<p>yay or nay?</p>
<p>. . . and students should deemphasize rankings.</p>
<p>Maybe…but “up” emphasis in what other area.</p>
<p>GPA is increasingly unreliable due to grade inflation, etc.
ECs vary so much depending on background
Essays can now be outsourced
Teachers have taken to letting kids write their own recs</p>
<p>By de-emphasizing one thing, something else has to come in to take its place, and I can’t come up with a good argument for what that should be.</p>
<p>I agree strongly with K9Leader</p>
<p>Nay.</p>
<p>Sure test scores don’t reveal much of the applicant except that he/she can do well on tests, but it’s a tie-breaker between choosing two applicants. Just basing an applicant solely on extra curricular, volunteer work, work experience, class rigor, etc. isn’t enough in my opinion. I think with the place of SAT/ACT, it can enlighten admission officers on a student’s knowledge. </p>
<p>Feel free to agree/disagree.</p>
<p>Nay. </p>
<p>I think there should be mandatory interviews,since colleges seem to want articulate students (all that emphasis on student involvement on campus). Nothing like in-person meeting to assess that ability.
Another point in favor of mandatory interviews is that the best way to judge the plausibility of a student’s records is to converse in person with the student.<br>
The interviewers should reside in same state as applicant and there could be several interviewers assigned in a state that has a ton of applicants. Oh, and interviewers should have lots of experience interviewing or teaching or interacting with students before they are given this important task. You certainly want people interviewing who know the typical teen responses to their questions and also the typical level of conversation that teens are capable of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being able to do well on tests is actually a pretty big piece of it. It shows you’re capable of retaining and applying info. There are other ways of proving intelligence, but standardized tests do a pretty good job of leveling the playing field in some ways. Plus, the PSAT connects at a rate of .85 (v strong positive correlation) with skills.. I don’t know how College Board determined that, but it’s what they publish.</p>
<p>^ I agree with this. The interviewer will have an insight to the personality of the student, ask questions on areas of uncertainty on the application and overall get a better picture of the student as a whole besides the student they appear on the application.</p>
<p>Interviews are subjective too; My son was interviewed by an alumn who only valued jocks-son was out of luck for that Ivy. Some young interviewers are looking for someone like themselves-again very subjective; Much as I hate to admit it, at least the SAT/ACT is objective-probably should be a piece of the decision. In the end, admissions are imperfect and many are left feeling badly.</p>
<p>If they de-emphasize test scores, they should de-emphasize GPA a little as well.</p>
<p>No way some universities have the time to interview every applicant.</p>
<p>The most selective colleges already don’t place a terrible emphasis on scores. Over a 2100 or around there is generally fine. And I agree that a) there needs to be at least one objective criteria for evaluating students and that b) test-taking isn’t a bad way to do that. You have to take tests all your life. One that tests basic English, writing, and math (algebra/geometry–not that hard) isn’t that big of a deal. Would you rather have colleges require a certain GPA? Or a certain extracurricular? It’s all too variable.</p>
<p>They should emphasize striking good looks imho.</p>
<p>The main problem is that most of us here agree, or at least I would hope so, that academic ability should be the primary factor used to decide admission. While EC’s are certainly nice, as are interviews, essays, volunteering, etc. I think the real heart of an admissions decision has to do with their academic promise. The only real estimators we have of that are GPA, class rank, and ACT/SAT. GPA varies so widely from school to school that it cannot really take on much more weight than it currently has without an equally large focus on test scores to put them in perspective. I’ll give you that class rank seems an OK indicator, but it seems like one can’t go a day in CC without reading about another kid whose school’s ranking system screws him for taking challenging courses. ACT and SAT are the only reliable measure we have for comparing two students from different schools, and doing so fairly.</p>
<p>Yeah imo, SAT/ACT > GPA</p>
<p>However much people want to complain about the SAT, it’s better than most other nation’s systems.</p>
<p>I do think SAT IIs are fairer, though, and I would put more emphasis on forcing everyone across the board to take them.</p>
<p>No. Colleges should emphasize test scores twice as much as they currently do. I can’t stand people who say “Test scores just show who is a good test-taker” – Yeah, and the Olympics just show who the best athletes are. And the World Series shows what the best baseball team is. Guess what? There are going to be a lot of tests in college, grad school, and pretty much throughout the rest of your life (though they may come in different formats). Stop trying to attribute your poor test scores to the fact that you can’t “take tests.” Stop complaining just because you aren’t as smart as your grades seem to indicate and happen to suck at thinking outside the box and under pressure.</p>
<p>Nay. SAT’s do not prepare you to write good essays, think critically or analyze real-world “tests” as you point out indiejimmy. I think a holistic approach where test scores<Class Rankings<Extracurriculars=letters of rec<essays would be lovely</p>
<p>I’d have to say no, myself.</p>
<p>As much as I despise standardized testing, it’s honestly the only real objective information colleges have. If you don’t do well on the SATs, this does not necessarily mean you lack intelligence, IMO. I’d like to think I am fairly competent and I did miserably on them as I was unprepared.</p>
<p>But honestly, it’s all schools have, really.</p>
<p>Nay. Many people seem to forget that at the end of the day, the minimum and main objective of going to college is still to study, maintain a good GPA and get a degree. That is the minimum required of every good student before anyone would even look at your resume. You can’t avoid taking the examinations. A lot of people hate the SATs for keeping them out of the colleges they’re absolutely obsessed about, but the SATs are really doing them a favor by keeping them out of these very same colleges where they’d be killed by the curves.</p>