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.

I read it and I’ve read other articles that are similar.

So what? What is your point?

The reality is they get better applicants this way. They’re a business they want the better applicants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I’m not forgetting that study. I’m noting that there are lots of studies with lots of different conclusions. Anyone saying that there’s a clear answer based on one study is not interested in the messy reality.

Which is why I’m a fan of test optional and holistic admissions—let schools figure out how to incorporate test scores. Let students emphasize their strengths. This is not a black and white issue, no matter how much you want it to be.

The larger and more comprehensive studies show that test scores are good (often the best) predictors of college performance. A few small underpowered studies showing something else aren’t particularly convincing. Even before the UC study Kuncel and Sackett at UMN used standardized test scores for millions of students and pretty conclusively showed that they’re the best predictor of college performance.

You have to actually clarify that claim, you can’t just skip over it. This is essentially “I disagree with it, so the conclusions must be wrong.”

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

Which is why the Caltech professors basically had a mutiny after only two years test blind to go back to test required and UCSD has had to start offering basic algebra classes? I hate to see your definition of not going well.

UCSD is a California education problem. 40% of students who placed in the “basic algebra class” took AP calculus.

A higher sat score measures academic grit, and resilience, that elusive quality…

The most privileged / wealthy parents benefit from these “wholistic review” and “test-optional” admissions policies.

The entire country’s university system would benefit from basing admission on objective performance on the two accepted standardized tests: the SAT and ACT.

Next: I hope they stop allowing 50% extra time for the frequently-fraudulent claims of mental disability, such as “adhd.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a horror.

I don’t know. I think colleges want to be able to reject a 1600 scores whose teacher recs say the kid is a cheater.

What about the kid who scores 1600 but has lots of Bs or didn't take any challenging classes? Why should a 3 hour test be more important than 4 years of performance?

Unlike the TO folks, people are saying that standardized tests should be required in conjunction with GPA and rigor. Nobody is arguing that grades should be ignored. It would be crazy to ignore data that allows you to make better decisions right?

The link was LITERALLY about using *only* the SAT. The word ONLY was even highlighted. So yes, the link in the OP is explicitly arguing that grades should be ignored.

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.

Thanks. This has not been my experience, but you clearly have an informed opinion. I’m not convinced that demographic representation causes institutions to function better if lowering standards is necessary to achieve that. My experience has been emphatically the opposite. I certainly hope you’re right since I don’t see putting that genie back in the bottle.

D1 schools don’t care about test scores other than athletes meet minimum scores (which are very low).

This varies greatly by school and by sport. Minimum SAT for recruiting in my daughter's sport at T20 non-Ivy school is 1400.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I’m not forgetting that study. I’m noting that there are lots of studies with lots of different conclusions. Anyone saying that there’s a clear answer based on one study is not interested in the messy reality.

Which is why I’m a fan of test optional and holistic admissions—let schools figure out how to incorporate test scores. Let students emphasize their strengths. This is not a black and white issue, no matter how much you want it to be.

The larger and more comprehensive studies show that test scores are good (often the best) predictors of college performance. A few small underpowered studies showing something else aren’t particularly convincing. Even before the UC study Kuncel and Sackett at UMN used standardized test scores for millions of students and pretty conclusively showed that they’re the best predictor of college performance.

Anonymous wrote:The most interesting piece is the other statement that attending an ivy plus schools over a public flagship confers significant advantages to the student.

Is that really what it says? https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Because what I’m reading is that kids who choose the more prestigious school are also more likely to work at prestigious firms or attend prestigious graduate schools. Maybe what they’re seeing is that kids who are highly motivated to seek maximum prestige at age 18 continue to chase that brass ring.

Also worth noting that they saw reduced effects for kids with strong home state schools: “The
causal effects of admission to an Ivy-Plus college are much larger for students with weaker fallback options
– e.g., whose colleges in their home state channel fewer students to the top 1% after college.” (P.3).

The most interesting piece is the other statement that attending an ivy plus schools over a public flagship confers significant advantages to the student.

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 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.

Fascinating that this massive effect was found among students whose secondary schooling coincided with a two-year period when a pandemic killed more than 1 million people, closed many schools, and then prevented normal functioning of schools for an extended period after reopening.

But, no, it must be because of test optional admissions. Come on.

Seriously? Had the school had the math SATs for these students, they would never have been admitted.

Or…math skills overall took a big hit because of pandemic-related educational disruptions, which would account for the extremely dramatic findings in the particular time period considered in this study:

The report shows a rapid change over just five years. Between 2020 and 2025, the number of incoming students whose math skills were below high school level rose nearly thirtyfold

Like, literally, many of these students had minimal math instruction for two years of this timeframe, years when they would have been getting instruction in pre-algebra, algebra, and geometry; that’s devastating to development of math skills. If tests had been required, I have no doubt that some would have been screened out by the SAT or ACT in this period. But many—particularly those with access to test tutoring—would not have been.

I’d love to see this study repeated in five and ten years. My guess is the results will be less dramatic. As we’re seeing with so many parts of society—think crime, which has fallen off a cliff in the last couple of years after a pandemic-related spike—the pandemic was disruptive in ways we are only starting to understand.

I actually think they trigger the other group

These types of threads tend to trigger parents whose kids got in test optional.

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 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.

Fascinating that this massive effect was found among students whose secondary schooling coincided with a two-year period when a pandemic killed more than 1 million people, closed many schools, and then prevented normal functioning of schools for an extended period after reopening.

But, no, it must be because of test optional admissions. Come on.

Seriously? Had the school had the math SATs for these students, they would never have been admitted.