Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why this was deleted. Maybe because I pasted the particle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/briefing/the-misguided-war-on-the-sat.html

When I have asked university administrators whether they were aware of the research showing the value of test scores, they have generally said they were. But several told me, not for quotation, that they feared the political reaction on their campuses and in the media if they reinstated tests. “It’s not politically correct,” Charles Deacon, the longtime admissions dean at Georgetown University, which does require test scores, has told the journalist Jeffrey Selingo.

MIT
Without test scores, Schmill explained, admissions officers were left with two unappealing options. They would have to guess which students were likely to do well at M.I.T. — and almost certainly guess wrong sometimes, rejecting qualified applicants while admitting weaker ones. Or M.I.T. would need to reject more students from less advantaged high schools and admit more from the private schools and advantaged public schools that have a strong record of producing well-qualified students.

“Once we brought the test requirement back, we admitted the most diverse class that we ever had in our history,” Schmill told me. “Having test scores was helpful.”

I 100% agree that omitting the SAt and going test optional hurts smart poor and minority kids and helps mediocre rich kids.

Yes.

The entire point of the SAT was to move beyond all the advantages that wealthy families have. It allowed smart but otherwise disadvantaged students to show their chops.

TO works for the rich and hurts everyone else. It creates even more stress for middle class families. It's one more thing to game. Spend the money on tutors to bump up a 1360 to a 1510. Don't have the money, well too bad. Your middle class student is shut out of the top 40 schools. But the ones who have the money are fine. As are the hooked who don't have to submit.

It's not a good system. It's inequitable. A lot of real talent is shut out. And privileged mediocrity - whether wealthy or DEI or athletes - get the spots.

+100

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores. Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated. Source: UC system and Purdue research.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ nah.

Any parent with a kid that does exceptionally well on testing is pro-test, not just the rich.

And it will depend on kid too. I’m very pro-test currently because of my Senior’s very high ACT scores.

If my next kid bombs SAT/ACT I will change my stance. Lol!

+100

That’s every parent but they won’t admit it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores. Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated. Source: UC system and Purdue research.

My annoyance is that my DD studied hard and did really well on the SAT - similar to her sisters that got into top 20 schools. But, we went TO b/c the scores that are now reported are much higher as no one is reporting. We agonized over this decision. She lost a valuable side to her application. And, I think every year scores will continue to go up as those on the 25-50% will no longer report. Just a horrible decision.

I’m anti-TO, but that’s just dumb. No one made your daughter hide her strong score. You can’t blame her purposefully making her application weaker for any disappointing results. And it was her decision, not one that “we” agonized over.

But bear in mind -- some kids get bad advice from their counselors. Some panic when they see those reportered "averages" of 1480. etc. And some get their ideas from their peers, who might be having their own misinformed meltdowns.

Anonymous wrote:^ that was from my eye-balling of the graph in the NYT article. No score applicants fell around 1300 SAT applicants, as far as college GPA for the schools in the study, which I believe were about 15-20 elite colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why this was deleted. Maybe because I pasted the particle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/07/briefing/the-misguided-war-on-the-sat.html

When I have asked university administrators whether they were aware of the research showing the value of test scores, they have generally said they were. But several told me, not for quotation, that they feared the political reaction on their campuses and in the media if they reinstated tests. “It’s not politically correct,” Charles Deacon, the longtime admissions dean at Georgetown University, which does require test scores, has told the journalist Jeffrey Selingo.

MIT
Without test scores, Schmill explained, admissions officers were left with two unappealing options. They would have to guess which students were likely to do well at M.I.T. — and almost certainly guess wrong sometimes, rejecting qualified applicants while admitting weaker ones. Or M.I.T. would need to reject more students from less advantaged high schools and admit more from the private schools and advantaged public schools that have a strong record of producing well-qualified students.

“Once we brought the test requirement back, we admitted the most diverse class that we ever had in our history,” Schmill told me. “Having test scores was helpful.”

I 100% agree that omitting the SAt and going test optional hurts smart poor and minority kids and helps mediocre rich kids.

Yes.

The entire point of the SAT was to move beyond all the advantages that wealthy families have. It allowed smart but otherwise disadvantaged students to show their chops.

TO works for the rich and hurts everyone else. It creates even more stress for middle class families. It's one more thing to game. Spend the money on tutors to bump up a 1360 to a 1510. Don't have the money, well too bad. Your middle class student is shut out of the top 40 schools. But the ones who have the money are fine. As are the hooked who don't have to submit.

It's not a good system. It's inequitable. A lot of real talent is shut out. And privileged mediocrity - whether wealthy or DEI or athletes - get the spots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if they are a need-blind school, which many of the test optional schools are.

Those schools aren’t going bankrupt. That means they’re hitting their targets for full-pay students even while being nominally need-blind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores. Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated. Source: UC system and Purdue research.

My annoyance is that my DD studied hard and did really well on the SAT - similar to her sisters that got into top 20 schools. But, we went TO b/c the scores that are now reported are much higher as no one is reporting. We agonized over this decision. She lost a valuable side to her application. And, I think every year scores will continue to go up as those on the 25-50% will no longer report. Just a horrible decision.

Hard to guess why one wouldn't submit a strong score, even if it's on the low end for the school. Sorry to be critical of this decision-making, but personally, I think that's a mistake. Submit and then let the chips fall, rather than let the college assume the score was worse.

Because the average scores are so high now that you need a near perfect score to submit.

Of course we cannot know for sure, but TO colleges say they do not assume the scores were worse if not submitted. Thats what makes TO so wrong to me, it’s a guessing game now. A game that most SES and URM will not know how to play and this TO ends up hurting them rather than helping.

I agree that the PP probably received advice not to submit; I'm just saying I think that was bad advice. And I agree completely that URMs and low SES get hurt by test optional for the same reason - bad advice not to take tests and submit the scores.

While most TO colleges may say they do not assume scores were worse if not submitted, it is a logical assumption. It's hard to see how they don't make such an assumption here in 2024.

Anonymous wrote:^ nah.

Any parent with a kid that does exceptionally well on testing is pro-test, not just the rich.

And it will depend on kid too. I’m very pro-test currently because of my Senior’s very high ACT scores.

If my next kid bombs SAT/ACT I will change my stance. Lol!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores. Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated. Source: UC system and Purdue research.

My annoyance is that my DD studied hard and did really well on the SAT - similar to her sisters that got into top 20 schools. But, we went TO b/c the scores that are now reported are much higher as no one is reporting. We agonized over this decision. She lost a valuable side to her application. And, I think every year scores will continue to go up as those on the 25-50% will no longer report. Just a horrible decision.

Hard to guess why one wouldn't submit a strong score, even if it's on the low end for the school. Sorry to be critical of this decision-making, but personally, I think that's a mistake. Submit and then let the chips fall, rather than let the college assume the score was worse.

Because the average scores are so high now that you need a near perfect score to submit.

Of course we cannot know for sure, but TO colleges say they do not assume the scores were worse if not submitted. Thats what makes TO so wrong to me, it’s a guessing game now. A game that most SES and URM will not know how to play and this TO ends up hurting them rather than helping.