An Immodest Proposal: "Conscientiously Object to the SAT"

Parent Cafe
1

<p>I found the following thread very interesting and I'm curious to hear what others think, particularly parents. Would anyone actually "sacrifice" their own kid for this cause?</p>

<p>[FYI, NACAC is the National Association for College Admissions Counselors]</p>

<hr>

<p>From: Will Dix (<a href="mailto:wdix@uchicago.edu">wdix@uchicago.edu</a>)
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:13 PM
To: NACAC E-List
Subject: Conscientious objections to Testing</p>

<p>Let’s play a few mind games:</p>

<p>I like the idea of “conscientious objector” status regarding testing. So let’s think: Would a college really not take an excellent student from a school just because he/she didn’t take the tests? (Of course, many already do take those kids...) And perhaps if he/she wrote an intelligent exam expressing the reasoning for not doing so? Let’s assume that everything else is incredibly fabulous, like Sydney Poitier’s character’s resume in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” I know schools who have accepted excellent students who haven’t even APPLIED, so it doesn’t seem too much of a leap to make. (And I’m not talking inside-the-matchbook schools, either...) Consider also that colleges have no problem ignoring LOW scores if they really want the applicant. (Been there, done that.) Essentially, the tests are only useful unless they’re not; there’s no absolute value attached to them at the moment of decision.</p>

<p>If an entire SCHOOL took the position that it was against their educational policy to have their students take the tests (with the accompanying calls to and from the media), wouldn’t that make a strong statement? If a solid GROUP of schools did that, well...Some of the excellent letters that presidents of test-optional colleges have written recently are practically instructions for why schools themselves should oppose subjecting their students to them. If schools see their students’ study time and their own commitment to education eroded by test-prep and testing crapola generally, shouldn’t we take a stand? If our students were being regularly mugged for their lunch money by Nelson Muntz and his gang, wouldn’t we do something?</p>

<p>But we also have to think about this: Would parents, students and schools be willing to SACRIFICE to make a statement? Colleges are free not to take whomever they want, so if you don’t play the game you can’t come in. The underlying question that needs to be addressed is “Can I not take the tests and still get into BrandName U.?” We’ve been taught in recent years to believe that taking a stand shouldn’t have to involve sacrifice, but sometimes it does and should. If a singer blasts the Iraq war from her stage in Las Vegas and is fired, does she have a complaint? I don’t think so. She is free to make a statement of her beliefs, but her employer doesn’t have to support them. Dr. King was willing to stay in jail rather than be bailed out to prove his point. So would students be willing to abandon name brand pretensions in the name of (let’s say) better education? </p>

<p>Or let’s think about it this way: Why should “consumers” (read Parents and Students) be made to reveal information that potentially prevents them from “buying” the thing they want? [I know the answers to this question, I’m just playing...] You can buy a car without revealing your driver’s test scores (OK you have to PASS, at least, but still...), and there are plenty of other ways to judge a kid. </p>

<p>BTW, I’m not opposed to having kids suffer. I think it builds character and it’s a regular part of their academic and social lives. My objection is primarily to the way testing is used and considered. As I’ve said ad nauseum, it has overgrown the educational process like kudzu in a Mississippi back 40. It is taken as an ineffable message from the gods when at best it’s maybe a little better than warm sheep entrails. THAT is what we should object to, really.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>PS Sorry to be long-winded, but The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton is an INCREDIBLE book, although some of the comments the “patrician” members of those communities make about Jews and others is enough to make you queasy. Terrific, full of information and social context, and damn well written, too.</p>

<hr>

<p>From: Jon Reider
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM
To: NACAC E-List
Subject: Optional Testing -- an immodest and impractical proposal</p>

<p>It is Halloween, the day before November 1 and the first EA/ED deadline, and I have spent, yet again, a few precious minutes of counseling time with a student wondering whether he should send just the ACT or also the SAT, or both, or whatever. And more students have come in to report their latest scores. I wish had a nickel for every minute I spend advising about testing strategies and techniques, which, as Gary rightly says, have nothing to do with promoting the greater good and precious little to do with education. The tests are now like the elephant in the movie theater; they sit wherever they want and they distort not only how we spend our time but much of what matters. Is this a cry for balance? No, actually, it is not. It is a call for abolition. I am not accusing the colleges of misusing the scores; at the level of evaluation, they are relatively harmless. But I am suggesting that we are being so consumed by testing that we would be better off without them, and, when you think about it, we could get along without them very nicely. To quote the poet, C.V. Cafavy, "Whatever happened to the barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution." </p>

<p>Many colleges (I heard this morning it is now 724) make standardized testing optional. Suppose we at the high school level make it optional as well. Whoa, you say! Headline reads: "Guidance Counselor resigns after leaking bad idea to NACAC, cited for bad judgment and just being a wild thinker. Democrats vow to fight to the last word; Republicans stand strong for family values." Yes, I'm mixing in todays's news too.</p>

<p>But read a bit more: a very few high schools don't even give grades; a few more now no longer give AP courses; lots of high schools gives colleges very little, if any, information about their grading practices (ranking, deciles, etc.) Colleges adapt to all of that one way or the other. Nobody says that their kids are punished. To get more specific: my high school doesn't give any academic awards. When a college application asks if they have won anything, I instruct them to write, "My high school does not give any academic awards." They still do OK in the end.</p>

<p>So suppose we were to forbid students from taking standardized tests as contrary to school policy. Yes, I know we can't control that; they could still sign up online behind our backs, and all that. But suppose wewe made such a policy, and some of our students actually took us seriously, and we defended them not just to the 724 colleges that already make it optional, but to the others who still require them. If a college will take a student, properly supported, who doesn't have any grades at all, or who is homeschooled, or where the high school gives no ranking information whatsoever, (and they don't complain about it either), then can they really claim, after a couple of drinks, that they can't read a file without a test score. I read college applications for 15 years. They all had an SAT or ACT score, except for the ones from the PRC. I used the scores just like any other admissions officer does, with judgment and some appreciation for the context of the school, background, etc. But I honestly think I could have gotten along just fine without them, as Bates, Bowdoin, Mt. Holyoke, Sarah Lawrence and 720 others seem to think they can. So if they can, why can't Harvard, Amherst, and USC? I really think they can; they just haven't taken the step, but this is no longer news, folks; it's been done for 20 years now. To say you need test scores to evaluate a student makes as much sense today as to say that a women can't serve on the Supreme Court. The news is out; it's been done and done well.</p>

<p>So, high school folks, let's boycott the tests. You first, of course.</p>

<p>Then we can get back to education, if we can remember where we last saw it.</p>

<p>Jon Reider</p>

<p>Director of College Counseling
San Francisco University High School
San Francisco, CA 94115</p>

2

<p>There are already plenty of great schools that don't require SATs. complete list at <a href="http://www.fairtest.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.fairtest.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p>

3

<p>Carolyn is right. If you don't believe in the concept of the SAT, you don't have to take it! You have a lot of schools that will accept you without it.</p>

4

<p>I guess you must have fairly generous definitions of "plenty" and "great." Most of the schools on the fairtest.org list are technical schools or bible colleges. Bates and Bowdoin notwithstanding, I think it is reasonable to say that one's choices would be rather restricted if one were to defy the SAT. </p>

<p>I was just wondering what would happen (e.g. how would the parents react) if a high school took the position that it was against their educational policy for students to take the SAT. Safe to say that you would find that ridiculous?</p>

5

<p>"So, high school folks, let's boycott the tests. You first, of course."</p>

<p>Indeed, if UHS were to boycot the standardized tests that would mean 448 fewer AP tests and 262 Subject Tests for the Class of 2006 which was composed of 113 students.</p>

<p>No, Mr. Jonathan Reider, YOU go first and start preaching in your own fiefdom. And by the way, let's see how well your students do at the Ivy League without SAT and and the required Subjects Tests to have a complete application! </p>

<p>PS I realize that UHS has an incredible success in admissions: Following is a list of the major colleges and universities to which the UHS’ graduates have earned admission over the past five years.</p>

<p>Williams College 8
Amherst College 8
Swarthmore College 2
Wellesley College 4
Carleton College 3
Pomona College 3
Bowdoin College 7
Haverford College 3
Middlebury College 7
Claremont McKenna College 2
Wesleyan University 6</p>

<p>Brown University 9
Columbia University 16
Cornell University 4
Dartmouth College 5
Harvard University 11
Princeton University 9
Yale University 13<br>
University of Pennsylvania 14</p>

<p>Stanford University 18
Duke University 5
Mass. Institute of Technology 3
Washington Univ. in St. Louis 6
Johns Hopkins University 7
New York University 20
Northwestern University 5<br>
Emory University 2
Georgetown University 6
University of Chicago 6
UC Berkeley 24
UC Los Angeles 30</p>

6

<p>Well, Middlebury has also gone SAT optional. It is a great idea to provide a link to fairtest.org. I routinely check the site with the secret hope to find a SINGLE novel or workable idea that could replace the SAT in scope and applicability. </p>

<p>The self-anointed luminaries such as the members of fairtest,org or that Tacker duffus are finding out that it is easier to criticize than to formulate worthwhile ideas.</p>

7

<p>What do you care?</p>

<p>You got a 2400.....:rolleyes:</p>

8

<p>Yeah, many of the colleges on the FairTest list have explicit open-admission policies. Big deal.</p>

9

<p>sr6622: maybe I feel guilty over my good fortune??? :)</p>

10

<p>As long as we are dreaming about fixing the admissions process, we should not restrict ourselves to just the standardized testing process. Let's start with the essays - worthless crap and a total waste of time. Certainly essays reveal nothing about a kid's writing skills. Generally they are written, rewritten and highly edited. Do they reveal something about the kid's character or passions? Not really, mostly they are just fabricated stories. If the essay is interesting and catches the adcom's interest, does that make that kid a better candidate for admission? It shouldn't matter. Next, let's get rid of the short answers. Does it really tell the adcom's anything useful when a kid writes that they really want to go to Podunk or did someone just tell that kid how to play the game? Next let's look at grades and class rank. More crap, which just reflects a kid's ability to conform to the regimentation and boredom of HS. If we want to look at grades, maybe we should select the B students. They understood the material, but did not waste their time on the busy work projects. It could be that they have other interests and more balance in their lives than the conforming bookworms. Next we should get rid of the alumni interviews. There is nothing of less value than an untrained interviewer. At best this just leads to selecting kids who are verbal and self confident or who have been coached on the interviewing process. More likely, these interviews just help avoid selecting too many jews, asians, and other social undesirables. Finally, we are left with the listings for EC's. That only helps pick kids whose parents can afford summer camps or kids who can stand to go to the after school math club.</p>

<p>I guess we are just left with the SATs. By comparison, they don't look too bad. I guess there are kids who are really bright, but just don't test well. Certainly almost every parent and kid believes they should have a higher score, but just had a bad day. So if we do not believe in the SATs, I guess we are left with using "warm entrails."</p>

11

<p>Wow. Edad, I am not sure if you are joking or if you are really serious with your post. That has got to be the most negative thing I have read in a long time. I disagree with everything you've said. I have a limited perspective and can only comment based on what I know of my son's application process. I believe that the essay does reveal the writing skills of the author. My son did some editing but not a lot, he is more the kind of person that thinks, acts, and does not look back. Did it provide an insight into his charecter? I think so. He wrote about a personal tradgedy suffered by a friend and how he ( my son ) was there to be nothing more then a friend through it all, and how the trust his friend had in him was well placed. None of it was fabricated the slightest. It was heartfelt honesty. Should it have influenced the adcoms? I think so. It was a compelling story of how a top ranked student set school aside at a very busy and important time to help a friend in need. The short answer? How could you NOT ask for it? Have you ever interviewed and NOT been asked "why us?". Grades and class rank - you're kidding, right? You advocate for the "B" student because he understands, yet advise against the "A" student who may have actually mastered the subject. All the "A" students I know are not only hard working, motivated students but also gifted artists or athletes or organizers. They have girlfriends and boyfriends, pray for snow days, worry about exams, and in every way are anything but "conforming bookworms". Interviews - Do YOU feel you know a person better after having met them face to face and had a discussion? EC's - I have never sent my son to Camp. He did participate in a summer research project at the local university, not because he paid to, but because his Biology teacher came to him and asked for the help, knowing that he would have the help of a cheerful, hard working, smart assistant. He did attend scholars bowl after school because he wanted to. He enjoyed the mental competition. You close with the acknowledgment that there are kids that "just don't test well". That's why there are different parts to the application, it is a leveler.</p>

12

<p>56forceout, I would imagine that edad wrote that post with tongue firmly planted in cheek. :)</p>

13

<p>alwaysamom, well, it would certainly require some imagination to discern that, or a research of prior posts, which I don't feel inclined to do simply to ascertain ones true thoughts. Sarcasm is only effective if it is obvious.</p>

14

<p>I realize that this may seem like hersey, but I am in full SUPPORT of the sat and other standardized tests. Please understand, I hated preparing for these tests, resented paying for them, did not enjoy the experience of taking them, and could live without the anxiety as I waited for the results. But, as a student at a rural high school that does not have a reputation or a relationship with top schools to fall back on, the sats, sat IIs, and ap are the best tools I have to show these schools that I am every bit as bright, motivated, and prepared as the students applying from prep schools and other top high schools. An "A" from East Podunk High is probably not worth the same as an "A" from Exeter. But an 800 or a 5 on an AP is. Since I'm a senior the jury is still out on my applications, but I bet that my standarzied test scores will at least assure that the adcoms at top schools with take a good hard look at my application. Without them, I'm not sure how much of a serious candidate I would be.</p>

15

<p>56,
Sorry you were not amused. I don't know if I could be any more obvious. I due, however, believe that many of the factors considered for admission are subjective and no better than use of standardized testing.</p>

<p>It sounds like you have plenty of reason to be proud of your son and the help he gave to a friend. Does this mean he will do better in college or just deserves the opportunity more than someone else who was either not so generous or chose the wrong essay topic?</p>

16

<p>Coldcomfort: My S felt the same way. Coming from a school which most parents at CC wouldn't dream of sending their kids to, he needed to show he could play with the big boys. Eliminate the SAT, and he'd be left with less challenging classes, fewer fancy EC's, etc etc. We don't do tutoring, test prep, academic summer programs and stuff like that in our family, and he saw the SAT as a chance to catch the adcom's eyes, in hopes they'd then take a good look at who he was. And, for him, it worked.</p>

17

<p>Coldcomfort, your situation is exactly what all the misguided well-wishers think tanks like fairtest fail to understand. They are so focused on removing what they perceive as inequities that they refuse to look at the other side of the equation. They are too stubborn -I would say too dumb- to even think about the plight of students who do not attend prestigious schools or can afford expensive prep programs, but still can do well armed with a No 2 pencil and a borrowed copy of the official study guide. They love to show the differences in scores among ethnic group but remain oblivious that it is up to the COLLEGES to apply different standards and equate the scores based on their own experience. </p>

<p>Fairtest.org's biggest issue is that the SAT IS a standardized test and that they HAVE to have victims to justify their pitiful and unremarkable existence. They consider the ethnic and SES groups as monolithic groups and have no interest in supporting the thought that bright -or test effective- students may rely on better test scores to emerge from an otherwise mediocre environment. </p>

<p>As far as the school that are going SAT-optional, they are simply driven by their own cynical marketing schemes, be it to balance their books or manipulate the rankings via selective reporting. If USNews would, as they should, delist ANY school who is going SAT optional, it would take a few seconds for the school to change their "new" policies, except for Reed and Bates.</p>

18

<br>


<br>

<p>I have to agree with this. My friend told me (after my D had been accepted to some highly selective schools) that she thought I had made a big mistake by sending D to our local suburban, 60% non-white high school instead sending her to a private school. She had been proved wrong, she admitted. </p>

<p>But without SAT/other test scores to show how "worthy" (and I do use this word sarcastically here--I am just not sure that the SATs measure brightness, motivation and/or preparedness) my D was, who is to say if she would have had the acceptances she would have received.</p>

19

<p>Considering the high powered marketing efforts of many colleges, it is also nice to have the SATs as a rough guide to the academic level of the admitted students. Selectivity and yield are not as useful.</p>

20

<p>it would take a few seconds for the school to change their "new" policies, except for Reed and Bates.</p>

<p>I am flogging a dead horse here, but Bowdoin has been considered an extremely fine and prestigious school for 200 years, long before there ever even WERE SATs. I know for a fact that their SAT optional status has nothing whatsoever to do with marketing or USNWR and that they TRULY have what many other schools pay lip service to - a "holistic" approach to admissions that captures some of the finest students anywhere, students that have (shocking as it is to believe) turned down schools like Princeton and Dartmouth to attend. The workload is very, very rigorous, and for some courses - even introductory ones! - the reading is comparable to what I had to do at Yale in grad school. No, i have no kids there.</p>

<p>While I 100% understand Xiggi's point of view, my agreement is more like 90%. SATs help those in bad schools show their stuff, but it isn't necessarily the case that EVERY SAT optional school is SAT optional for cynical reasons, NOR do they end up with a "dumber" class. The holistic approach CAN be done right.</p>

<p>Finally, I am acquainted with several people who did abysmally on their SATS and who performed brilliantly - and I mean brilliantly; no higher grades possible - in Ivy grad schools. I just don't put anywhere near as much store by SATs as some do. My wife concurs, after decades of college teaching. She said occasionally she would check SAT scores through the college and was often stunned at the disconnect: the geniuses winning national fellowships with the 1350 or so board scores versus the several dull-as-a-butterknife kids with the 1600s...</p>