Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I agree. I think it’s the parents of high scorers who can’t believe a student can show intelligence/ talent/ potential/ ambition/ drive in another way. Test blind has worked out just fine for California schools

Worked out just fine? https://www.forbes.com/sites/annaesakismith/2025/12/11/uc-san-diego-finds-one-in-eight-freshmen-lack-high-school-math-skills/

The academic consequences of inadequate math ability are significant, the UCSD report indicated. Students who begin in remedial math have much lower rates of success in later math courses, and very few eventually complete engineering degrees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

Ah, yes, this is clearly a question asked in good faith. But I’ll answer.

I don’t think standardized test scores have meaningful bearing on college performance. There have been a ton of studies on this topic and no consensus; to the extent that the studies have found that GPA or test scores have predictive value for college performance, the effects are generally quite small.

And then anecdotally I’ve observed so many kids who did not have high test scores thrive at highly selective colleges (including one of my own).

In my observation (including working at a highly selective university), social factors are what predict success in these environments. With some supports (e.g., first-gen programs), student performance is equalized.

And to your final question, I think that having a population of college graduates that is demographically representative is critical to ensuring our country functions effectively.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, here are some other studies (actual studies, not screenshots from X):

High School GPAs and ACT Scores as Predictors of College Completion: Examining Assumptions About Consistency Across High Schools: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110

Contextualized High School Performance: Evidence to Inform Equitable Holistic, Test-Optional, and Test-Free Admissions Policies https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584231197413

Is the Sky Falling? Grade Inflation and the Signaling Power of Grades
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X13481382

Predicting College Success
How Do Different High School Assessments Measure Up?
https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-success-how-do-different-high-school-assessments-measure-2019

You forgot the UC study that looked at ALL the research and found that test scores were statistically significant in predicting college success. I believe that Purdue released similar research when they returned to test required.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I agree. I think it’s the parents of high scorers who can’t believe a student can show intelligence/ talent/ potential/ ambition/ drive in another way. Test blind has worked out just fine for California schools

Anonymous wrote:Hey, here are some other studies (actual studies, not screenshots from X):

High School GPAs and ACT Scores as Predictors of College Completion: Examining Assumptions About Consistency Across High Schools: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110

Contextualized High School Performance: Evidence to Inform Equitable Holistic, Test-Optional, and Test-Free Admissions Policies https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584231197413

Is the Sky Falling? Grade Inflation and the Signaling Power of Grades
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X13481382

Predicting College Success
How Do Different High School Assessments Measure Up?
https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-success-how-do-different-high-school-assessments-measure-2019

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

You can be test required but still essentially disregard scores in the admissions calculus. Many schools do this by using scores as a bar you have to pass, rather than giving more points for higher scores.

Is OP’s link advocating for higher scores being the primary criteria? So Stanford has to accept all the kids with 1600s before they consider the kids with 1590s?

Yes, the link OP posted compares current holistic policies to an SAT-only approach.

Why would any school want to rely only on SAT scores? How is that one score more useful than all the other things that go into making a good, curious student and future leader? [my kids both had high scores, so the SAT only approach would benefit them in spite of their mediocre grades].

Because the holistic approach that considers extracurriculars on par with test scores vastly favors the wealthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

You can be test required but still essentially disregard scores in the admissions calculus. Many schools do this by using scores as a bar you have to pass, rather than giving more points for higher scores.

Is OP’s link advocating for higher scores being the primary criteria? So Stanford has to accept all the kids with 1600s before they consider the kids with 1590s?

Yes, the link OP posted compares current holistic policies to an SAT-only approach.

Why would any school want to rely only on SAT scores? How is that one score more useful than all the other things that go into making a good, curious student and future leader? [my kids both had high scores, so the SAT only approach would benefit them in spite of their mediocre grades].

Because the holistic approach that considers extracurriculars on par with test scores vastly favors the wealthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

You can be test required but still essentially disregard scores in the admissions calculus. Many schools do this by using scores as a bar you have to pass, rather than giving more points for higher scores.

Is OP’s link advocating for higher scores being the primary criteria? So Stanford has to accept all the kids with 1600s before they consider the kids with 1590s?

Yes, the link OP posted compares current holistic policies to an SAT-only approach.

Why would any school want to rely only on SAT scores? How is that one score more useful than all the other things that go into making a good, curious student and future leader? [my kids both had high scores, so the SAT only approach would benefit them in spite of their mediocre grades].

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most top schools are test required. Only a few trying to game admissions (chicago) or shit ones (emory) lag.

You can be test required but still essentially disregard scores in the admissions calculus. Many schools do this by using scores as a bar you have to pass, rather than giving more points for higher scores.

Is OP’s link advocating for higher scores being the primary criteria? So Stanford has to accept all the kids with 1600s before they consider the kids with 1590s?

Yes, the link OP posted compares current holistic policies to an SAT-only approach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

Ah, yes, this is clearly a question asked in good faith. But I’ll answer.

I don’t think standardized test scores have meaningful bearing on college performance. There have been a ton of studies on this topic and no consensus; to the extent that the studies have found that GPA or test scores have predictive value for college performance, the effects are generally quite small.

And then anecdotally I’ve observed so many kids who did not have high test scores thrive at highly selective colleges (including one of my own).

In my observation (including working at a highly selective university), social factors are what predict success in these environments. With some supports (e.g., first-gen programs), student performance is equalized.

And to your final question, I think that having a population of college graduates that is demographically representative is critical to ensuring our country functions effectively.

The quick abandonment of test optional (or test blind)policies suggests the contrary. Also the UCSD issues with students ability to do even basic high school and middle school math under a test blind policy.

95% of schools are still TO, including half of the top 25 national universities and virtually all of the top 25 LACs.

We can also look at the comprehensive study the UC system paid for which found test scores have a statistically significant impact on predicting college performance, particularly in an environment of high grade inflation.

One study among many with varying outcomes, rarely so dramatic as to be determinative (again, in either direction—GPA or test scores). And the UCs are still test-blind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges found out they didn’t get the best of the best with just high test scores.

They are a business, they want to have the best alumni. Best test scores don’t give them that.

Again, you didn’t read the article. Holistic admissions allows schools to admit wealthy students and athletes instead of middle class kids with higher scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so weird to me how obsessed some of you are with test scores as the end all and be all—and I say this as someone with a kid who got at 36 on the ACT in their first and only try.

I don’t think this entitles my kid to admission over kids with lower or no test scores. I think TO is great. I am glad 95% of schools are still TO.

Some of you need to off X and get outside. Good lord.

I’m curious why you think this. Is it just virtue signaling or do you really think standardized test scores have no bearing on college performance? Is it that you think that college should be more about social engineering and less about producing graduates that can best make the country function?

Ah, yes, this is clearly a question asked in good faith. But I’ll answer.

I don’t think standardized test scores have meaningful bearing on college performance. There have been a ton of studies on this topic and no consensus; to the extent that the studies have found that GPA or test scores have predictive value for college performance, the effects are generally quite small.

And then anecdotally I’ve observed so many kids who did not have high test scores thrive at highly selective colleges (including one of my own).

In my observation (including working at a highly selective university), social factors are what predict success in these environments. With some supports (e.g., first-gen programs), student performance is equalized.

And to your final question, I think that having a population of college graduates that is demographically representative is critical to ensuring our country functions effectively.

The quick abandonment of test optional (or test blind)policies suggests the contrary. Also the UCSD issues with students ability to do even basic high school and middle school math under a test blind policy.

95% of schools are still TO, including half of the top 25 national universities and virtually all of the top 25 LACs.

We can also look at the comprehensive study the UC system paid for which found test scores have a statistically significant impact on predicting college performance, particularly in an environment of high grade inflation.

Anonymous wrote:Colleges found out they didn’t get the best of the best with just high test scores.

They are a business, they want to have the best alumni. Best test scores don’t give them that.