Anonymous wrote:Universities will end up with their own entrance exams to be able to narrow down the candidates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To summarize this thread:

1. Colleges are too dumb to pick the right kids without SATs so their students will fail out.
2. Students are too dumb to pick the right college for them without SATs so they will fail out.

How the hell did any of these people get near college, anyway? They all sound incredibly stupid! Please, college board, save them all from their own ineptitude!

This sounds cute, but it’s not helpful. For the last 100 years, American colleges have used some type of examination to gauge student preparation (see https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/281336/). Examinations started when common people wanted to attend. Prior to that, there were economic barriers, like cost, social circles, and ability to read Greek and Latin (definitely not needed for farm workers’ and shop keepers’ children). The point is, you may not like test scores, but at least they’re on target for the issue at hand (academics), not unrelated factors like legacy, large donations, personal references, etc.

It wasn’t intended to be helpful beyond pointing out the ludicrous points it makes fun of. In that respect, apparently, it was very helpful.

As for test scores being “on target for the issue at hand” I hope you realize the opinions of the folks that matter — college officials — vary widely on that topic. I do not claim to be an expert and in fact I think colleges should be allowed to use whatever criteria they want.

But the “we’re doomed! Idiot kids who took my kid’s spot are gonna fail out now!!” Is patently absurd and should stop.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think this is a significant issue. With no score, a kid with 6-8 APs and a GPA anywhere from (loosely!!) 3.8-4.0 cannot guess what their chances are like at any school in the top 50, beyond the obvious that a top 10 will be a bigger reach. The GPA range is too narrow, and it is compounded by the fact that GPAs are not standardized and cannot be equated across high schools. High school students will struggle to understand how they compare, where they fit - this is already happening with class of 2021, thus the increase in apps to hedge one's bets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students will (hopefully) apply to colleges that are the right fit for them based on things like:

major
urban\suburban\rural
Sports, intramurals, clubs
Small, medium, large student body
amenities
distance from home
networking & opportunities
social - parties, frats
dorms
walkability

Also colleges will still recruit students. So maybe instead of only recruiting athletes or academic superstars they will look to balance the student body:

- increasing students from rural communities, the pacific coast, or specific states
- filling the 10 spots available in the culinary arts
- recruit students that played a musical instrument
- focusing on C students because they have a strong support network or even students that are the first in their families to go to college or ELL students

But nothing you’ve listed has to do with educational rigor. Most parents don’t want to pay $80k x 4 for a country club or a playground experience. Believe me, something will emerge that will be a type of ranking/selectivity indicator because competitive students, parents, employers, and even better colleges will demand it. The worst would be some non-transparent system that no one acknowledges but actually controls admission. In sum, we need some time of standardized credential for ACADEMIC RIGOR with a curve for socioeconomic context.

Employers don’t demand it now. They hire people, based on college performance, experiences and personal qualifications. “Believe me”, they know which schools prepare the kids they want and they don’t look at effing USNews to discover that.

Of course employers don’t ask for test scores. What I mean is that test scores are a common language for students, parents, employers, and colleges to know what kind of student goes where. Look, part of the prestige of Harvard is that you know that smart people go there. Yes, in turn, they have experiences at the college, etc., but the initial criteria is that they are smart. Do great colleges spend a lot of time with test scores? No, because they are easy to assess. Test scores are a gateway for deeper review. Which colleges to apply to or recruit from seems “obvious” now because all the data is present. Without the data and 10 years hence, it may be less clear. Who will benefit? The schools with currently great reputations will become entrenched. Who will lose? Any school trying to climb the ladder and the students who attend them.

You think Harvard grads are desired by employers because of their peer cohort’s test scores?

This may be the most unintentionally funny thing I have read on this forum.

I’m glad I made you laugh. However, I think you are either a bit dense or just trying to be difficult. No college or employer wants a student for their test score, per se. The test score is a signaling device. If a college admits high scorers only, employers know that students are the caliber that they want. I know you’ll probably respond that employers want problem solvers, blah, blah, blah, but if all starts with capability.

Anonymous wrote:My child wasn't able to take the SAT before applying (she's a senior) to colleges but the high school advisor gave her a list of 10 schools to apply to based on what the counselor knew about the child and the colleges. In addition to not testing, she has not toured any colleges so my child is relying very heavily on the college advisor's knowledge. I suspect that is more important than testing.

So far she's been deferred to two and in at one-- waiting to hear back about all the others. One of the deferrals is University of Michigan-- considered a reach for our child.

If she gets in and finds it a struggle,she will not be alone. Colleges must anticipate a significant number of those they admitted are not a good fit and must nurture or establish relationships with other colleges that they will respectfully and responsibly transfer overwhelmed students to. There could be a lot of movement both ways. Those kids that missed out for some reason on getting into a higher ranked school will be invited to play in the Big League, while those that are struggling will be advised to try some time in the minors with an understanding that if certain classes are taken and grades improve to a certain point, then they will automatically get back into the original school.

For Michigan, perhaps this would be with a community college close by, or perhaps with Michigan State. For an Ivy League school, perhaps it would be with a SLAC in the area.

In sum, high school students will depend upon their college counselor to know where to apply. If that advice turns out to be misplaced, colleges will provide a "warm handover" of the student to another school that will be a better fit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students will (hopefully) apply to colleges that are the right fit for them based on things like:

major
urban\suburban\rural
Sports, intramurals, clubs
Small, medium, large student body
amenities
distance from home
networking & opportunities
social - parties, frats
dorms
walkability

Also colleges will still recruit students. So maybe instead of only recruiting athletes or academic superstars they will look to balance the student body:

- increasing students from rural communities, the pacific coast, or specific states
- filling the 10 spots available in the culinary arts
- recruit students that played a musical instrument
- focusing on C students because they have a strong support network or even students that are the first in their families to go to college or ELL students

But nothing you’ve listed has to do with educational rigor. Most parents don’t want to pay $80k x 4 for a country club or a playground experience. Believe me, something will emerge that will be a type of ranking/selectivity indicator because competitive students, parents, employers, and even better colleges will demand it. The worst would be some non-transparent system that no one acknowledges but actually controls admission. In sum, we need some time of standardized credential for ACADEMIC RIGOR with a curve for socioeconomic context.

Employers don’t demand it now. They hire people, based on college performance, experiences and personal qualifications. “Believe me”, they know which schools prepare the kids they want and they don’t look at effing USNews to discover that.

Of course employers don’t ask for test scores. What I mean is that test scores are a common language for students, parents, employers, and colleges to know what kind of student goes where. Look, part of the prestige of Harvard is that you know that smart people go there. Yes, in turn, they have experiences at the college, etc., but the initial criteria is that they are smart. Do great colleges spend a lot of time with test scores? No, because they are easy to assess. Test scores are a gateway for deeper review. Which colleges to apply to or recruit from seems “obvious” now because all the data is present. Without the data and 10 years hence, it may be less clear. Who will benefit? The schools with currently great reputations will become entrenched. Who will lose? Any school trying to climb the ladder and the students who attend them.

You think Harvard grads are desired by employers because of their peer cohort’s test scores?

This may be the most unintentionally funny thing I have read on this forum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To summarize this thread:

1. Colleges are too dumb to pick the right kids without SATs so their students will fail out.
2. Students are too dumb to pick the right college for them without SATs so they will fail out.

How the hell did any of these people get near college, anyway? They all sound incredibly stupid! Please, college board, save them all from their own ineptitude!

This sounds cute, but it’s not helpful. For the last 100 years, American colleges have used some type of examination to gauge student preparation (see https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/281336/). Examinations started when common people wanted to attend. Prior to that, there were economic barriers, like cost, social circles, and ability to read Greek and Latin (definitely not needed for farm workers’ and shop keepers’ children). The point is, you may not like test scores, but at least they’re on target for the issue at hand (academics), not unrelated factors like legacy, large donations, personal references, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t test scores the number one way for students to understand if they qualify for a university? Without them, how will a student choose? GPA can’t be used because high schools use different scales. Course rigor also varies between schools. Do the number of AP classes and their scores become the new placement proxy? It seems challenging to benchmark ECs and many of the most selective schools don’t care about them unless you’re a recruiter athlete. Right now, it seems like both colleges and students are betting that testing does NOT go away so that both can select each other. Thoughts?

GPA can be used, is being used, and has been used. Most colleges know that schools use different scales and have different degrees of rigor.

But just because the schools know how to evaluate GPAs in the context of different schools doesn't mean the students will and will know how to create their application list accordingly.

To summarize this thread:

1. Colleges are too dumb to pick the right kids without SATs so their students will fail out.
2. Students are too dumb to pick the right college for them without SATs so they will fail out.

How the hell did any of these people get near college, anyway? They all sound incredibly stupid! Please, college board, save them all from their own ineptitude!