Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Who in the above isn’t successful? Doesn’t this completely blow up the whole point of this thread?

Hillary was a US senator and Kamala was attorney general of CA and VP.

Clearly, far more successful than you by any measure…including wealth since Hillary has made tens of millions of $$$s as well.

Why did you bring in wealth? Wealth wise I am considerably more successful than three of the four above but I would consider 3 of the four to be more successful than myself. The fourth is just a bit of an idiot who got lucky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we learned yet that people can be quite successful without top SATs?

Some people can be. In aggregate, high SAT people are more successful and low SAT people are less successful. On average and especially on the margins.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, high SAT, high LSAT. Successful presidents.

Joe Biden, low SAT, low LSAT. Unsuccessful president.

Now do Republicans.

JD Vance - Yale law, DeSantis Harvard law
Both passed bar exam first try
Hillary and Kamala both failed bar exam first try
Kamala was also child of faculty at Stanford and Berkeley and inexplicably didn’t get into either

Who in the above isn’t successful? Doesn’t this completely blow up the whole point of this thread?

Hillary was a US senator and Kamala was attorney general of CA and VP.

Clearly, far more successful than you by any measure…including wealth since Hillary has made tens of millions of $$$s as well.

Anonymous wrote:We’ll never have the sort of standardization across schools to make gpa meaningful. Test scores are important and they do correlate to college success, but it’s not the only factor. I’m glad we have holistic review and don’t force kids to peek at 16 and close doors if they don’t.

It is also accurate though that there are high rigor/gpa, perfect or near perfect sat/act cold, with all the social skills and emotional intelligence to stand out in all areas. Seems like some act like this doesn’t exist and it’s plentiful at top schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GPAs are meaningless at grade inflated schools that have put As like candy and allow multiple re-takes of tests/exams, don’t enforce deadlines, etc

+100

I’ve always been pro test score.

But GPAs are unpredictable—too many variables in rigor and standards—re-takes, etc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

How about starting with speaking out against white supremacy that has infected many of the systems, including K-12 education?

When mediocre white guys can be Secretary of Defense , run HHS, or be POTUS, there's no such thing as "merit."

Even standardized testing in the U.S. come from racist origins.

You sound brainwashed.

Anonymous wrote:We’ll never have the sort of standardization across schools to make gpa meaningful. Test scores are important and they do correlate to college success, but it’s not the only factor. I’m glad we have holistic review and don’t force kids to peek at 16 and close doors if they don’t.

It is also accurate though that there are high rigor/gpa, perfect or near perfect sat/act cold, with all the social skills and emotional intelligence to stand out in all areas. Seems like some act like this doesn’t exist and it’s plentiful at top schools.

Anonymous wrote:GPAs are meaningless at grade inflated schools that have put As like candy and allow multiple re-takes of tests/exams, don’t enforce deadlines, etc

Anonymous wrote:For a truly merit-based system, we would need to start at the beginning and give everyone equal access to a standardized K-12 curriculum that’s uniform across all 50 states, across all schools districts.

Anonymous wrote:We’ll never have the sort of standardization across schools to make gpa meaningful. Test scores are important and they do correlate to college success, but it’s not the only factor. I’m glad we have holistic review and don’t force kids to peek at 16 and close doors if they don’t.

It is also accurate though that there are high rigor/gpa, perfect or near perfect sat/act cold, with all the social skills and emotional intelligence to stand out in all areas. Seems like some act like this doesn’t exist and it’s plentiful at top schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a truly merit-based system, we would need to start at the beginning and give everyone equal access to a standardized K-12 curriculum that’s uniform across all 50 states, across all schools districts.

+1. And not one gets enrichment or test prep unless it's available to all.

I get that OP's perfect child was rejected from a school where she thought they were entitled to attend on merit, but geez, what an obnoxious post.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure half of these “SAT should be everything” posts and comments are this right here.

My view is they are all immigrants who work as coders in some backroom and studied computer science or vocational engineering.

They don’t realize their kids are at the bottom of the totem pole here as a CS major. You’re never going to be running the show with CS. Just grinding.

CS is a versatile major. One can expand into many fields/industries. It's not just "coding."

I guess that's why it's a popular major despite the doomsayers.

Next, people are going to dismiss engineering majors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a truly merit-based system, we would need to start at the beginning and give everyone equal access to a standardized K-12 curriculum that’s uniform across all 50 states, across all schools districts.

And somehow completely cure learning disabilities. Do you how many brilliant young people can't do well in high school then go on to wonderful things. But let's act like the caste systems and give opportunities only to the elite, privileged few. What stupid ideas you all have on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

Standardized testing is highly correlated with household income. You're OK with "high income, coastal elites" getting most of the slots, but the majority are not. There are also built-in biases with standardized tests that UMC parents ignore and rampant cheating with "testing accommodations," again by families with money..

Unless there's some weighting/indexing of SAT/ACT scores by zip code, your proposed system won't work.

Or maybe both test scores and test scores are correlated with intelligence. Seems more likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was thinking of what a merit based system would look like: I've come up with a system where you get points based on your SAT or ACT score and your GPA. Those with the highest combination of the scores (can weight the SAT/ACT higher since there is a lot of grade inflation) would get first pick at any of the top schools and then it goes down the list. No more race to the top for extracurriculars- it would just be mainly studying super hard for the SAT. The top colleges would likely comprise of mostly high income , coastal elites but you couldn't argue much with this. Any thoughts? What do you think would be the most merit based system?

Standardized testing is highly correlated with household income. You're OK with "high income, coastal elites" getting most of the slots, but the majority are not. There are also built-in biases with standardized tests that UMC parents ignore and rampant cheating with "testing accommodations," again by families with money..

Unless there's some weighting/indexing of SAT/ACT scores by zip code, your proposed system won't work.

Or maybe

both test scores and test scores

are correlated with intelligence. Seems more likely.