If only this would work...

College Confidential Community
1

<p>We students all hate standardized tests and even colleges have their fair share of issues with them (which is why most will super-score, disregard SAT writing ect.) But, we both realize they a necessary evil and needed to differentiate from a 4.0 at random easy school and a 3.1 at Andover and to compare students at the same benchmark. It has gotten to the point of craziness with dozens of possible testing combinations, schools having to make concordance tables between tests, and students fretting over and retaking scores. </p>

<p>But there is a different way!</p>

<p>I was thinking, why don't schools just offer their own admissions test? Completely bypass the middle man- no more College Board! Schools could test students on what they want, how they want! Schools could offer a general one-size-fits all test, and/or test pertinent to a certain department/major. This testing policy would also have the ancillary benefit of "weeding out" unserious applicants. Its a pretty big show of "demonstrated interest" to sit for a 3 hour test that only one school will accept. It could mean only applying to schools one really liked rather that all 8 Ivies, MIT, Stanford et al. Even though all schools would offer their own tests, the test would still be standardized within the school.</p>

<p>While this scenario would be ideal, and indeed, it does work for our friends across the pond (Oxbridge REQUIRES interviews (and not pansy "how do you feel?" and "any questions?" type interviews, mind you. Oxbridge interviews are pretty much hour long intense grillings with a very academic focus, often accompanied by a written test) the chances of it working states side are slim to none for three main reasons. (1) It would be a one shot deal- we Americans love our second chances and it would be hard to break the "well I'll just try again" attitude to entrance exams. (2) Money- making tests costs money, just ask the College Board ;)! (3) Logistics- Oxbridge requires UK residents selected for interviews to come to the the Uni for the interview and written test. A trip from London to Oxford is no big deal, a trip from LA to Cambridge, Mass is a a bit more than a day trip. If US Unis started this kind testing policy they would more than likely have to sent up temporary testing centers all across the country and also probably have to provide transportation to them. </p>

<p>But wouldn't it be nice if they could...</p>

<p>Please feel free to tell me why this wont work/shout at me/ praise me!</p>

2

<p>"I was thinking, why don't schools just offer their own admissions test? "</p>

<p>The schools would have to develop and score the tests. Test developent takes a long time and is expensive.</p>

<p>And they'd probably have to develop multiple versions of the tests to try to keep students from cheating. </p>

<p>Students applying to, for instance, 10 colleges, would have to take 10 different tests.</p>

<p>And how would the students take the test? By traveling to the college that offers the test? By taking it over the Internet (and then what would guarantee that the student hadn't paid someone else to take the test)?</p>

3

<p>your last reason is the big thing preventing it; for instance, the only people who would be able to go to Ivy League schools would be those in the Northeast, the rich, and the incredibly determined. </p>

<p>Another point I'll bring up; the test would be very difficult for those without the same opportunities as others. people can at least sort of study for the SAT because there are many books on it and its centralized; you only need to take one test to qualify for most schools. College-specific tests would spawn millions of books designed for each college, and would end up screwing the little man.</p>

4

<p>I like that idea! The Ivies (who have the money to develop this kind of thing) might actually save money by weeding out the applicants who had no chance in the first place. However, this would also increase their admission rate which no one wants to do...</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
If US Unis started this kind testing policy they would more than likely have to sent up temporary testing centers all across the country and also probably have to provide transportation to them.

[/quote]

Do you realize the amount of time and money that colleges would have to invest in this? Do they really want to provide transportation to 10 times the amount of students who will eventually apply (reason see below)? Most colleges simply don't have the resources to do that. What about students from areas where hardly any student applies? It's not economical to set up a test center there (e.g. five sittings with one person each) so you would have to pay the airfare for these kids to go to another test center. Guess what, once you start paying airfares in exchange for an application, hundreds of students from these areas will apply just for a free trip to Chicago.
Next, a college would have to come up with a test. One test, not a big deal??? Yeah, but anticipate that one test won't be sufficient. Not all interested kids have time at one given date, and either you give the same test over and over and over again (and risk having the questions circle around the internet) or constantly come up with new tests. </p>

<p>How would students determine their competitiveness at one given place before taking the test? You cannot, so would would take tests for 20 colleges when only anticipating to apply to 6 of them. To limit their expenses, colleges would start asking for a commitment (aka an application) before allowing you to take their test. That would inflate application numbers dramatically and schools you once expected to be matches will suddenly become complete crap shots (assume that a multiple of safety applicants compared to now will apply, reason see above)</p>

<p>And the reason the SAT is not perfect is that there is no such thing as a perfect standardized test. I doubt any college could come up with a test that is waaay better than the SAT (unless for certain majors like agriculture maybe), so you could just stick to the SAT and avoid all the extra efforts as well.</p>

6

<p>This begs the question: what is broken? What are the mistakes that the Ivies are doing right now? They aren't perfect (what human institution is?) nor do they present themselves as such. </p>

<p>If they were so foolhardy as to spend their endowment and donated monies in this hypothetical situation, I'd seriously doubt their wisdom.</p>

7

<p>unless...they were all done ONLINE. </p>

<p>Whoa nelly. Security could be uniform among colleges, so that one strong security system could cover an entire network of universities. risky, but certainly less costly than driving/applying/grading...</p>

8

<p>Did anyone read my fourth paragraph!? I played devils advocate and mentioned all the reasons why this WOULDN'T work. I'm well aware this could never be implemented in a country so geographically diverse as the US and that making tests is expensive. Northstarmom and B@r!um, I respect you both and think you are incredibly knowledgeable and helpful but with all due respect, did you read my entire post!</p>

<p>Also, enderkin, your post reminded me of another reason for this type of policy that I had thought of but forgot to mention. The SAT and other tests are entirely to preppable. I mean, what colleges honestly care what the word "bucolic" means? Also, good scores can be bought by hiring a private tutor, this testing policy would pretty much eliminate the test prep industry (<em>grins at thought of no test prep</em>) and students would just have to rely on knowledge.</p>

<p>My idea is like communism great in theory, but completely impractical!</p>

9

<p>enderkin, how would you do them online? Who guarantees that this is really me sitting in front of the computer and not my genius brother? Or that I won't go look up the answers on the internet, post hard questions in forums or instant message with the said genius brother?
The only real way to do this is under supervision (like the internet-based TOEFL) but then you need test centers again.</p>

10

<p>I have to admit that I skipped the fourth paragraph... :)
But looking at the positive outsome of my laziness, I found even more reasons why it would not work ;)</p>

<p>Tutoring won't get you from 1500 to 2300. The more significant influence of money on SAT scores comes from a good private education and the animation to spend your time doing "intellectual" things (like reading) rather than playing with dolls or matchbox cars when you are little. Anyways, enough money will get you into any school (maybe except for MIT and Caltech) regardless of your SAT score.</p>

11

<p>note to everybody: when you have kids, raise them on legos, books, and old reruns of Hey Arnold!. I owe my curiosity, intelligence, and sense of morality from these three things.</p>

<p>just wanted to toss that out here.</p>

12

<p>communism isn't great in theory</p>

13

<p>Thanks for your illuminating, insightful opinion MuTiger12! Its incredibly pertinent! </p>

<p>And yeah I definitely second raising your kids on books. My mother just revealed to me that she would trick us into going to bed as soon as it was dark (so basically at like 5:00 during daylight savings!) and when in bed the only thing we were allowed to do was read. So yeah, force you kids to go to bed at 5:00 and only let them read and you get smart kids AND don't have to put up with them for 4 hours!</p>

<p>Any other comments on the testing policy idea?</p>

14

<p>"Those in the Northeast, the rich, or the incredibly determined"- aren't those the peope who usually go to Ivies? Considering all statistical data available- there is a greater percentage of hard-working/rich/northeastern or all three combinations in the Ivies due to their location, cost, and distance from the Western side of the Rockies. There are the few who slip in through the edges, wedging their way in indiscreetly through various means- but that puts them in the highly determined category. </p>

<p>If nothing else- colleges are corporations. Look at Harvard- HUGE endowment = very prudent investment and hefty alumni contributions. I mean- its endowment eclipses many countries' GDP (Gross Domestic Product)- therefore I put forward that Harvard is a fairly successful corporation- and a good investment (especially, say, for a legacy or a BIG contribution- end- result = nice networks, one of the most "prestigous" degrees out there, and by all accounts, fairly strong teaching.) </p>

<p>And...(to counter what MuTiger12 states) communism is delicious in theory- impractical in reality (when put into use it has alway transformed into a specific form- Stalinism, Leninism, Bolshevikism...the USSR was a big group of various policies and massive deaths)</p>

<p>Friedrich Engels and Carl Marx, in writing the Communist Manifesto- established their ideology as a prominent laborer's dream. (By the way- Marx was a Prussian-born, Jewish, English industrialist- he was noting his vews on what he thought the world would become- and what could be done to "go with the flow")- at least - that is a big part of what I got from the Manifesto.</p>

15

<p>You are indeed correct about your assertions. But just to clarify, what I meant by the phrase 'incredibly determined' was the people willing to shell out the actual time, money, and effort to physically get to those schools just for a test.</p>

16

<p>"Those in the Northeast, the rich, or the incredibly determined"- aren't those the people who usually go to Ivies? Considering all statistical data available- there is a greater percentage of hard-working/rich/northeastern or all three combinations in the Ivies due to their location, cost, and distance from the Western side of the Rockies. There are the few who slip in through the edges, wedging their way in indiscreetly through various means- but that puts them in the highly determined category. </p>

<p>If nothing else- colleges are corporations. Look at Harvard- HUGE endowment = very prudent investment and hefty alumni contributions. I mean- its endowment eclipses many countries' GDP (Gross Domestic Product)- therefore I put forward that Harvard is a fairly successful corporation- and a good investment (especially, say, for a legacy or a BIG contribution- end- result = nice networks, one of the most "prestigious" degrees out there, and by all accounts, fairly strong teaching.) </p>

<p>And...(to counter what MuTiger12 states) communism is delicious in theory- impractical in reality (when put into use it has always transformed into a specific form- Stalinism, Leninism, Bolshevikism...the USSR was a big group of various policies and massive deaths)</p>

<p>Friedrich Engels and Carl Marx, in writing the Communist Manifesto- established their ideology as a prominent laborer's dream. (By the way- Marx was a Prussian-born, Jewish, English industrialist- he was noting his views on what he thought the world would become- and what could be done to "go with the flow")- at least - that is a big part of what I got from the Manifesto.</p>

<p>"unless...they were all done ONLINE. </p>

<p>Whoa nelly. Security could be uniform among colleges, so that one strong security system could cover an entire network of universities. risky, but certainly less costly than driving/applying/grading..."- Enderkin</p>

<p>First off- the internet is a massive mosh-pit. Even the most "Secure" security system is hacked eventually (and often- there are people who hack major security programs in order to counsel them on the big holes) Also- it would be impossible to regulate cheating ad standardization- the reason "standardized" testing exists is to give people an "equal" chance. Sitting in a room with 100 or so other people isn't necessarily equal (nervousness, smell etc.)- but it is standardized and the method many colleges/universities use for finals.</p>

<p>Unless there is a massive undertaking to get a computer in every home, with full internet video uplink and air-tight security vaults for information storing...then this idea of college entrance testing (per college) is nasty (at least in the U.S.). Before the 1900s- (and before the CEEB- the not-for-profit group that handles a lot of the standardized testing common to colleges- GMAT, SAT, AP, CLEP, IB...) colleges HAD to have tests at their own schools. This limited greatly the amount of students who could attend- mainly wealthy people and those who were fortunate to live in the right place at the right time. I mean...even going back a decade ago - college attendance was only at ~14.5 million (from an article I read recently)- far easier to get into universities (no 9% admittance rates). Now-a-days- diversification is a HUGE deal. Schools want the best reviews they can get; graduees who succeed donate...you guessed it...MONEY! (or bring publicity- just as powerful)
This goes back to the idea that universities are first and foremost corporations (in the U.S. at least). The university lobbying board is one of the MOST powerful in the U.S.-it is one of the oldest as well (it reaches the power of Big Pharma and AARP when it needs to). </p>

<p>In conclusion- the current system is not perfect...but nothing ever can be "perfect."
This system gives genuinely prepared or interested students a fighting chance at getting into colleges far from their homes. Not everyone is rich, white, and able to fly across the nation to take a test. Actually- the vast majority of Americans are not rich. </p>

<p>May 2006 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
United States
Employment Median Hourly Mean Hourly Mean Annual Mean RSE<br>
(132,604,980) $14.61 $18.84 $39,190 0.1 %
<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000&lt;/a>
This adds up available statistical information (I work incredibly hard at statistical math- it is one of my passions so work with me here)- which includes all of the millionaires, billionaires etc. If you notice- it is LOW. $39,190...for labor force.
One of the ivies...say Yale- costs something like 50k a year. Now...a 39,190 being the mean...and taking out average costs for a family with mortgage/rent, food, clothing, etc...I'd estimate that the Average US citizen is actually LOSING money (credit card debts ad infinitum, excessive spending, various addictions, low job security overall etc.) </p>

<p>So...going to college is tough. Expensive (7 years for a PhD= something around 300k+- more than a 4 bedroom HOUSE.) Very...very...very expensive. The vast majority of US college-people go to the hodge-podge of over-packed state schools (or community colleges) </p>

<p>So...don't increase the Ivy costs even further than they are. There- 815 words or so.
Ouch- copied this to word and had more than 20 spelling errors. Evil :-D</p>

17

<p>Davnasca, I believe you brought up communism. It is pertinent.
Although my comment might not have been illuminating or insightful, I could make it by demonstrating many, many reasons communism is terrible in theory and practice. I do not believe this is an appropriate place for it though. </p>

<p>To be more on topic though, I don't think all students hate standardized testing. I think students who perform well on these tests enjoy showing off their intelligence. They are much more fair than GPA's because those can be vary tremendously based on course load, school, and even teacher.</p>

18

<p>"I don't think all students hate standardized testing. I think students who perform well on these tests enjoy showing off their intelligence." </p>

<p>This style of testing would still give brillant students a chance to show off.</p>

<p>"They are much more fair than GPA's because those can be vary tremendously based on course load, school, and even teacher."</p>

<p>I completely disagree with this statement. While GPA is a very flawed measure of intelligence, so are SAT scores. SATs are too easily prepped for. The student who can afford a tutor and prep materials has a huge advantage over the (possibly smarter) student who can't afford to spend $$$/time on test prep. If standardized tests were decentralized into individual college tests, the student who knew the most would have the advantage not the student who coould memorize the most vocab or knew the various strategies to "beat the test".</p>

<p>I have already stated that this could never work. The money and planning involved would be EXTREME. There are too many top college that would require these tests and they are too spread out. But, if it could work, do you think it would be better? Why or why not? And let's <em>try</em> to keep it to the theoretical not practical!</p>