Ok. I certainly didn’t mean to paint everyone with the same brush. I am sure that there are lots of teachers and parents who feel differently than I do. I have just seen many wonderful students who excel at the highest level yet have lousy test scores. So I think tests are one data point but not a necessary one. If test scores used to keep some of those kids out of college then I am glad that scores are no longer required.
If you need a standardized test to determine that, using standardize tests is helpful to you and I’m glad they are available to you.
I didn’t worry about whether we could find schools that worked for my child who went test optional. Nor am I concerned that I didn’t understand her skills in relationship to other people’s skills.
One person’s set of concerns are rarely universal. Which is the lovely aspect of Test Optional as far as I am concerned. If you need the test to understand what you believe the test says about your child’s performance - it is available. If you think your child’s test scores add to their application to school, you can submit them. If you don’t think it would be helpful (for whatever reason) it isn’t required.
3 Likes
Yep. And we know how that all ended up, doesn’t seem anyone was compelled by those findings, politics or not.
I’m going with 20 years of data from Bates’ study.
2 Likes
So this is the question to me. Did they really keep kids out of college? I doubt it. Or did they make colleges more homogeneous in terms of certain traits associated with academics? Probably.
If you no longer screen for fast reading and comprehension, do professors start assigning less reading? And if so, is that a problem/how does that change a course of study? How is everyone’s experience changed by having more differently wired students in the classroom?
This isn’t a good or bad thing but it is likely to have some impact. Schools don’t want students leaving nor do they want them to do poorly, so I would not anticipate a problem with retention or lower GPAs, so they adapt as well.
People often talk about the difference between xyz course at one school vs another, and it is often the preparation and ability around that discipline of the students that drives the difference. That MIT and CalTech want to screen for a high level of mathematical ability isn’t surprising. For softer disciplines, it may not be as necessary. Being able to read fast doesn’t make a person a good thinker.
1 Like
Negative. UC will not develop its own test.
The University of California has more than 20 years of hard data over hundreds of thousands of students. But then UC campuses are huge publics, with a large portion of low income kids, and the opposite of LAC-like.
Edited to add: one big difference is that the UC’s don’t accept recommendations.
3 Likes
deleted
1 Like
I stand corrected. I’ll remove the article from my post as it is clearly out of date. And I should have remembered that before I posted.
I don’t think the UC system has proceeded with efforts to develop their own test. But, if someone knows otherwise, hopefully they will share.
1 Like
And the Task Force recommended elimination of the SAT/ACT requirement. Hardly the ringing endorsement that some seem to think.
Facts are facts. Folks can choose to use them or not. UC made the managmeent decision not to. If nothing else, it saves applicants a whole lotta testing fees.
Well, in terms of my job, I’m a “fan” of testing too.
I actually wish there was a fair and equitable way to create a totally even playing field for all students.
As I have almost certainly worked with more students than most others on this thread, I will take the liberty of noting my observations.
These things are generally true:
- Tests cause stress for the vast majority of students. (I will say, however, that by the time we finish with prep, most students are more relaxed about it than when they started because they know what to expect.)
- Test prep usually increases test scores.
- Well-off people can afford test prep and thus generally get higher scores.
- The most academically accomplished students generally perform better on tests, but there is a sizable number of students who don’t do well on tests despite being academically talented. This could be due to overthinking or test anxiety.
- Many students take the exams two or three times. That adds up to MANY hours that could be spent doing something more meaningful, such as nothing, or working, or sports, or clubs, or volunteering, or having fun. These kids have precious few years left to enjoy being teenagers.
- The students who have the best experience with both prepping and tests are those who are able to balance everything and maintain a realistic outlook on the effect of the tests on their future. IOW, if they understand their future doesn’t depend on their test score, they have a better experience overall.
I LOVE working with teens, but I admit it makes me feel sad when kids lose sleep over testing, or when their parents make them prep excessively. The good news is that most parents are pretty realistic about their kids’ abilities. There is also no question that, from my perspective as someone who had worked with many students over the last three years, the decreased emphasis on testing has been a good thing.
2 Likes
I might be mis-remembering, but I thought the Task Force recommended keeping the requirement, the Senate unanimously adopted the recommendations, and then the Regents voted to go test blind?
1 Like
That is not my understanding. @Data10 has posted about this (and the the nature of the Task force’s actual findings) extensively in the past, if you want to try to dig it up.
Here is the Task Force’s final report:
- Develop a new assessment system that will be continuously accessible to students and that will assess a broader array of student learning and capabilities than any of the currently available tests …
The timeline for development of a new suite of assessments would put widespread implementation nine years out. Members of the Task Force differed on the question of whether to recommend that UC cease consideration of standardized test scores sooner — in all likelihood before availability of the replacement suite of assessments. The differences reflected uncertainty within the Task Force, given the data available to us, over the relative risks and benefits of possible, additional steps that UC should take to ensure that the population of admitted students reflects the diversity of the state.
The Task Force considered, but does not recommend, the following possibilities.
The Task Force does not recommend that UC make standardized tests optional for applicants at this time. UC should conduct additional research on the impact of going “test optional” before deciding whether and how to implement such a policy. …
And here is an article describing the Regent’s 2000 decision.
WITH THEIR UNANIMOUS, MAY 21 VOTE, the Regents reversed the more than 50 year history of using standardized tests in UC admissions. Under their new plan, the system would be test optional for all students until 2022, then become test blind for California students through 2024, meaning the scores wouldn’t be considered at all for admissions decisions. It allots five years to design a replacement test for California residents; if this is unsuccessful, the SAT and ACT will be eliminated from in-state admissions decisions completely.
According to Cecilia V. Estolano, Vice Chair of the Board of Regents, the combination of the coronavirus, America’s newfound willingness to talk about racism, and the support of UC President Janet Napolitano, opened a window to finally implement a change decades in the making. The move came despite a recommendation from a UC Academic Senate task force in April that the University keep the tests for now and consider creating its own replacements, a process it predicted would take nine years to implement.
1 Like
That would disadvantage students whose family financial situations require chasing merit scholarships (for which reach/match/likely for non-automatic-for-stats ones is hard to determine) or which are complex enough to make them hesitant to trust colleges’ net price calculators.
4 Likes
Ahh, true. Every solution creates new problems.
1 Like
Probably not, but I wouldn’t completely rule it out. He is going into a STEM field where employers care much more that you have demonstrated mastery in certain skills that are skills you “do” rather than show in a standardized test. However, he certainly has the ability to be a kick-ass lawyer or doctor (or whatever he puts his mind to). There are currently some great law schools (Harvard, Northwestern, Georgetown) that don’t require the LSAT (DS will probably have quite a bit of policy work to show by the time he graduates) and med. schools that don’t require the MCAT.
If he does go that route and needs to test, he’d likely take a year solely to prep for the test. Would he be able to do well with that amount of prep? Probably. But going back to my original thoughts…Is it worth him giving up a year of his life, of doing great things and growing in other ways, to prep for a test?
1 Like
I believe those 3 law school do require a standardized test, either the LSAT or GRE, in accordance with the ABA requirements for law schools.
I believe the LSAT does offer accommodations for those with LD. (Dunno about GRE.)
And finally, a high LSAT score can result in thousands of tax-free dollars in merit money. Doesn’t require a year to prep for the LSAT, as 3-4 months will do for most. For example, at $40k per year from Northwestern, that’s $120k tax-free for a few months of prepping. So he can prep for a few months and do great things for the next 8-9 months.
Both the LSAT and GRE offer accommodations.
LSAT LSAC Policy on Accommodations for Test Takers with Disabilities | The Law School Admission Council