Well, they switched from test blind to test optional. From the outside, that looks like picking being in the USNWR rankings over not being in them. To me, that is not sticking to their “guns”, the guns being whatever principles made them choose to go test blind in the first place, and therefore caving to being in the USNWR as opposed to not being in them. To quote from the article
Frankly it makes me wonder how “strongly” they really felt about it. Their explanation for switching back to test optional seems a bit convenient to me, given the fight with USNWR. They made a value judgement, presumably. Hard for me to see it any other way. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.</p>
Not my argument in the least, nor was it yours, actually. Although I don’t think using the SAT achieves a better generation of scientists and engineers. Otherwise you are saying that you want the person that builds your bridge to be someone that got a really high SAT score, no matter how they did at MIT. Yet not a soul that is hiring 4 years or so later cares a whit what that job applicant got on their SAT. They don’t have a clue. The key is how they perform in college, not how they did on one test. So in the unlikely event MIT drops the standardized test as a requirement, they will no doubt look very hard at how this student did in math, physics and whatever other courses they think are important for engineers (assuming that is what they are going to MIT for, not for economics or other fine majors MIT offers besides engineering) and the rigor of those courses, such as AP level for those key courses. So their admissions would still be extremely selective, no doubt, and in any case they would wash out of MIT if they couldn’t cut it.</p>
<p>Lookingforward, Bates has made substantial efforts over the past decades to justify their choices. The basic issue with the data at Bates is also permeating the larger study. All the students were picked according to the criteria set by their school. The pool of students evaluated is by design homogeneous. They are SUPPOSED to do well at the school if the selection was correct. A school CAN determine what earners it will reward.</p>
<p>Further, the larger study suffers from the nebulous description of the schools. We get numbers and little information as WHY this group might be relevant in admissions in general, and especially relevant to admissions at selective schools … where SAT scores are playing a larger role than at middling schools targeting the Lake Wobegon crowd. We end up measuring shades of grey! </p>
<p>In the end, this type of study by the Bates officials deserves a place next to the studies produced by the UC mercenaries that defended the preferences for the SAT subject tests. </p>
<p>@lookingforward - The thing that jumped out at me the most was the average GPA of both groups. 2.88 and 2.83 for test submitters and non-submitters, respectively. What happened to grade inflation??? OK, off topic, sorry.</p>
<p>Fallen chemist, look at the average SAT scores. Grade inflation might still be alive and kicking at those schools! </p>
<p>By the way, the discussions about SLC were on a parallel level. I was addressing the 2007 history, and I think you were closer to the article and the 2012 move to SAT optional. </p>
<p>That’s just so inefficient and still doesnt solve the problem considering if person A gets a 4.0 unweighted GPA at a high school that offers 10 AP courses while person B gets a 4.0 unweighted GPA at a high school that offers 5 AP courses, yet they can only choose one, they are obviously going to pick person A. Additionally, just the plethora of variables that would have to made in accessing a student without standardized testing would just be unreal; rigor of extracurriculars, rigor of each class, potential rigor of the school, potential extracurriculars, etc.</p>
<p>@LAMuniv
</p>
<p>I really wish you would briefly include some of this research you did to further the discussion other than just make a claim without support. I mean i’m not expecting a page length detailed argument but more than a claim at least. As for your claim itself, I think they have a worth. In no means am I suggesting that they are the 100% predictors of how well you will do in college but definitely useful. I mean one of the few similarities among high schools and universities is that you are going to have multiple choice exams or a portion of your exam will be multiple choice. As for it being timed and an unfamiliar environment, well like i said before, most things in life are timed especially in college and is unfamiliar environment really a complaint, majority of SAT/ACT exam facilities are just high schools in the area which if that really affects your performance, you can always pre-visit the school and/or retake the exam a few times.</p>
<p>I would really love to hear what solutions your research has came up with because the article in the OP, ultimately says colleges are now basing their selection process off of “you did well in high school therefore you will do well in college” which would suggest a 100% graduation rate with that logic.</p>
<p>@fallenchem I think MIT has it correct in terms of a mix of grades, rigor assessment via AP and a standardized test. plus character, match, special talents and so on. Really that could be called “holistic”. They are the ultimate number crunchers and if they felt the SAT did not contribute to the selection process they would have ditched it. My view is that there is large variability in teachers - their ability to teach, their ease in grading, curved grading or not, make up points or not, extra credit or not, clarity, impartiality. So a test that is looking for aptitude needs to be in place to balance that which is subjective and variable - teachers and schools from all over the globe.</p>
<p>@CollegeBargain - Now see, that I completely agree with. Not a single thing you said there that I wouldn’t have said myself. And that is a completely different statement than the other one you made that involved events happening at least 4 years later, not college admission. The SAT has to do with college admission, not who operates on you, who builds your bridges, etc.</p>
<p>@fallenchemist – the issue with SLC is simple — they were always a top-50 LAC with US News rankings (typically listed somewhere between #40-#50), and when they want test-blind, US News dropped them entirely from the list – and their applications plunged. So they went from being a moderately selective college (admit rate in the 40% range) to a college with an admit rate of about 75%. Coupled with their educational model – small classes, Don & tutorial system – it was probably unsustainable. The problem is that US News is more than simply a ranking system -it’s also the primary resource for many students and parents to learn about colleges – and if a student was interested in LAC’s, and SLC wasn’t on the list – then that student never even considered SLC. (So whatever they say, my guess is that they have gone SAT optional to recover their spot at US News-- even a lower ranking on the LAC list is better than no listing at all – and I am guessing that they probably still won’t give the test scores much weight. Their primary screen is and will continue to be writing ability coupled with some evidence that a student will manage well with their non-traditional educational structure.)</p>
<p>Hampshire could suffer the same fate – the question is whether its association with the 5-college consortium is enough to keep it on application radars. </p>
<p>That’s pretty much what I am saying @calmom. And to me that points to lots of issues with the USNWR list and how it gets used, but that is a different discussion. As I said, SLC appears to have made a judgement call as to whether to take other means to get the application rate back up or to just go back to being on the USNWR list. The result speaks for itself. It was highly pragmatic, no question.</p>
<p>Xiggi, isn’t that my point? These schools pick the kids they want. In the absence of SAT or ACT, those students did as well as others picked with scores presented. But yes there is a wide range of academic levels represented by the test optional category. I also don’t think it’s needed to be snarky about Bates kids; that happens to be the earliest study I’m aware of.</p>
<p>But as far as I’m concerned, Bates is not a grade inflation school.</p>
<p>There is info online about SLC’s decision to buck College Board- over revisions to the CR. Apparently they consider themselves a writing intensive school. More to the story, I am sure.</p>
<p>Has anyone really thought about why more colleges are going test optional? If a student who applies has high GPA but low SAT scores what do you think the student will do? The student will not submit her low SAT scores. Now if this same student does exceptionally well on the SAT guess what, she will submit her test score. </p>
<p>The test-optional college will now be reporting only the high scores submitted by high scoring applicants to the college rating services. The result is the test optional college will get an unfair boost in rating because its reported SAT scores will be artificially inflated because not all enrolled freshman’s test scores will be included in the reporting. </p>
<p>Test optional status is a back door method for colleges to increase their rating position. I can respect colleges that do not require SAT test for admission but this Test-Optional status is an unfair attempt at manipulating the ranking services.</p>
<p>Life is full of timed standardized tests. You have to take the MCATs to get into medical school. You have to take your boards. You have to take LSATs and pass the bar to become a lawyer. You take two exams to become a professional engineer. What’s the problem with using one or more standardized tests as an indicator of future performance?</p>
<p>I don’t get the test-optional thing though. Either you think the tests are a good thing, and indicate potential and future performance, or they don’t. How ridiculous is it to imply “tests are worthless” and then say “but you can submit them if you want”? Test blind is better, don’t accept ANY scores and use other methods than the College Board and USNWR to get students. IMHO, it’s more of a marketing ploy for certain schools to accept test scores. </p>
<p>Yes, some people who have great potential for college don’t perform their best on standardized tests. But there are others who have great potential for college who don’t perform their best on a GPA basis. Why not have GPA optional? Why not ask for pass/fail status only?</p>
<p>All I see in these stories are:
colleges who want a diverse pool of candidates and feel that GPA (making HS teachers happy and doing a lot of busy work not found in college) is more indicative of future success than tests, but don’t want to give up the marketing from CB and USNWR
students who took a standardized test and did poorly compared to their grades (some not even on a college prep track and wonder why they can’t do well on standardized tests?), and therefore impugn the whole system</p>
<p>A great college is a great college. Some schools do amazing things with kids who weren’t college prep, had poor test scores, and/or middling GPAs. Some schools admit those kids and keep them for five or six years, and cash in on them.</p>
<p>Point being, if the SAT is “holding you back”, find a test-optional or test blind school, and go there. But don’t put down others who do do well on standardized tests as having no talent at all, because it is a talent you don’t have.</p>
<p>I would like to see more colleges go test blind, and track what is happening. I also would like to have more colleges have their OWN entrance exams in lieu of standardized tests, which have multiple ways to assess students.</p>
<p>I have always wondered if colleges could just make their own entrance exam testing things they would want their incoming freshman class to know/be ready for if admitted. I honestly feel that would be nicer/better and one has the choice to study and pick exam they want to do…but then again, the colleges or some students would have to have some sort of prep material that can be released for those students to go to to be prepared.</p>
<p>Universities in Canada do not require external standardized tests for their domestic applicants (but do require SAT/ACT for US applicants). Presumably, this may be because they trust a given grade in a given course in a high school in Canada means the same thing as the same grade in the same course in another high school in Canada, but they do not trust US high schools in the same way.</p>
<p>At the opposite end of the scale, in some countries, high school records are considered so untrustworthy that they are not considered, and admission to universities is based only on a standardized test.</p>
<p>Some schools are test-optional or test-don’t-care for reasons other than those usually discussed around here. But these schools probably enroll substantial numbers of students in comparison to the various small LACs that people are arguing about.</p>
<p>For example, Texas public universities admit all top 10% rank Texas high school students (7% at Austin). While SAT/ACT apparently must be submitted, the test result does not affect the admission decision.</p>
<p>Another example is that California resident students applying to non-impacted majors at non-impacted California State Universities with a >3.0 HS GPA (as calculated by the CSU method with some weighting) are not required to submit any test scores (or, if they do, it does not matter; see <a href=“Cal State Apply | CSU”>Cal State Apply | CSU; ). But note that many majors and most CSU campuses are impacted.</p>
<p>If some students complain about SAT being too stressful, too time-consuming, etc… too bad for them. There’ s many thousands of students who do well in both GPA AND Standardized tests.</p>
<p>This reminds me of the whole “weeding out” process that occurs with organic chem for pre-med students. If some students find it too hard, too long, blah blah, that’s no problem. Thank you for leaving the doors open for better students to get ahead </p>
<p>PS: One more thing, if your school truly had rigor and didn’t inflate GPA, wouldn’t your SAT scores indicate that? </p>
<p>@ucbalumnus Your point is taken, but in your examples the colleges are not Test Optional. Everyone submits their test results although in your example all top 10% ranked Texas high school students will get accepted without regard to test scores, however test scores are submitted by every one of them. The result is Texas public colleges will have lower average SAT scores than if they went through a “holistic” approach but Texas’ goal is to get their own students into their state colleges.</p>
<p>As for California schools, it is my understanding that they use a matrix of GPA plus SAT for acceptance into most CSU campuses. The higher your index the more likely you will be accepted to your school of choice even though for the least desirable CSU campuses requires only a high school GPA>3.0 . The fact of the matter is unless you want to go to a CSU campus in the middle of a desert, you take the SAT so you don’t have to.</p>
<p>My point really addressed those school like Pitzer who has gone test optional who reports its SAT scores from only those applicants who submit scores for ranking purposes. We all know that those scores are submitted by those who scored high. When we see the middle 50% scores or the average SAT it is from a much smaller applicant pool of the high scorers. This information is blatantly misleading for ranking purposes. </p>
<p>No school should be test optional. All universities should report SAT scores for all of its students or none at all. As you know, every school has the power to give as little or as much weight to SAT scores as it wants in deciding who is admitted so there is no reason these institutions should be test optional.</p>
<p>The result of these test optional colleges is that the colleges requiring SAT test have now gone to super scoring the tests. Again this is another way to increase mid 50% scores as well as average scores for ranking purposes. It is another form of gamesmanship that the universities play to maintain or climb the ranking ladder.</p>
<p>With the ever increasing cost of college, it is such a big business that nearly every institution tries to get the upper hand to climb the ranking ladder so it can justify the crazy cost of a college degree to the parents of recent high school grads. This has become a sad state of affairs.</p>
<p>Test optional and super scoring of the SAT by universities should not be allow by the ranking entities so the applicants of higher education can make as informed a decision as possible. </p>
<p>Can’t a college entrance exam made by the colleges itself be a possibility to be administered…? An exam that is made by the college and assess things they look for in incoming freshman applicants…?</p>
</p>