one submits a stellar SAT score, and one submits no score at all. Wouldn’t they be more likely
to admit the student with the strong test score?

Wondering if this change is more of a talking point than an actual change. Unless the process is “SAT blind”, I don’t see how it wouldn’t still be an advantage to submit test scores.

Thoughts?

Your instincts are correct. In the recent past, a number of schools have adopted this policy as a way 1) to increase diversity without explicitly abandoning their admissions requirements in re quality/rigor. Nearly anyone can get an impressive high GPA these days, owing to widespread rampant grade inflation. So a test-optional school can admit otherwise weak standardized test-takers without compromising the average GPA (or test scores) of admitted/enrolled students.

The second reason schools have adopted this optional test score policy is that they know the kids with good test scores will furnish them, and the applicants with mediocre or poor scores won't. Thus, the school will be able to report higher average test scores.

Lookie here, Ma. My USNWR ranking just went up! It's like magic!

I don't think this will affect the UC schools that much. It may, at the margins, enhance enrollment of favored minority groups -- the UC schools have been looking for a way around the law for years now, in order to discriminate in favor of favored groups -- but you have to believe that the least favored of all groups, Asian Americans, will continue to submit their test scores. They'd be crazy not to do so.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but do you actually KNOW how the test optional policies work in practice at most colleges? I have not been able to find anything from someone inside a college admissions office to confirm or refute your view.

Also, "discriminate" is not the word I would choose to describe efforts to diversify the student body, but I understand that you and I may disagree on this issue.

Anonymous wrote:And what will happen, practically speaking, is that good testers will take the tests and submit scores anyway.