<p>Perhaps this move will put this fine but sometimes overlooked small university on more student and parent radar screens.</p>
<p>So let's all guess ... which nationally-known colleges or universities will be the next to announce that standardized tests are no longer required for admission? I'm going to vote for Skidmore.</p>
<p>I am actually a tad upset, since I applied to Clark EA and my SATs are pretty bad. I wish they changed it this year, but I’m assuming it won’t hurt me that bad if there going SAT Optional. I interviewed with the College of Wooster and the admission counselor told me they planned on going SAT Optional in 2012-2013 as well. Of course both school would do it the year after I apply, lol. But he did mention that even with my terrible SAT scores, I should be fine. College of Wooster and Clark are my top choices.</p>
<p>Good choices, early_college … and good luck. Also thanks for the inside scoop on the College of Wooster’s test-optional plans. Seems like a sensible move for that school.</p>
<p>Yes, Clark and Wooster are actually top choices for me. I would love to attend a university which doesn’t even look at test scores. I talked to a Reed admission counselor at a CTCL event and she said that one counselor doesn’t even check students SAT scores even when they require it. Reed is an amazing LAC, so I was surprised to hear it.</p>
<p>The provided link states that Clark is becoming “test-optional” and that Clark is joining “almost 900” other schools who are already test-optional, so there are plenty of schools to choose from if one tests poorly. </p>
<p>early_college: Good luck to you with Clark & COW. My daughter also applied EA to Clark and would probably have preferred to go test optional if given the choice this year.</p>
<p>In my view, it is not. It is simply more dumbing down of standards in this country.</p>
<p>With the rampant grade inflation in MANY high schools, how can a college possibly compare a 3.7 gpa that a kid at a small high school in Iowa gets to a 3.7 that a kid in New York City gets to a 3.7 that a kid in Georgia gets?</p>
<p>I am always amazed how many times I see some kid on CC say that he is valecdictorian of his high school class, but only has a 29 ACT.</p>
<p>At a prestigious private high school in Boston, that kid would probably be in the middle of the class. </p>
<p>A school doesn’t put itself on the radar screen by getting rid of standardized tests, other than attracting kids who did bad on such tests.</p>
<p>Good point FloridaDad. These standardized tests seem to provide a metric, albeit imperfect, useful for comparing kids across the nation. Obviously no school should put too much of a reliance on this metric, but as you said, I’m not sure if moving away from it altogether is a great idea.</p>
<p>I really do not think standardized tests show how truly smart someone is. I did pretty bad on the SAT because I am not a good test taker. I know people who have worse grades then me and take regular college prep classes and they did better on the SAT. I feel like in the end, it’s about work ethic. A 3 hour and 45 minute test shouldn’t dictate your future. That’s just my opinion. I applaud schools like Sarah Lawrence where students cannot even submit their SAT scores. Just my two sense… Thanks Hudson, good luck to your daughter as well!</p>
<p>While I agree that standardized tests do not show how smart someone is, I believe they do show to some degree how much of a grasp someone has on a certain subject. For example, I believe that if you cannot score a 500 in the math section of the SAT, you should be taking some time before you go to college. There are lots of questions on the SAT math section that you should’ve learned in high school. Lots of college kids these days are unprepared for college and that is why over 1/3 of people who start college never graduate with a degree. Also, not to mention the fact that colleges spend lots of money and time on remedial courses for students who come in who need the help.</p>
<p>Grade inflation is rampant in high schools.</p>
<p>Especially for the GOOD students, because schools don’t want to give their best students bad grades.</p>
<p>My wife taught Calculus, and was giving out well deserved grades of 52 and 49 on tests,
until her principal put a stop to it.</p>
<p>So if someone looked at the high school transcripts of these kids, they would see B’s and A’s.</p>
<p>That being said, standardized tests remedy that situation, because ultimately, the kid has to take the SAT test, which is a national exam, and you can’t fake that one.</p>
<p>Kids say that the SATs aren’t fair to them, because they are “bad test takers”. What exactly does that mean? How do you get through four years of high school taking rigorous course work but be a “bad test taker”.</p>
<p>FloridaDad, I understand what you are saying, but you seem to be placing a little bit too much emphasis on standardized testing. There is nothing shameful about a valedictorian having a 31 ACT (I’ll use 31 since you specifically mentioned that in another thread). A 31 is 97% percentile. One has to be realistic. I personally am valevictorian of a small school and have a 34, but if I chose not to study as much for the ACT as I did (and to only focus on classwork like I had been doing), I wouldn’t have scored that highly. Standardized testing and overall high school performance are related, but it isn’t that cut and dry. You have to prepare specifically for the standardized tests to reach your potential. Doing excellent in high school work (no matter what school, prestigious or not) won’t guarantee an excellent SAT/ACT. </p>
<p>However, I don’t see how taking away the SAT/ACT requirement and not replacing it with other standardized testing is a plus for any school (unless the school is deliberately trying to downgrade). As stated, it is very difficult to measure students based on GPA alone. It only gives admissions officers less information with which to make decisions, and how is that good?</p>
<p>I think students who know the information are naturally good test takers. I don’t consider myself a specifically great test taker, if there is such a thing. If I know the material, I am a good test taker, and if I don’t know the material, then I am not a good test taker. Unless one is having nervous breakdowns that are severely inhibiting him from showing what he knows, then he probably isn’t “a bad test taker.”</p>
<p>Floridadad, with all due respect, I think you’re missing the big picture. If you want your kid to go to college with other kids just like him/her, who were taught the same points, ideas, and approaches, and who had the same prepping (along with those kids from that prestigious private high school in Boston), then by all means choose a college that puts a high value on standardized testing.</p>
<p>If, on the other hand, you believe, as I do, that the ability to communicate, understand and respect different viewpoints - and to learn from divergent approaches - is a strength, and that the leaders of tomorrow will need to get considerably more creative and collaborative than has been the case over the last 30 years or so, you may want to reconsider.</p>
<p>Let’s also give admissions reps some credit! While they may be severely overworked, I would like to think that they would understand that a 3.7 from a farming community’s regional high school is not comparable to a 3.7 from a selective magnet school in NYC. There is so much more to an applicant than the numbers show, and the best admissions reps do an admirable job of ferreting out who is likely a good fit and who is not.</p>
<p>Standardized testing is a huge industry whose benefit to education and society at large is questionable, IMO.</p>
<p>In fact, it is an admission officer’s job to become familiar with the high schools on his or her turf in order to help put grades in perspective. Granted, it’s not an exact science, but students are not evaluated in a vacuum.</p>
<p>So this is an important point to keep in mind when debating the pros and cons of test-optional policies.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that, even when a college is “test-optional,” the vast majority of candidates DO submit test scores anyway, and those who don’t can sometimes be at a disadvantage. If an applicant who has not submitted scores seems to stand out in the crowd or would bring something to campus that the college especially wants (e.g., athletic or other special talent, disadvantaged background, other uncommon background) then the lack of test scores won’t hurt. But if the applicant appears on paper to be fairly ordinary, then other "ordinary’ applicants who have submitted decent test scores will usually get priority.</p>
<p>So going test-optional does NOT mean that a college has dumbed down admission standards. It simply allows the college to admit some students who might not otherwise make the cut but whom they feel will be a plus to the community in a variety of ways.</p>
<p>In some high schools, I would have been valedictorian easily. In other high schools (top magnet ones), I would be at the bottom of the pack. </p>
<p>I know that in the high school I went to teachers are pressured to hand out As and Bs regardless of how well students learned the material. However, some teachers choose not to follow this, while others do and make their class easier. How can an admissions officer be expected to be familiar with intricacies such as this?</p>
<p>There are many people that can’t handle the material at my college. I’m always amazed at how some people manage to get below 10% on a mostly multiple choice test (we are given a graph of the raw scores when we get our grades online)!</p>
<p>The SAT/ACT is not optional (yet…), but the subject tests (which actually measure what one has learned and not college aptitude) are.</p>
<p>
That’s a false dichotomy. You imply that people with similar test scores are similar in every way.</p>
<p>^While I don’t agree with her on the worth of standardized testing, how is she implying that?</p>
<p>It seems to me that people who tend to whine about standardized testing in most cases seem to be those who do poorly on it (which is understandable). However, I think a 4-hour test (which can be taken several times) and SAT subject tests are great indicators of a mix of both aptitude and application, that is, a mixture of what one is capable of and how he has used that capability (although no one really knows exactly which was favored more, or is that piece of information particularly important in the grand scheme). </p>
<p>Like my fourth grade teacher used to say, tests give you the opportunity to show what you know. Standardized testing is necessary, although I think it’s quite obvious and doesn’t need to be rehashed a thousand times that there is more to a person than his or her test scores. </p>
<p>It’s a fact of life that people are going to be judged greatly by short demonstrations of ability/knowledge/etc. College/job interviews, playoff game performances, musical recitals. Perhaps I am overdoing it, but one works a ton in private to prove on the big stage what he or she is made of, and standardized testing happens to be that big stage.</p>
<p>She said that people with similar test scores (colleges that place “a high value on standardized testing” contain students that have high test scores, and “high” implies a narrow range) were “just like him/her” because they “were taught the same points, ideas, and approaches, and who had the same prepping.”
Then she uses the phrase “on the other hand,” which signals direct contrast (we only have 2 hands, right?).</p>
<p>So what’s “on the other hand,” or, the opposite of people who “communicate, understand and respect different viewpoints,” “who learn from divergent approaches,” and are “considerably more creative and collaborative?” People who are pretty much the same as each other (according to her, I disagree).</p>
<p>
Actually, a 3:
<a href=“http://www.skylit.com/calculus/news.html[/url]”>http://www.skylit.com/calculus/news.html</a>
Tests in school usually involve only a few concepts (for example, a test might be only about related rates or finding limits) while the BC exam is cumulative. Students get higher grades when only a few concepts are tested as they can just study for only those concepts and the material is fresh in their heads, while they would have to remember everything from the beginning of the year for the AP exam.</p>