<p>I really hope that no other colleges become test optional. If they do, I seriously hope it is the same standard Sally_Rubenstone mentioned about how the people not submitting test scores would be at a disadvantage. In all honesty, I never understood how people can logically conclude that SAT/ACT tests don’t matter. Like it was mentioned before, only people who do poorly on the exams rush to defend themselves. Why don’t the people who score high ever express the same level of doubt? Are we too stupid to understand that we are wrong due to our high scores? The only thing I’m trying to make obvious here is that there is a logical fallacy here if you claim that you did poorly on the SAT because you are a “bad test taker” yet you can get a decent enough GPA. Similarly, it’s also a fallacy to conclude that a test that directly tests you on knowledge you are REQUIRED to know in order to graduate high school has no bearing on your preparation to enter a post-high school institution. I would like someone to try to refute this with real logic instead of pedantic lingo like previously mentioned:</p>
<p>“ability to communicate, understand and respect different viewpoints - and to learn from divergent approaches”</p>
<p>I’ll leave everyone with this:</p>
<p>No matter what high school you go to in this universe the quadratic formula, basic grammar rules, and reading comprehension are the same. The only variable is what you are being taught, told, and tested on in class. To point the finger at the unchanging, the standard, and the national benchmark seems like a self-damning conclusion to me.</p>
<p>The only test I would make optional (or not count as much) would be the ACT. This is coming from a person who did equally well on both the SAT and ACT. The ACT, in my opinion, is WAYYY easier than the SAT in terms of subject matter. The only thing that makes the ACT hard is timing. At my school, the kids who had extra time on the ACT killed it with 33’s and 34’s. I think that the SAT is a harder test to take and that it should be preferred over the ACT by college admission offices.</p>
<p>Because high scorers are part of of the system that is set up to benefit people just like themselves, of course. Why don’t high earners on Wall Street (publicly) express doubt about the ethical, societal, or legal implications of the system they have set up for themselves? Or legislators who have made sure you can’t turn around without consulting a lawyer? Because you don’t bite the hand that feeds you! </p>
<p>I’m more concerned about applicants who would provide some welcome diversity to the predominantly white US upper middle class male demographic, and who could provide a much-needed injection of new thinking and innovative, collaborative approaches instead of perpetuating the status quo. International students, cultural minorities, women with global viewpoints and limitless potential, but who haven’t been brought up through the feeder system.</p>
<p>It’s ironic that the standardized testing system, though originally set up to ostensibly level the playing field for applicants, continues to be systematically biased.</p>
<p>Schools have always had the option of admitting students with low scores. The real benefit to test-optional schools is that they don’t have to count low test scores in their reported average scores of accepted students.</p>
<p>Not quite. Admission committees often include faculty members who may lobby fiercely against admitting students with lower-than-the-norm SAT’s even when that student’s record suggests that he or she won’t be overwhelmed if accepted.</p>
<p>I just checked Clark’s website. The average SAT CR & M score for those entering in 2010 was 1189. That is 100-150 points or so lower than neighboring Holy Cross and WPI and 150 pounts lower than Northeastern and BU. Clark is not a leading national university. rather is is a small regional liberal arts university for the B student.</p>
<p>aldfig-I was going based on what you quoted alone. Hadn’t had fresh in my mind what was before the quote. </p>
<p>“I’m more concerned about applicants who would provide some welcome diversity to the predominantly white US upper middle class male demographic, and who could provide a much-needed injection of new thinking and innovative, collaborative approaches instead of perpetuating the status quo. International students, cultural minorities, women with global viewpoints and limitless potential, but who haven’t been brought up through the feeder system.”</p>
<p>How do you figure? “New thinking and innovative, collaborative approaches.” Are you saying that people with lower test scores (and presumably less opportunity) are naturally new thinkers with innovative and collaborative approaches? I just don’t see how you are getting from point A to point B. I would argue that those with higher test scores are more prone to be all of the aforementioned. </p>
<p>Also, I have gone to a school in which the vast majority of students are minorities. I can say that hardly any of them exhibit these qualitites. Anyone can go out and prepare for a standardized test, no matter whether or not he grew up in a “feeder system”. 99% of people don’t because they don’t want to, not because they can’t.</p>
<p>So now kids going to easy schools that give out an A- or better as 90% of the grade will get in easily. I know a couple people at such schools; they either don’t do their homework and ace the tests or fail tests but do their homework and easily get As.</p>
<p>So tell me, FloridaDad, how do you explain the fact that schools like Bowdoin, Holy Cross, etc. have actually become more selective since eliminating the standardized test requirement?</p>
<p>I don’t understand the big fuss over standardized testing. I think it can be used fairly as a part of a balanced, holistic application. Yes, there are some people who are lazy and unfairly are awarded based on a single test grade, but I think unfairness is a huge part of the college admissions system as whole. But the way I see it, standardized testing allows schools to compare someone who has a 4.0 at an easier school and someone with a lower GPA who is at a school with a harder grading system. Maybe I’m biased because my standardized test scores are better than my GPA. But I think there is still some validity to test scores, and I recall research which showed that students with the same GPA but different test scores, surprise, have college GPAs correlated with their test scores.</p>
<p>I personally did really bad on my SATs, but I did really well in high school. I’ll be the first to say that I am not naturally smart at all, most subjects don’t come easily to me. I applied to a few SAT optional schools such as Wake Forest and Providence. I really like that more schools are becoming SAT optional. It gave me a lot more options when it came to applying. I’m now in my sophomore year of college, and I still have a good GPA like I did in high school. I’m not naturally smart, but I do have a very strong work ethic that allows me to get just as good of grades as kids that had a higher SAT score.</p>
<p>Mdog–"The only test I would make optional (or not count as much) would be the ACT. This is coming from a person who did equally well on both the SAT and ACT. The ACT, in my opinion, is WAYYY easier than the SAT in terms of subject matter. The only thing that makes the ACT hard is timing. At my school, the kids who had extra time on the ACT killed it with 33’s and 34’s. I think that the SAT is a harder test to take and that it should be preferred over the ACT by college admission offices. "</p>
<p>Students given more time on the SAT would do considerably better, as well. If these kids are getting 33s and 34s with extra time, I don’t think they should be given extra time. I have never taken the SAT because it’s just not the test most of us take where I’m from (central Ohio), but isn’t part of being intelligent having the ability to think and reason quickly? I think so. </p>
<p>And for curiosity’s sake, what were your ACT and SAT scores? :)</p>
<p>Claudeturpin: Perhaps they received more applicants because of this non-requirement. That would, in turn, make them more selective, but that doesn’t mean that those accepted are of a higher quality.</p>
<p>Herestothenights: Did you study hard for the SAT? Did you apply your work ethic to the SAT or did you assume that it was mainly a sheer intelligence test? I think even people of average intelligence can score in the 90th percentile with a lot of hard work.</p>
<p>wizkid94: None of the schools that have made standardized tests optional refuse to consider them if they are submitted. And the reality is that many applicants at test-optional schools still submit standardized test scores. But by making standardized tests optional, these schools are actually increasing, rather than decreasing, the number of factors that are considered in the admissions decision. To argue, as you and FloridaDad do, that reducing reliance on a single variable like standardized tests results in lower admissions standards makes no sense either logically or empirically. If you really think that schools like Bowdoin and HC admit less qualified students these days as a result of becoming test optional, you’re living in a fantasy world. Clark’s decision will only enhance the breadth and depth of its applicant pool.</p>
<p>Why is it a good thing to remove a means of judging a student’s academic capability? Even if you don’t like standardized tests, that’s no reason to totally discount them. Don’t you want as many academic indicators as you can get?</p>
<p>I would like to respond to the earlier posts that mention the fact that it is mostly those who score low who complain about standardized testing, as a student who scored well myself, and as the best friend of a student who scored roughly average.</p>
<p>I am (hopefully) receiving many of the benefits that come with high scores on college entrance exams. National Merit scholarship money and the possibility of acceptance to some of the top colleges in the country - opportunities I wouldn’t have had with a 150 PSAT or 1500 SAT. But at the same time, I have watched my classmates (those in advanced classes with me), including two who rank above me, struggle with these tests. I don’t think the tests measure what they need to measure - they may measure one type of intelligence, but it isn’t the sort of intelligence that correlates with real world smarts.</p>
<p>I consider myself a good test taker and a good essay writer, and that is what has gotten me good test grades/scores and solid report cards. Test taking and essay writing are two skills that will help you succeed in college, but I don’t believe that I am any more intelligent than my friend with an average SAT.</p>
<p>@Philovitist: From the perspective of an admissions department, yes, they might want this additional information, especially since it’s only a few numbers, objective pieces of data that can be reviewed quickly. But from the perspective of a student, namely, one who did poorly on standardized tests, it is one more thing to stress about during app season, and one more insecurity to add to the slew that they’ve accumulated throughout their teenage years. Some admissions depts, however, pride themselves in the amount of effort that goes into application review, and they might find the same sorts of information provided by SATs/ACTs within the essays/transcripts/etc. of an applicant.</p>
<p>I particularly found the chapter by Jay Rosner entitled “The SAT: Quantifying the Unfairness Behind the Bubbles” quite thought provoking. Mr. Rosner presents convincing evidence that SAT question selection procedures are biased – that is, the SAT is for lack of a better word, intentionally written to favor white males. The test measures the status quo better than it measures individual abilities. Why this is so is a matter of debate, and probably a fruitful subject for more research, which is hopefully forthcoming.</p>
<p>Pretty important read, if you ask me. You can make your own conclusions about the implications of this and other chapters of this book. I’m not posting this to start something, just posting this reference in case anyone’s interested in reading more in depth on the subject.</p>
<pre><code>The difference in Bates graduation rates between submitters and non-submitters is 0.1% (one-tenth of one percent).
The difference in overall GPAs at Bates is .05 (five-hundredths of a GPA point); the exact difference is 3.06 for non-submitters and 3.11 for submitters.
Bates has almost doubled its applicant pool since making testing optional; about a third of each class at Bates enters without submitting testing in the admissions process.
Testing is not necessary for predicting good performance; the academic ratings assigned by Bates admissions staff are highly accurate for both submitters and non-submitters in predicting GPA.
Optional testing policies are often assumed to be a device for affirmative action efforts. Students of color use an optional testing policy at somewhat higher than average rates, and Bates has increased its enrollment of students of color and international students. But white students using the policy outnumber students of color by 5-to-1.
The policy draws sharply increased application rates from all the subgroups who commonly worry about standardized testing: women, U.S. citizens of color, international citizens, low-income or blue collar students, rural students, students with learning disabilities and students with rated talents in athletics, the arts or debate.
There are very modest differences in the majors that submitters and non-submitters choose at Bates, but some intriguing patterns: Non-submitters are more likely to major in fields that put a premium on creativity and originality.
There are modest differences in the career outcomes of submitters and non-submitters, with one glaring exception: the four fields where students have to take another standardized test to gain entrance to graduate programs for medicine, law, an M.B.A. or Ph.D. In fields where success does not depend on further standardized testing—including business executive officers and finance careers—submitters and non-submitters are equally represented.
</code></pre>
</p>