My point was the competence needs to be tested for if excellent is expected.
Colleges are deferring this right of passage to post-college life.
1 Like
College courses include tests that are much more like those tech company interview tests than the SAT and ACT are. I.e. colleges are not deferring testing students for subject matter competence.
3 Likes
within a given school, the SAT/ACT adds another data point, and more data points is fairer than fewer data points. If a kid works hard on the SAT and does well, shouldn’t that mean something compared to a classmate who didn’t take it or took and didn’t submit? It just doesn’t seem like that can be meaningless. people love to say that hard work and perseverence are more important than test scores, and I agree, but isn’t this an example of some hard work and perseverence?
now what is considered a good score certainly should factor in the demographics of the area and the school’s averages.
3 Likes
In the tech fields I am familiar with, having technical interview questions is not a new change in response to test optional. For example, in my field, tech companies have been doing tech interviews with tech questions for as long as I’ve been familiar with hiring, which includes multiple decades. In previous decades when test optional was less common, the companies gave these technical interviews regardless of whether the applicant attended a college that was test required or test optional. Even if 100% of colleges were test required, I’d expect technical interview questions for employment to continue.
The tech interview questions usually confirm that you have tech skills that are well correlated with what you’d need to be successful on the job, using knowledge you should have learned in related college classes, often with no overlap in content with SAT/ACT. Other differences include questions are generally not multiple choice, small number of tech interview questions rather than a focus on rapidly answering questions without careless error, tech interview questions are often complex and involved, etc. The technical interview for employment is generally a different type testing with different goals than SAT/ACT.
I believe what has changed more recently is an increased use of computer based testing in employment interviews, and reduced usage of solving problems with pencil and paper or on whiteboards. Using computers can allow things like allowing the applicant to compile and test code, then make related corrections/improvements to their program; having a better simulation of the actual environment on the job, which is likely to involving coding on computers. Computer testing also allows better standardization, less human bias from interviewer, adaptive difficulty level and customization, statistical analysis, AI benefits, etc.
1 Like
The title of this thread is “test optional.” Under test optional, students can submit scores, and scores are considered when submitted. The submitted scores are not “meaningless.”
1 Like
true, but the question in the original post was do test optional policies make the admissions process more fair or less fair, and I postulate they make it less fair.
4 Likes
They certainly make it less transparent – one less data point to use in comparing applicants.
1 Like
Except for the fact that the genetic lottery is random, which is the opposite of fair.
We could say that test optional means that the students with the highest test scores are not as likely to come out on top.
Fair would be that everyone starts with the same range of ability for standardized testing, which is impossible.
Is it unfair that, at 5’ 11", I could never be an NFL offensive lineman? Is it unfair that, because I can’t sing, I will never be a professional vocalist? I know we are splitting some semantic hairs here, but I don’t think the majority of people consider it “unfair” that some people are more intelligent and/or ‘test better’ than other people.
Things stop being fair when the same standards aren’t applied equally to everyone.
fair would also mean those that work harder and are nicer people get rewarded for it. this is not the case these days, when kids can check off boxes, write bogus essays (or have someone else write them) or claim bogus EC’s with no accountability.
3 Likes
I totally agree. Most people think that it’s fair to reward those who already won the generic lottery in many ways, from health, to athleticism, to the kind of intelligence that helps you score higher on standardized tests. I just wanted to point out that its not actually fair in the sense of impartial, just, and without favoritism or advantage. What we think of as merit in the college process is largely beyond the control of the student.
These examples have always been true.
Test optional policies benefit colleges far more than they benefit students. If that wasn’t true, then colleges would have already abandoned them. The pandemic is over.
Average test scores are part of how colleges are ranked. When the top 50% scores in your freshman class are the only scores that are reported- poof- your “average class score” increases. It’s a way to dress up the stats.
I agree that for many years leading up to 2020, standardized tests were given far too much weight in college rankings. Once a student is significantly above the median score, their actual score does not accurately reflect how successful they will be in college or their career. Many studies support this finding- they are easy to find- no need to post them here. That’s where the argument for test optional comes in, but it wouldn’t get the prolonged traction that it has gotten if it did not benefit the colleges in some way.
Reducing the sheer number of standardized tests that college bound students have to take would achieve this goal. Remember SATIIs? I doubt that colleges miss those too much. There used to be far too much redundancy in standardized testing. That’s probably not coming back, and that’s a good thing.
1 Like
That’s not new. In the same vein, it isn’t fair that some people can afford to spend $100+/hour for private SAT/ACT tutoring or that some kids have the time to self-study for 100 hours instead of needing a job. There is no even playing field and there never has been.
3 Likes
Yes, these examples have always been true, and cheating on standardized test scores has always been a thing in certain places, too. Requiring everyone to take the tests makes the tests themselves actually better, because most people and most testing centers won’t cheat. More people taking the tests = better standardization.
Khan academy killed that argument. They have great, free prep. Your student can access it for free at your local public library. And that’s a good thing!
5 Likes
Around 1,000 4 year colleges (of about 2,800) were test optional prior to the pandemic.
Yes USNWR does use test scores in its methodology for some schools, but it’s a small percentage of the formula, only 5% (and it’s adjusted by how many matriculants submitted scores). Test score range is not used in the ranking calculation for schools with fewer than 50% of matriculants reporting test scores (obviously this group includes the 55 or so test blind institutions).
Test scores add very little, if anything, to HS GPA as a predictor of college GPA or graduation rate. SAT/ACT scores have never been correlated to career success AFAIK.
3 Likes
These same people probably spend a lot more on other aspects of their kids’ college applications, but colleges don’t seem to care much.
1 Like
Really? You are telling me that using Khan academy to self-study (and I’m familiar with it) is as good as a personal SAT tutor (I’m not talking about a prep class)? In any case, I’m not sure what spending hours prepping for a single standardized test proves. There is a reason that the number of kids scoring a 1400+ has increased substantially while the average SAT score has languished in the mid 1,000’s. The same subset of ambitious (and mainly well-to-do) students are spending more and more time prepping and taking (and re-taking) these tests and I question whether or not this is the best use of their time. For the record, S24 is an excellent test taker so I’m not coming at this issue from the perspective of someone whose child doesn’t do well in that area. I don’t see a lot of “fairness” when it comes to many aspects of college admissions but it is what it is. I don’t see re-instating test required policies as some kind of panacea.
4 Likes
There are more than several hundred colleges that have already abandoned these tests…or made them optional (Fairtest.org). Some have done this for many many years…and feel they still can craft a great income one freshman class.
The CA publics have gone permanently test blind.
I don’t think this benefits the colleges as much as it benefits some students.
1 Like