Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

Oh there you go again...
But no, I disagree. Precise score DOES matter in some situations. For example, majors such as engineering, the colleges will want to see a high score in math/science. If they get a 36 on the English and Reading sections, but a relatively low score in math, the colleges should know that. Only giving a "range" of the composite score won't tell the admissions office what they need to know.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Using your example, they could of course say “we need to see a 1400 AND at least a 750 in math” or whatever. But splitting hairs between a 770 and 790 is nonsense. So, MIT could just ask TCB to report whether, both, one, or none of the conditions are met. They can still admit whomever they want if they think the SAT doesn’t reflect true ability. Maybe the math competition champ had a bad SAT day or didn’t like the format.

Nothing obtuse about it. "We want to see a range of 25-36 ACT" and the student that got 19 Math, 17 Science, but 36 on English and reading gets admitted to the honors Engineering program.

🙄🙄🙄🙄 whatever. I literally said they could include subscore thresholds. You’re not even disagreeing in good faith.

Your original statement was not in good faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous that we have to expend energy, time and resources to go back to what we always historically did, because a group of progressive radicals in education shouted enough about some ridiculous theory that went against common sense, but somehow had enough support to get implemented.

Why do educational institutions cater to the loudest, dumbest most unproven voices?

Because test optional allows a school to admit a full-pay student with a 1200 over a middle class student with a 1350, while flattering the full-pay family by maintaining that admissions are based on merit.

Colleges have always had the power and flexibility to admit students with a wide range of test scores above and below their average. I know this because when I was a college applicant 20 years ago, my SAT score was below the average and I still was admitted.

TO is much more about signaling that you are willing to make life easier for students because we’ve all decided as a society that life is too hard and unfair for them so we lower or remove expectations and standards left and right in an attempt to appear or seem modern and progressive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

Oh there you go again...
But no, I disagree. Precise score DOES matter in some situations. For example, majors such as engineering, the colleges will want to see a high score in math/science. If they get a 36 on the English and Reading sections, but a relatively low score in math, the colleges should know that. Only giving a "range" of the composite score won't tell the admissions office what they need to know.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Using your example, they could of course say “we need to see a 1400 AND at least a 750 in math” or whatever. But splitting hairs between a 770 and 790 is nonsense. So, MIT could just ask TCB to report whether, both, one, or none of the conditions are met. They can still admit whomever they want if they think the SAT doesn’t reflect true ability. Maybe the math competition champ had a bad SAT day or didn’t like the format.

Nothing obtuse about it. "We want to see a range of 25-36 ACT" and the student that got 19 Math, 17 Science, but 36 on English and reading gets admitted to the honors Engineering program.

🙄🙄🙄🙄 whatever. I literally said they could include subscore thresholds. You’re not even disagreeing in good faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the arms race with extra-curricularss, which are a lot more expensive and less accessible than the SAT, or AP classes?

But there's no one good EC--many elite colleges say they look favorably on someone whose ECs was they babysat their younger siblings and/or worked a part time job in HS. It doesn't have to be $$ travel sports.

Actions speak louder than words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

Oh there you go again...
But no, I disagree. Precise score DOES matter in some situations. For example, majors such as engineering, the colleges will want to see a high score in math/science. If they get a 36 on the English and Reading sections, but a relatively low score in math, the colleges should know that. Only giving a "range" of the composite score won't tell the admissions office what they need to know.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Using your example, they could of course say “we need to see a 1400 AND at least a 750 in math” or whatever. But splitting hairs between a 770 and 790 is nonsense. So, MIT could just ask TCB to report whether, both, one, or none of the conditions are met. They can still admit whomever they want if they think the SAT doesn’t reflect true ability. Maybe the math competition champ had a bad SAT day or didn’t like the format.

Nothing obtuse about it. "We want to see a range of 25-36 ACT" and the student that got 19 Math, 17 Science, but 36 on English and reading gets admitted to the honors Engineering program.

Anonymous wrote:What about the arms race with extra-curricularss, which are a lot more expensive and less accessible than the SAT, or AP classes?

But there's no one good EC--many elite colleges say they look favorably on someone whose ECs was they babysat their younger siblings and/or worked a part time job in HS. It doesn't have to be $$ travel sports.

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous that we have to expend energy, time and resources to go back to what we always historically did, because a group of progressive radicals in education shouted enough about some ridiculous theory that went against common sense, but somehow had enough support to get implemented.

Why do educational institutions cater to the loudest, dumbest most unproven voices?

Because test optional allows a school to admit a full-pay student with a 1200 over a middle class student with a 1350, while flattering the full-pay family by maintaining that admissions are based on merit.

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous that we have to expend energy, time and resources to go back to what we always historically did, because a group of progressive radicals in education shouted enough about some ridiculous theory that went against common sense, but somehow had enough support to get implemented.

Why do educational institutions cater to the loudest, dumbest most unproven voices?

I’d love to understand too. I think by nature they are conflict-averse and believe they are obligated to “explore” new theories. Hence, educational consultants will always have clients!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

And on the flip side if this, instead of those high-potential disadvantaged kids, super-polished affluent kids who have all the bells and whistles on their application, but aren’t actually that bright or ready for rigorous elite college work, are slipping through with TO.

It's complex, but THIS is one of the things I worry about in terms of equity and fairness. One of the major arguments about the SAT was that it is a reflection of opportunity, more than it is an indicator of potential. That's a good point. But in isolating the SAT to throw out (or make optional), we're ignoring that all of the OTHER indicators of merit/readiness/specialness are likely JUST as loaded with opportunity. I'm noticing now that admissions care a lot more about extra curriculars. And I'm watching my upper middle class friends figure out how to get their kids into the right balance of activities, pay for them, drive them there, etc. I just find it disingenuous to act like this is LESS biased and loaded with opportunity.

That being said, I like test optional because students CAN use that SAT as one way to demonstrate readiness, but they don't have to use the SAT. That feels to me like it leaves more paths open.

+1. I know a family easily spending $40,000 on a sport. Of course, she’s good. It would be embarrassing if she wasn’t. Meanwhile, a kid can buy $60 worth of test prep books use Kahn academy for free and they are the villains in this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

Maybe not a "huge difference" but there is a difference. And there IS a huge difference between a 33/34 ACT, and a 21/22 ACT. When a student goes "test optional" the admissions committee/officer doesn't know if the student got a 34 or a 21.

DP. +1

This is the problem with test optional, that colleges do not know if a TO student is just below the 25th percentile or not even in the ballpark of enrolled students. Massive difference. And they've now got both types on campus.

Ok. But did you actually read my comment? I said colleges SHOULD use standardized tests, but only know if the applicant is in certain ranges, not the precise score. So they can distinguish between the 21 ACT and the 33 but not between a 32 and a 33. The arms race mentality of parents asking if their 1550 SAT kid should retake is unhealthy and an unproductive way to use HS time. If, eg, Brown were to say we consider a 1400 to be well prepared, then you’ll know the if you’re at 1380 to take again. And at 1450, don’t.

Oh there you go again...
But no, I disagree. Precise score DOES matter in some situations. For example, majors such as engineering, the colleges will want to see a high score in math/science. If they get a 36 on the English and Reading sections, but a relatively low score in math, the colleges should know that. Only giving a "range" of the composite score won't tell the admissions office what they need to know.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Using your example, they could of course say “we need to see a 1400 AND at least a 750 in math” or whatever. But splitting hairs between a 770 and 790 is nonsense. So, MIT could just ask TCB to report whether, both, one, or none of the conditions are met. They can still admit whomever they want if they think the SAT doesn’t reflect true ability. Maybe the math competition champ had a bad SAT day or didn’t like the format.

What about the arms race with extra-curricularss, which are a lot more expensive and less accessible than the SAT, or AP classes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

And on the flip side if this, instead of those high-potential disadvantaged kids, super-polished affluent kids who have all the bells and whistles on their application, but aren’t actually that bright or ready for rigorous elite college work, are slipping through with TO.

It's complex, but THIS is one of the things I worry about in terms of equity and fairness. One of the major arguments about the SAT was that it is a reflection of opportunity, more than it is an indicator of potential. That's a good point. But in isolating the SAT to throw out (or make optional), we're ignoring that all of the OTHER indicators of merit/readiness/specialness are likely JUST as loaded with opportunity. I'm noticing now that admissions care a lot more about extra curriculars. And I'm watching my upper middle class friends figure out how to get their kids into the right balance of activities, pay for them, drive them there, etc. I just find it disingenuous to act like this is LESS biased and loaded with opportunity.

That being said, I like test optional because students CAN use that SAT as one way to demonstrate readiness, but they don't have to use the SAT. That feels to me like it leaves more paths open.

Yeah, I think ECs should be the least important factor, but it seems like colleges are making them more and more important. Which is absolutely inequitable.

This x1000!!! It’s performative and probably more often than not, absolutely not an indicator of the students’ character, but instead, they’re racking up a resume that looks good to the outside. Not for my kid. I want my child to succeed by being himself.

That said, if ambitious pursuits are reflected in self directed achievements, then more power to the student. That’s awesome. But doing study abroad charity work with the goal to pass your resume, that’s just disingenuous. Blech

ECs are a unavoidable factor when selecting from applicants who have more or less identical academic profile. Imagine your child and another applicant with identical GPA, AP/SAT scores, class rank, etc, and same ethnic race, but the other applicant has ECs and your child does not, and only one spot to fill at a competitive university major. who should they make the offer to?

It’s ridiculous that we have to expend energy, time and resources to go back to what we always historically did, because a group of progressive radicals in education shouted enough about some ridiculous theory that went against common sense, but somehow had enough support to get implemented.

Why do educational institutions cater to the loudest, dumbest most unproven voices?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

This is an honest, sane reply.

I am really for a threshold approach to SAT/ACT like this for test optional. Avoids the arms race in scores but gives adequate information to schools (and to students).

Why do you keep calling it an "arms race?"

This was my first time posting so I don't keep calling it that--it's not a great analogy but basically just referring to the idea that making SAT a high stakes continuous merit indicator--you end up with people going to great lengths to best the opposition--much like in an arms race between countries. Nothing wrong with competition, but the time spent prepping for a fairly narrow test could be better spent doing things that will actually benefit the student/community--pursuing interests, working on meaningful academic projects etc. Just like a country not so focused on an arms race can better spend its resources on other valued outcomes. It has distorting effects--distinctions between scores at the high level are not the most meaningful predictors of academic/career success and have increasingly more to do with time/resources spent prepping. This distorts the test's intended purpose as an indicator of achievement (and/or ability depending on your pov) gained through years of math and reading work in and out of school.

If you view the SAT as a threshold (and at some schools it could be a very high threshold), you are not trying to best the competition with your score, rather to indicate you are capable of doing the work at the intended level. Your other application dimensions are where you are trying to best the competition and/or demonstrate more personal qualities that help a university build a community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course more data points are better than fewer. But the problem with the SAT/ACT is the arms race mentality. People seem to think there is a huge difference between a 1500 and a 1550 or a 33/34. There isn’t. The best use of those tests is as a confirmatory point of readiness to gauge GPA, not as a competition in and of itself. The 4.0 gpa kid with a 1020 might not be really ready for Hopkins. But the difference between the 1400 and 1470 is just noise.

Both those exams test reading comprehension and pretty basic math concepts in esoteric ways that have not very much to do with actual academic work. Colleges should decide what they think an appropriate level is for them and just have College Board/ACT to tell them whether the applicant is over or under it.

This is an honest, sane reply.

I am really for a threshold approach to SAT/ACT like this for test optional. Avoids the arms race in scores but gives adequate information to schools (and to students).

Why do you keep calling it an "arms race?"

Because it involves ever increasing study strategies without actually learning new material. They are just mastering the unique formats of the SAT/ACT