Anonymous wrote:

I don’t actually believe that having gone to two top ten colleges. Plenty of kids who struggled academically once admitted.

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in a meritocracy, you don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the high-scoring, low-income brilliant kids who aren't prepping at all and take the exam cold?

You can’t find those unicorns anymore thanks to test prep.

I actually think they should have a place to mark that you did not test prep.

I was poor, I did not know about SAT. My best friend said she could go out because of the SAT test, I said, what is that? Her mom said, you should go too. I’ll take you. So she did and I almost aced the math section.

But his wound anybody know.

This.

Some of us who can afford the $$$ courses aren't gaming the system. My UMC son did not prep (beyond reading the paper booklet the day prior) and missed 1 question on the math section. We had planned to use the test as a way to indicate what he needed to test prep on. Not needed.

Anonymous wrote:The SAT hasn’t been required for the past half century or so because of US News.

There is obvious value to a standardized test that everyone takes given extreme differentials between school rigor and grading policies. Arguing it isn’t helpful is intellectually lazy and not at all compelling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not when 50 - 70% of the kids in your class have a 4.0+ as well.

Yup, this is the true problem. Although seniors at my kids’ Baltimore privates are having a very strong college admissions year so while it is unpredictable, it is not an unmitigated disaster.

You call this a "problem" - but have you considered the possibility that all those kids -- (and not 50-70% of kids take the most challenging schedules, so it is not that high a number) are capable of doing the work at any college?

You should consider that possibility. Because it is a reality.

Anonymous wrote:Is this the thread where everyone thinks college admissions officers are imbeciles who can't build a class without a data point from a commercial entity they don't control or have influence over? That without that score they just pick applicants out of a hat and sit around drooling the rest of the time?

To be clear: most colleges appreciate the value of the score data point, but it is not essential for them to build their class and never has been. Only the undue influence of the USN rankings has over-inflated its impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not when 50 - 70% of the kids in your class have a 4.0+ as well.

Yup, this is the true problem. Although seniors at my kids’ Baltimore privates are having a very strong college admissions year so while it is unpredictable, it is not an unmitigated disaster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the high-scoring, low-income brilliant kids who aren't prepping at all and take the exam cold?

You can’t find those unicorns anymore thanks to test prep.

I actually think they should have a place to mark that you did not test prep.

I was poor, I did not know about SAT. My best friend said she could go out because of the SAT test, I said, what is that? Her mom said, you should go too. I’ll take you. So she did and I almost aced the math section.

But his wound anybody know.

Anonymous wrote:Test optional significantly advantaged my child who got into their far Reach ED. I feel for those bemoaning the horrific acceptance rates but finally kids who simply aren’t as advantaged by being taught how to take the test are on the radar of the most selective schools. This is a welcome change...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

How on earth would test optional hurt high performing students?

It made the test optional for lesser performing students, who now skate by on some vague criteria.

I disagree. Performing well on a test doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or a better student.

There is nothing that proves that you are smarter or a better student. But standardized testing is a useful tool when evaluating students.

When evaluating them for what? And don't just say "qualified for admission", please be specific about personal qualities of a prospective student that standardized testing illustrates.

It’s definitely not perfect but I feel that since khan academy is free it is a more useful indicator (since costly prep isn’t necessary.) It is an additional piece of info. My child worked their tail off preparing with khan academy and got upper 1500s. To me that seems more relevant to her likelihood of success in college than her sports and clubs.

So really you don’t know.

It’s a terrible measure. GPA is a good measure

How can GPA be a good measure when it is to subjective and different across schools and even across teachers in the same school?

Because it shows ability to learn not what you have learned.

All teachers are subjective even the A ‘s you get at a top private school. They may give you the benefit of the doubt.

But GPA measure how you perform in your environment... if you can get a 4.0 in a terrible school system it still shows you perform at the top of your class. If you miss points on the SAT it means you never learned that not that you can’t learn it. Who care if somebody wasnt taught a random fact... the question is could they have learned it if taught it.

Schools don’t need kids that have learned a ton, they need kids that are teachable, GPA shows teach ability.

Also outside activities show a whole lot more than SAT. The “March for our lives” kids all got into Ivy colleges. Their GPA and SAT were lie but they showed they could create a movement.

Not when 50 - 70% of the kids in your class have a 4.0+ as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the high-scoring, low-income brilliant kids who aren't prepping at all and take the exam cold?

You can’t find those unicorns anymore thanks to test prep.

I actually think they should have a place to mark that you did not test prep.

I was poor, I did not know about SAT. My best friend said she could go out because of the SAT test, I said, what is that? Her mom said, you should go too. I’ll take you. So she did and I almost aced the math section.

But his wound anybody know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know three students who got into major reaches this year for what one would expect for them--test optional really helped some kids and I guess hurt the high performing students.

How on earth would test optional hurt high performing students?

It made the test optional for lesser performing students, who now skate by on some vague criteria.

I disagree. Performing well on a test doesn’t necessarily mean you are smarter or a better student.

There is nothing that proves that you are smarter or a better student. But standardized testing is a useful tool when evaluating students.

When evaluating them for what? And don't just say "qualified for admission", please be specific about personal qualities of a prospective student that standardized testing illustrates.

It’s definitely not perfect but I feel that since khan academy is free it is a more useful indicator (since costly prep isn’t necessary.) It is an additional piece of info. My child worked their tail off preparing with khan academy and got upper 1500s. To me that seems more relevant to her likelihood of success in college than her sports and clubs.

So really you don’t know.

It’s a terrible measure. GPA is a good measure

How can GPA be a good measure when it is to subjective and different across schools and even across teachers in the same school?

Because it shows ability to learn not what you have learned.

All teachers are subjective even the A ‘s you get at a top private school. They may give you the benefit of the doubt.

But GPA measure how you perform in your environment... if you can get a 4.0 in a terrible school system it still shows you perform at the top of your class. If you miss points on the SAT it means you never learned that not that you can’t learn it. Who care if somebody wasnt taught a random fact... the question is could they have learned it if taught it.

Schools don’t need kids that have learned a ton, they need kids that are teachable, GPA shows teach ability.

Also outside activities show a whole lot more than SAT. The “March for our lives” kids all got into Ivy colleges. Their GPA and SAT were lie but they showed they could create a movement.

Anonymous wrote:What about the high-scoring, low-income brilliant kids who aren't prepping at all and take the exam cold?