I don’t think the majority of faculties and other people on the academic side of colleges are clamoring for TO policies. The consequences would only emerge over time. There’s a reason why every country outside US has some form of standardized tests. Still, I predict TO policies will stay because they’re popular with many applicants and their families, and with advocates for lowering entrance bars to elite colleges so they become more accessible to more students who wouldn’t be able to qualify before.
2 Likes
Again, this is not about kids who don’t qualify. It’s about one metric.
There’s clearly a huge number of kids applying. Adcoms will lean to those who meet/exceed their wants and expectations. The absence of scores for some candidates does not magically negate the compelling qualities of top contenders. It’s not lowering the bar when the supply of top applicants, as the college defines that, meets needs.
And you act like scores are the only and true measure of that. Not in holistic.
3 Likes
This point is missing from this thread. It’s very likely that post COVID colleges will bring back some sort of standardized test. It might not be the SAT and ACT of 2020, but it’s going to be something.
4 Likes
We had those debates before so I don’t want to rehash them. Suffice to say that those of us who believe test scores have a role to play never said anything about test scores being the only true measure of an applicant.
4 Likes
Yes, I believe we will see some other forms of testing, either by the college themselves or statewide emerging over time as replacements.
Not sure if I am repeating myself, but there are definitely low income applicants who get looked at less favorably because of scores. Is anyone debating that fact? And maybe this happens less often at a holistic as @lookingforward says, but it still does happen. I think it may hurt the low income applicants just as often with the schools one level down from the holistics - the good solid schools. BTW - I can’t believe people have gotten me to use the word holistic; i really dislike it. Regardless, I am not sure whether this fact will make the difference for next years high school grads and whether we will remain in the state of test optional.
1 Like
It was partly a general “you.” There’s been a lot of sort of doom and gloom predicting here.
I don’t think the history of tests or what they do abroad is necessarily indicative of what we should do.
1 Like
I understand what you mean. No, we aren’t predicting doom and gloom. However, if we convince ourselves that we’re superior and know better than anyone else in the world, that’d be the start of our own downfall.
4 Likes
However, there are significant differences between countries.
Universities in Canada do not require external standardized tests for admission of domestic applicants. Some standardized achievement testing may be embedded in some high school course grading (which seems to vary by province and subject). It appears to be analogous to having state subject assessment exams (where they exist) in US schools becoming part (not all) of the course grades.
The UK O-level / A-level system basically has standardized final exams being the entire course grade for high school courses.
On the other hand, China and India universities seem to think that high school grades are so untrustworthy that an external standardized test is the entire criterion for admission.
But one thing seems to distinguish the standardized tests in other countries from US use for university admission: the other countries’ standardized tests are more explicitly subject-based achievement tests (more analogous to SAT subject tests, AP tests, and state subject assessment tests in the US). In contrast, the SAT was marketed as an “aptitude” / IQ test, although it certainly was influenced by what one may have been taught in school or test preparation. However, it is not particularly satisfying as an achievement test, while its use as an “aptitude” / IQ test is muddied by being influenced by what one may have been taught in school or test preparation.
4 Likes
Have any of the hundreds of selective colleges that have gone test optional in previous years watered down their curriculum after going test optional? I’m not aware of any college ever doing that, and have no reason to think it will happen this year.
For example, Chicago went test optional a few years ago, which is known for having an especially rigorous curriculum. As far as I know, there have been no reports of Chicago watering down their curriculum upon going test optional. Instead it seems to be business as usual, continuing with their existing highly rigorous curriculum.
I doubt that the current curriculum or course system will change significantly at newly test optional highly selective colleges. However, this existing course system often requires freshmen to take some kid of placement exam to determine first math course and such. Note that this placement exam is completely different from the SAT/ACT – tests different material with a focus on calculus, not about answering simple questions at high speed, usually not multiple choice, etc. If the placement exam results distribution changes, then the first math course distribution may change. However, the math courses that a math/engineering/science/… major is required to take for their degree does not change, nor does the level of rigor in those courses.
1 Like
To clarify, at least for myself, I’m not referring to holistic review of superstar applicants at top 10s. I’m referring to something more basic, whether a “good” student is an academic fit at schools beyond those, and trying to address OP’s question. All I’m suggesting is that grades may be less reliable during covid times, as an indicator of academic skills, than seems to assumed in test optional discussions. In light of this, it is easy to imagine that AOs might find the addition of a more standardized component to be reassuring, in spite of flaws in currently available instruments. There is no grade-optional scenario.
Out there across the land, learning modes and grading scales are absolutely all over the place right now, still, nearly a year after the covid bomb dropped last March. Disadvantaged students might be even more disadvantaged for what their transcripts will show, in ways that will make college admission more challenging (again, not referring to superstars-rising-above, but all along the continuum from more selective to somewhat selective).
OP, perhaps rigor is one factor which could be evaluated similarly to however that was done pre-covid, even if actual learning and grading are different?
One criticism I have of the use of scores (pre-covid) is that for more selective colleges, I often get the sense - from their published narrow score ranges - that too much emphasis was placed on small differences in scores (say, <50 points on the SAT) whereas wider differences in scores (say, >200 pts) might be more reliable as indicative of actual meaningful differences in academic skills.
1 Like
I’m not sure what colleges “schools one level down from the holistics” refers to? Maybe directional state type colleges that primarily admit based on stats? ucbalumnus previously posted a link showing the kids with discrepant GPA/SAT stats. The kids with high GPA / low SAT were more likely to be low income. And the kids with high SAT / low GPA were more likely to be high income.
In any case, as has been previously posted that all test optional colleges seem to show a higher rate of lower income kids among test optional admits than among test submitter admits — both more holistic colleges and less holistic colleges. Test optional seems to help lower income applicants more often than the other income groups, regardless of college type. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions at the individual student level.
1 Like
Chicago has a pretty self-selecting applicant pool though, as do many other TOs, their middle 50% is 1510-1560 and 34-35. I would agree that they’re not watering down their curriculum. GPA protection happens though, even in freshman year, so there may be some massaging of the numbers. pass/no-credit, dropping a class, only As/Bs assigned, your gpa is going to pretty good and close to your hs gpa. This is more the student though than the college.
“I don’t think the history of tests or what they do abroad is necessarily indicative of what we should do.”
You talk about openness and this is a pretty closed-minded post.
I don’t usually use the term “holistic” (2nd post in a row) for a variety of reasons to include that it is unclear as to which schools those are and are not. Many schools consider themselves or claim themselves to be that and prove over time with data they may not be… but i can’t know for sure because not in the room. Please don’t ask me to source, because I can’t. I look at schools in bands of admissions difficulty and believe that most schools have the intention of looking at all aspects of an applicant. There are exceptions, like with McGill, for example, but most are not so blunt about the metrics they use to evaluate.
To your question, I think it is difficult for many of the larger schools to include above average state colleges to ignore a test score (even when the student is impressive or unimpressive in other areas) - and whether low or high. But as I write this, I can’t help but feel similarly for most every college. A test score has the ability to change the face of an applicant, like maybe other things do not. It is quick and easy and packed with a punch.
Re: other countries use of standardized tests: can anyone point to a country where the test is NOT knowledge based? Because all the countries with high stakes testing that I’m familiar with are ALL based on knowledge and require at least a year of intensive cramming. In other words, nothing like the SAT. Does any other country use an SAT-like test??
If you have read student profiles in U.S. News, you may have encountered examples of students gaining admission to highly selective test-optional colleges with (relatively) low standardized test scores (e.g., an 1120 SAT) combined with a modest GPA (e.g., 3.3 UW). It would seem that a consistently rigorous curriculum might not be suitable for a student with this indicated level of academic preparation.
No, I said it’s not “necessarily” indicative. Left myself a big safety net there. I do think it requires some further examination. (That seems open, no?) Not a blanket, “They do it, so we should.” Ayup.
For a “highly selective” college (whether test required, optional, or blind), a 3.3 unweighted HS GPA would ordinarily make chance of admission very low in the absence of something else far more special (including the possibility of development or institutional need considerations) than found in the usual applicant pool.
The 3.3 unweighted HS GPA alone would be enough to predict that such a student is more likely to have difficulty at college work (high rigor or average rigor) than students who came in with the 3.8-4.0 unweighted HS GPA that is more typical of “highly selective” colleges.
So it is not obvious how the SAT score in this example really adds much to what you are saying.
1 Like
College Board asks colleges using the Common App to review holistically. No that doesn’t guarantee some level of holistic.
But also bear in mind that score end results reported in some freshman profile include some final cherry picking, when kids are otherwise equal (equal enough) and institutional needs don’t distinguish.
No, I don’t read USNWR student profiles. However, if the college is regularly accepting kids with a 3.3 HS GPA, I suspect that we have different definitions of “highly selective.” I expect that they are admitting kids with that relatively lower GPA both as test optional and test submitter, rather than only admitting test optional kids with lower GPAs. If you link to the profile, I can give more specific comments. I don’t doubt that some kids are not well prepared for college. However, this is different from saying highly selective colleges are going to water down their curriculum in response to going test optional.