One might indeed be tempted to draw conclusions along political lines (as in fact 1dadinNC does above)
1 Like
That’s awesome. Didn’t know such movement was possible.
Yes, and to your point, I have not seen any stressed out CA parents on this board in a while. 
1 Like
This Federal system is good. Everyone can self-aggregate and have what they want.
Ease of administration is a valid reason for the distinction. UT originally developed the rank or rank plus score plan to avoid racial bias suits, but by now it is easy to administer with a growing population applying to the schools, and given its predictability, fairly popular among residents. If I know my rank, or rank plus score, I know which public schools will admit me by June of junior year.
Yes, true even in California, where the UC faculty senate did not recommend test blind but their recommendations were overridden by former UC President Napolitano.
3 Likes
Or whether they value improving and strategizing a standardized test score. My daughter is a pretty high stats kid and has never once taken the SAT or ACT. Neither one of us finds this kind of testing a particularly good use of her time, and the stress of it just isn’t worth it to us. She’s better off using the time she would otherwise use for test prep to participate in her internship, work at her part time job, volunteer in her community, etc. There are so many better ways to spend your time that are far more satisfying, far more meaningful, and incur far less useless stress.
This is of course my highly subjective opinion on the matter. And I’m quite happy to live in a state that seems to share this view.
5 Likes
Why is taking a 3 or 4 hour test stressful if your kid is high stat and doesnt really care? Mine didnt prep and just took it. No big deal. No stress.
15 Likes
And I have not heard any stories about a precipitous decline in academic standards or achievement among the UC since going test blind. We seem to still be chugging along pretty well.
3 Likes
Never said anything about a decline in academic standards. I don’t believe students need a high test score to be successful at most schools.
3 Likes
A high stakes test - and a test that has historically determined your chances for admission at a top college is indeed high stakes - is quite stressful for some students. Maybe others are able to take it in stride and that’s great for them. But some find the whole proposition very stressful - in addition to not wanting to prioritize hours of test prep at the expense of other activities (and many high stats kids do not take tests without preparing for them, just as a point of principle; I’m sure some do, but many don’t.)
4 Likes
I’m pretty much in favor of dropping it. It has increasingly become just an indicator of income rather than ability. If you child doesn’t score really well, you pay a couple thousand bucks to get them tutored to up their scores.
I know it was originally used to standardize applicants from different educational systems. But with the adoption of state and federal curriculum and seemingly non stop testing, an SAT or ACT score is less relevant. AP Bio is AP Bio in Arkansas or Maine.
I’ve always told my kids that you can buy a good ACT or SAT score, but you can’t buy 4 years of good grades. I think schools also know that and adjust accordingly, so why spend thousands on prep and make kids that are already anxious about college even more so, based on a 3 hour timed test.
5 Likes
This is a basic misconception that the tests are not useful because the score varies according to income. It is trivial to adjust for this, using concepts high schoolers can learn in AP stats.
Thing about this. The University of California and MIT have access to the brightest math brains around. They looked long and hard at this, and decided that testing offers benefits (the academics at California were overruled by politicians). Why are some people so certain that these academics got it wrong?
12 Likes
With rampant grade inflation in some high schools, testing is more important now than before. Just take the test. Don’t bother prepping.
9 Likes
IMO, it should be a one time exam, like an AP test. Yes that makes it more high stakes but then there is no super score gaming going on.
11 Likes
Many job interviews in life are also high stakes one time things. Yet we grin and bear. Indeed these tests are good prep for high stress events in life.
4 Likes
I don’t want this to go off-topic, but just for purposes of understanding the statement in this context, what is the commonly understood definition of this success? I’m sure it has been debated here on CC, but I haven’t happened to come across the discussion.
Personally, I’d like to see “success” qualified when posters use it to support a point, because any given poster may mean it in a different way than readers take it.
1 Like
One test, no prep would work great for some kids, not great for others. Some countries, I think mostly Asian ones have a single entrance exam and use that. The problem is that people are always going to game the system by prepping and the ones who are sending their kids to cram schools usually are the more affluent.
Grade inflation also seems to be more prevalent in more affluent areas because everybody knows these kids are applying to elite schools and they need certain scores to get in so everyone’s grade gets upped. There’s also differences in who gets to enroll in AP classes. Some high schools let anyone take everything AP, some schools make you either test into AP or have an A in the prerequisite courses.
As for linking it to politics… in the current environment there is a push to do away with any affirmative action or diversity initiatives. Since there is already a large achievement gap between white students and students of color, by getting rid of required SAT, it allows schools to be more flexible in admissions and allow for what they call a holistic review without getting sued by disgruntled parents who say my kid had a 1460 on the SAT and didn’t get in, but you admitted a Black kid with 1100, so my kid has been racially discriminated against.
1 Like
MIT is a school like no other, so I believe their decisions are absolutely right for them. But I don’t think what is appropriate for MIT is necessarily appropriate for other schools. I agree that test score plus GPA shows benefit over GPA alone in forecasting college success, but that extra benefit is insignificant.
Many schools have been test optional for a very long time, and some of them have published data showing no significant differences in GPA, graduation rates, etc between test submitters and non-submitters, and I assume Columbia has been gathering that data and are confident with the decision they have made for their school.
AOs say they don’t need test scores to evaluate an app and identify which applicants will be successful at their school, and I believe that. And just anecdotes, but I have seen plenty of students with average test scores (so ACT 21ish) do well at selective schools, including highly rejective schools like Cornell.
1 Like
Frankly, I think that the SAT/ACT are useful for testing core academic knowledge, and as such, are a way to help “rank” students with similar GPAs and rigor. (with notable exceptions, like those who suffer real test anxiety – can accommodations be made, as they presumably were for high school exams?)
It is another data point that helps schools choose the most qualified candidates. Without it, it’s a little harder to judge between two 4.0 IB/AP students.
It is also a low-key measure of the ability to use logic: if you do not know the answer to a question, some can use logic to at least eliminate a couple of the multiple choice options, thereby improving the chances at guessing correctly from 25% (1 in 4) to 50% (1 in 2).
It is not the be-all, end-all… but it is another data point that can help schools choose between otherwise similarly qualified applicants.
5 Likes