Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

Holding on to standardized testing gets you nowhere closer to that goal.

Disagree.
I'm with MIT on this.
It contributes a lot to fairness and transparency and overall higher quality.

Cool. so how does it do that? How are the scores used? How does it translate to higher quality if they’re not taking the top scores?

People can disagree on this point. Chicago does. So let schools do what they want. This authoritarian bent is a weird way to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

Holding on to standardized testing gets you nowhere closer to that goal.

Disagree.
I'm with MIT on this.
It contributes a lot to fairness and transparency and overall higher quality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

Holding on to standardized testing gets you nowhere closer to that goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep... best way to hide their discrimination.

What discrimination?

You do understand it's perfectly acceptable to accept students with lower test scores? For whatever reason they want? And that choosing to have just a disproportionate amount of Asian students versus a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of Asian students is perfectly valid discrimination, right? It's discimination in the sense that when you choose red wine to drink over white wine, you've discriminated against the white wine. Oh well. It doesn't make it wrong.

The reason these schools are getting rid of test scores is that they see the writing on the wall- there are cases before the Supreme Court where schools very clearly discriminated against certain races (Asians and Whites) in favor of other racial/ethnic groups, and the court seems set to strike down these discriminatory policies. And the plaintiffs made their cases based on test scores and grades of applicants who were treated differently based on race. The numbers showed very clearly that Asian applicants in particular with high test scores were discriminated against in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants with significantly lower test scores.

These schools want to get rid of test scores (and probably grades), because getting rid of objective numbers in favor of subjective acceptance criteria will allow them to more easily discriminate without leaving evidence that is easily discoverable the next time they get sued for racial discrimination. It's a pretty transparent ploy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep... best way to hide their discrimination.

What discrimination?

You do understand it's perfectly acceptable to accept students with lower test scores? For whatever reason they want? And that choosing to have just a disproportionate amount of Asian students versus a GROSSLY disproportionate amount of Asian students is perfectly valid discrimination, right? It's discimination in the sense that when you choose red wine to drink over white wine, you've discriminated against the white wine. Oh well. It doesn't make it wrong.

Anonymous wrote:I think other T20s will adopt the same policies soon or are waiting for Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action.

Article link: https://www.highereddive.com/news/columbia-university-becomes-first-ivy-league-institution-to-go-permanently/643947/

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:I think you can simultaneously believe schools should have latitude to deprioritize test scores for reasons the successful lawyer articulated while asserting that they are doing so now as a workaround for the affirmative action ruling. They don’t want data that suggests systematic racial preferences. So it is better not to have the data. I think in practice everyone knows white and Asian kids are at a huge disadvantage if they do not submit test scores barring exceptional circumstances (low income, special hardship or a fantastic transcript). Certainly some white and Asian kids get admitted without scores but the odds are probably quite low. The schools of course don’t provide any meaningful statistics on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an anecdote for you. I'm a white guy from a working class background with parents who never finished high school. I went to a no-name college because it never even occurred to me to apply anywhere else. I ended up with an extremely high GPA and, with coaxing and coaching from a dean of the college, ended up winning a highly prestigious scholarship for graduate studies abroad .

I did not do well on the SAT and also bombed the LSAT. Coming from my background, it honestly never even occurred to me that I needed to or should prep for it. I literally thought to myself "ok, to apply to law school you need to take the LSAT," so I simply signed up and walk into the exam room and took it.

My LSAT score easily placed me in the bottom ten percent of accepted applicants. In a school where the median score of my entering class was well above the 90th percentile, my score was in the 60th percentile. I was admitted to the law school solely on the basis of my GPA and because I applied from abroad while on my graduate scholarship.

I finished my 1L year first in the class, and it wasn't close. Number 2 was an Ivy League grad with a perfect LSAT score. I was retroactively awarded a full scholarship. I ended up graduating in the top 5, landing a top federal court of appeals clerkship, getting hired by one of the most selective Biglaw firms in the country, and eventually made equity partner.

Bottom line: my test scores obviously did not reflect the full extent of my abilities in any way, shape or form. My law school apparently knew that and took a chance on me. I'm grateful for that.

My kids, on the other hand, all had SAT and ACT scores that blew mine completely out of the water, and all of them ended up attending top colleges and universities. I love my kids and obviously think they're smart, but I don't think for a second that a bunch of near geniuses (exaggerating but you get the point) were the spawn of idiot genes. It typically doesn't happen that way.

No, what happened is this: my kids' test scores were the combined product of both their natural intelligence AND the privilege of being raised in a high income environment with educated parents who understood the system and had the wherewithal to make it work for them. It's just so painfully obvious.

This board suffers from the delusion that standardized test scores used for college admissions are more than just a blunt instrument. They're not. They're axes, not scalpel. The notion that high test scores should trump everything else -- or that low test scores should be disqualifying -- is ridiculous.

No one said this. Also, what year did you graduate from law school? Sometime in the 1990s, I’ll wager.

The year of my graduation has no relevance whatsoever.

And of course what you've bolded isn't exactly what every one is saying, but it's what many are thinking. There are many folks on this board who insist that with all of the grade inflation going on test scores need to matter more, the assumption being that they are somehow fail-proof and objective criteria. Which they are not.

I have a hunch that the large majority of those arguing that schools should not be test optional have kids with high test scores.

Lol, okay, law school admissions have not changed AT ALL since the 1990s. The ABA isn’t eliminating the LSAT in 2025. Standards haven’t been relaxed at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.

These schools are a teeny tiny part of the whole system. Just disregard them, the way you disregard Bennington and Sarah Lawrence.

Anonymous wrote:MIT usually does a good job navigating data. Check out what they have to say on the matter. https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement-0328

Anonymous wrote:It’s created the awful situation we are in now with too many applicants at any given school. It’s a factor that should be considered along with grades and Eva and recs.

The holistic admissions are ruining college education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous!

Sounds like this test doesn't provide any helpful information about student outcomes so not all that ridiciulous.

??? You are completely wrong.
All the studies by MIT, UC, etc.. proved that standardized tests are good indication for academic success in colleges.

NP. You are completely wrong. The results from studies are mixed—some say test scores don’t correlate with success, some say they do, some say they correlate but aren’t the best predictor of success. There is no definitive evidence in any direction.

And what schools going test-optional seem to be finding is that they can select successful students without test scores, so they are removing it as a required factor in admissions.

It has been only 2-3 years for test optional. Schools didn't find anything yet.

Some schools have been test optional for years and haven’t found a problem. You should ask yourself why you are so invested in what they do.

Higher education system is a vital part of the whole society.
I think it's very important to have fair and transparent system.