I’m assuming that they will still look at GPA / grades as part of the admissions process. Aren’t most grades based on test performance (midterms, finals, etc) If they are not going to look at ACT / SAT why look at grades? without some common metric the subjectivity of admissions decisions will increase
"rich kids began spoiling things for everyone else with endless test-prep courses.
Rich kids have always done well on the SATs, the issue around SATs being correlated with income has been around a long time, probably since the test was invented, when there were questions around crew, equestrian et al.
@JBStillFlying I hate 'em. Period. Never been great at them. Took the MCAT and once again, got below the 10th percentile for my current institution (consistently ranked as a top-5 if not top-3 institution). Seeing how I’m not underrepresented in any way, I am just a lucky duck. Just to show you that yes, there are still schools that care about things beyond numbers. Will see whether I’m equally lucky when it comes to USMLE and residency match!
There’s a proposal making its way through AMA that’ll make USMLE Pass/Fail. Probably won’t be applicable to me though but hope it passes ~
The interview could probably go away, as we seem to have heard from several schools that the interview doesn’t count for much in the end. The video is an interesting idea though, but who knows, maybe in a few years, we’ll be hearing that the video doesn’t count for much either.
“@JBStillFlying I hate 'em. Period. Never been great at them. Took the MCAT and once again, got below the 10th percentile for my current institution (consistently ranked as a top-5 if not top-3 institution).”
@Poplicola aside from your personal experience - which, by the way, is clearly exceptional - what is your opinion as to the value of these tests in admitting a pool of students who are “qualified” to practice or research in the field of science or medicine (ie can withstand the course rigor, pass the exams, survive the residency and meet certain standards of competency as a professional)? Should there be some common standard required of applicants other than the requisite courses or should medical colleges also go “Test Optional”?
@JBStillFlying My view is that standardized testing serves no utility beyond a certain point. Take SAT for example, I’d say anyone with >1350 on the new 1600 scale is supremely qualified to do the work at UChicago. It’s basically the same for MCAT (studies show that anyone who scores at least a 50th percentile - 500/528 - will graduate from medical school just fine). Standardized testing doesn’t predict “fit” with an institution, which is incredibly important for UChicago. The Core is not for everyone, particularly to those who see the Core as an impediment to their professional ambition. That’s why it’s especially important for UChicago to take a truly holistic approach to admissions.
If by “supremely qualified” you mean being able to graduate, then sure.
But is a typical 1350 able to fully take advantage of the depth of classes that UChicago provides? Consider that in math alone, UChicago provides 8 different classes that a freshman could potentially start with:
[ul]
[] 11200: Studies in Mathematics I
[] 13100: Elem Functions & Calculus I
[] 15100: Calculus I
[] 15200: Calculus II
[] 15300: Calculus III
[] 16100: Honors Calculus I
[] 16110: Honors Calculus I (IBL)
[] 20700: Honors Analysis (supposedly possible first quarter, but I haven’t heard of it)
[/ul]
If the 1350 represents a 675 in math, the student might be challenged in anything but the first few classes. The last few classes are very challenging even for people who have aced the SAT math I/II and Calc B/C AP test.
Not everyone has to take a math heavy curriculum to take advantage of UChicago and to be an asset to the community, including students scoring under 675 in math. Gosh, that would be a boring student body.
It’s interesting when parts of the app are dropped. How can AOs determine best “fit” kids and protect the all-important yield with dropping supplemental essays and test scores? It’s an honest question. I’m not be snarky. If I had a transcript, a list of ECs, and just the one common app essay, I’m not sure I could decide on whether to admit a student or not. And I certainly would be less likely to know if the student would matriculate to the college.
@marlowe1 I don’t agree with the whole test prep idea. I’ve seen too many wealthier kids at my daughter’s school (wealthy to me) spend 3-4k on 3 month long test preps classes. Their children didn’t get epic grades 2-4 point increases and none over a 30. I truly don’t believe you can coach a teen to a 34-36 needed to get into many of these schools unless they were already in the 30+ level, and even then it isn’t easy.
Same goes for the SAT.
All the kids we know that scored really high 1500+SAT and 34+ ACT just nailed it and might have done some Kaplan or bought a book for $12 no prep.
I’m not saying it isn’t out there, but I doubt if it is even small percentage of high scoring kids received their grade due to expensive test prep.
I don’t see how this is good what will schools go by now? Rigor is meh, standardized test meh, seems like they jus pick students how they deem fit these days.
It truly seems like school just want more options to pick and choose their class without a bar that has to be set. The less hurdles the more hand picking of kids I don’t see how it can be viewed any other way.
It would be like interviewing a candidate for a job with “no resume and just a background check saying eligible for rehire at their previous employer” how do I choose? Seems scripted the consortium to alleviate testing.
@vqlt wrote:
“I’m assuming that they will still look at GPA / grades as part of the admissions process. Aren’t most grades based on test performance (midterms, finals, etc) If they are not going to look at ACT / SAT why look at grades? without some common metric the subjectivity of admissions decisions will increase.”
Presumably most course grades are not based on a single multiple-choice test. A student’s GPA represents the cumulative assessment by many teachers (each acting independently) of the student’s classroom performance over a number of years. Basically, it indicates whether the student consistently meets/exceeds educational expectations. Highly-selective private universities will, in most cases, have the experience/data to know how kids with a similar record from the same HS have performed in their College in the past. I know when I went to Harvard they collected and analyzed this info. And the existence of regional admissions officers suggests that schools like UChicago value and attempt to institutionalize knowledge about the HSs that are sending them applicants.
Beyond GPA/transcript, letters of recommendation and essays can tell you a lot about the applicant, especially when you can read various parts of the file together. Having done PhD admissions as well as served on college scholarship selection committees, I can tell you that standardized test scores were pretty useless (compared to transcript/recs/writing samples) in helping sort out candidates and in neither context did we generally do interviews. (Truman Fellowships were an exception — and interviews came late in that process).
College Board is a business. To maximize its sales, it needs a test that almost all US colleges feel is reasonable to require of all their applicants. Our K-12 educational system is radically inegalitarian, so you can’t assume every HS student in the US has access to, say, a Calculus class. Which means the SAT won’t include any Calculus. And most colleges aren’t highly selective, so all they need is a gross sort of applicants (likely vs unlikely to be equipped to succeed at their school) rather than the ability to rank students that are obviously highly competent.
The logistics of mass/simultaneous administration means timed tests and relatively short tests, which limits how much material can be covered and introduces time pressure, even if that is not something colleges want to impose upon applicants. Throw in the need to grade lots of exams quickly/consistently/cheaply, and you get reliance on machine-scanned multiple choice questions where students don’t get/have to show their work or explain their reasoning. And when CB diverges from that model (e.g. the essay), it imposes a sufficiently rigid/arbitrary/superficial rubric that the test doesn’t measure anything other than a student’s knowledge of (and willingness to comply with) the formula.
Address these various critiques with test prep, retakes, and superscoring (all lucrative for CB) and accommodations, and you don’t even have standardization anymore. Plus you’ve magnified rather than minimized inequalities based on socio-economic status.
Making good decisions (e.g. providing an excellent education to those who can benefit most from it, creating a diverse class that will challenge, engage with, respect, and learn from each other) should be the goal here — not making decisions based on objective criteria per se. Height is an objective criterion. But we wouldn’t think that’s an intelligent way to choose who gets to go to which college. The SAT doesn’t provide much useful information to UChicago admissions officers. So they are no longer requiring it. If standardized test scores are an applicant’s strong suit, then the applicant can still provide them. But they aren’t necessary if a candidate can make a compelling case for him- or herself in another way.
Of course not, @doschicos. My point wasn’t about math specifically, but used that to illustrate that UChicago offers multiple levels of depth across many majors. Math is probably just the most extreme.
But there is no requirement for UChicago students to push themselves into the more challenging classes, even in their selected major. A student can coast through the easiest set of required classes and end up with a degree.
But part of what made UChicago different was that it recruited a larger percentage of students who were among the best of what they did, and wanted their peers to be that way. And while HYP’s best students are every bit as good or better than UChicago’s, my anecdotal evidence suggests that there has traditionally been a larger cohort of HYP that was perfectly content to coast through.
Many kids are lopsided yet the best of what they do. That’s why I don’t hang my hat on test scores, especially the overall score. It isn’t a good indicator of intellectualism and passion, IMO.
“It would be like interviewing a candidate for a job with “no resume and just a background check saying eligible for rehire at their previous employer” how do I choose? Seems scripted the consortium to alleviate testing.”
Not a good analogy as a resume is nothing like standardized test scores.
@sbballer wrote;
As a culture, education is highly valued, even among parents who may have not have had much schooling themselves. Families generally stick together . My dad grew up lower middle class in India (even by Indian standards of the early 1960’s), but he and his siblings somehow got themselves educated and he came to the US on a scholarship. It’s not a rare story. Both my husband and I do instill those values about education in our children.
I realize some Asian American families are overdoing it with extreme testing focus, but the lower income families in NYC and other areas really work hard , and scrimp and save to get an education. Some of the CUNYs such as Baruch have a large Asian American representation. That’s probably the next target after Stuy.
UChicago still requires the supplemental “uncommon” essay, and I don’t think that’s going to change any time soon.
Absolutely! SAT I math is probably the most useless portion of any standardized test. I’d say the material covered is equivalent to elementary school math. SAT II math and AP/IB Calculus tell me a lot more about a student’s math prowess. I have seen students who can’t seem to do well on SAT I but excel in upper level math (though there’s generally a good correlation among these scores).
If I remember correctly, the 25th percentile score for SAT I math is about 700ish. Isn’t the difference between 680 and 700 like… 2~3 questions?
Yes, I read the whole thread.
“…raise the number of applications so that the school can appear even more “selective”.” So many of you assume this is all about USNews, for heaven’s sake. I don’t think you go through a major sea change like this, go through the number of approvals/buy ins it requires, just to deny a few more apps and raise some media ranking. As it is Chi is infamous for their mailings. And don’t forget the test optional colleges have long studies that show test scores are not the be all.
Nor a plot to lower admissions standards. That and the UNews idea are so superficial. And, as it is, they are choosing holistically. How do you forget this isn’t all about stats, even among top performers? Back off and think about that.
As for, “a lot of lower income kids are not savvy on the test prep game and don’t have an adult guiding them,” please remember, this isn’t about finding kids barely getting out of high school. It’s about finding the brightest, best, and most ready. And scores just don’t predict that. But many of these bright kids are getting mentoring, whether through programs, organizations or great teachers. It’s a stereotype that, in all poor hs, or among all low SES, you get no attention, no challenges, have no solid ECs…and no worthiness. In fact, some of the best are leaving those lax bros you think have a broom sweeping them into top colleges…in the dust. The best are activated, savvy, determined, engaged in the right stretchy ways, and more.
“It’s hard for me to see how going test optional will help poor students” That’s the stereotyping again, this idea “poor” kids come from some Grapes of Wrath scenario.
So I agree with JHS. It’s about seining the best.
And I think many don’t know what sorts of apps the best kids are actually presenting, what they show. And how adcoms can see whether a kid is on the ball or not.
Btw, an MIT rep has been quoted saying any score with a 7 in front is capable of doing the work. (That was at the time of the former 2400 SAT.)
What then happens, is the pool of kids who meet the academic bar (qualitative, not simply quantitative,) is scrutinized for “more.” That’s where your intellectualism (and other factors) come into play. Like it or not, a lot can be gleaned from how a kid puts an app together (and any supp,) what awareness and perspective they have.
Moderator’s Note:
I’ve deleted a number of posts related to race in admission. There is a separate thread for those discussions:
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1843141-race-in-college-applications-faq-discussion-12.html#latest
As a practical matter, I would think that the vast majority of unhooked kids who have the credentials to get into U of C without looking at their standardized test scores are going to have high SAT/ACT scores anyway. At my son’s smallish public HS (150 students per grade), I can think of maybe six or seven kids who have the type of GPA, EC’s, and difficulty of schedule that would qualify them to get them into U of C. Not saying they would get in, but they are at least qualified. All of them have ACT scores of 34 or higher. I think it’s probably far more common to see kids with very high SAT/ACT scores that don’t otherwise have the qualifications to get into U of C.