<p>I wouldn't write the epitaph for the SAT quite so fast. To begin with, the College Board will do whatever it takes to defend the central position of its SAT franchise. When the Univ. of California under Atkinson wrote similar reports and recommndations about 10 years ago, the CB promptly revamped the test in reponse (which is why the SAT now has a Writing section).</p>
<p>Ironically, the UC, which, for many of the reasons that this Fitzsimmon commission has cited, led the previous reform and de-emphasized the SAT in favor of the SAT Subject tests in its own admissions criteria, has now said that this reform was a mistake and is moving back in the opposite direction - re-emphasizing the SAT and de-emphasing the SAT Subject tests.</p>
<p>The more things change, the more they stay the same.</p>
<p>Replacing the SAT1 with more and different tests is not addressing the issue about tests. The AP test, SAT2, ACT are all just different tests. Then you get schools with their own tests, something I have seen in the lower grade levels with private schools.</p>
<p>"Under the proposed changes, UC applicants would still be required to take the main SAT exam or the ACT test with a writing section. But UC applicants would no longer have to take two supplemental subject exams in such areas as history or math. Critics of the subject exams say that they add little useful information to applications and that missing the tests is a major reason applicants with otherwise good grades and SAT scores are ineligible for UC."</p>
<p>Ironically, the UC system is doing away with the SAT Subject tests because they have concluded that they pose a barrier to disadvantaged students. Also, not all CA high schools offer AP classes. It will be interesting to see how these two tacks intersect.</p>
<p>Edit: cross-posted with coureur</p>
<p>With respect to low-income students, there has been much discussion on this forum about how to help level the playing field. But I have often wondered how a college would accurately determine that a student is "low-income" and thus deserving of special consideration. Will colleges ask to see income tax returns along with applications? What about, for example, the children of Ivy-educated parents who chose to live on one government salary and enroll their kids in a poor-performing school district? Can they be and should they be distinguished from poor inner-city kids from broken homes?</p>
<p>I think the back story here is that many of the elite SAT optional schools still require some standardized test - - PSAT, SATII or AP scores - -if not for admission, then for merit scholarships.</p>
<p>I agree with mammall that some standardized testing should always be a part of the admissins process. There is too much gaming with the GPAs. (One suburban school reclassified all of its traditional college prep courses as honors classes, so that students' transcripts go out shouw all honors.) Standardized testing, whether it's the SAT or something else, is a leveler. </p>
<p>Also, standardized tests are a way of life. You take them for grad school and also for professional certification. Why eliminate them for college.</p>
<p>Most schools do not give low income kids much consideration at all as they have too many of them. THey want the upper income kids with families that can pay the bills. The most selective schools that are trying for diversity are the ones that are looking for kids that have a good chance of doing well, and come from lower income or otherwise challenged familes.</p>
<p>Did it ever occur to anyone that people from lower socioeconomical backgrounds score lower because, well, intelligence is hereditary? There's some degree of correlation between intelligence and success. It's not perfect, but it must exist.</p>
<p>There is very good evidence that low-income, high-ability students are DISFAVORED in the college admission process today compared to high-income, low-ability students. </p>
<p>(The links below are in approximate chronological order of publication, from oldest to newest.) Is anything changing recently about this? </p>
<p>Not going to Harvard is hardly the end of the world. There are many more chances for poor high ability kids to rise to the top schools. Transfer and grad school come to mind to start.</p>
<p>^ Token Adult - thank you for the links. The Reason article is extremely interesting and supports the vague sense that has been building in me for a while now. It's not really the Affirmative Action race preference issue that is unfairly stealing spots at these schools from deserving applicants - it's the legacies, celebrities, super wealthy and highly connected. And I do think this move to get rid of the SAT will benefit those folks. You can indeed pay for some pretty effective prepping to get your kid scoring well on an SAT II subject test - much more easy to do than the SAT reasoning test. I just think it's a nonissue to fixate on race in admissions.</p>
<p>I know that standardized tests won't go away completely, but as a hypothetical, I need to point out that they are often very helpful to homeschoolers. Sometimes a good SAT score is all that gets certain people to take a homeschooler without other official grades seriously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with mammall that some standardized testing should always be a part of the admissins process. There is too much gaming with the GPAs. (One suburban school reclassified all of its traditional college prep courses as honors classes, so that students' transcripts go out shouw all honors.) Standardized testing, whether it's the SAT or something else, is a leveler. </p>
<p>Also, standardized tests are a way of life. You take them for grad school and also for professional certification. Why eliminate them for college.
[/quote]
Excellent points, foolishpleasure! I would not like college admissions to be based on GPA, due to the vast variations and gamesmanship (evidenced by the school system that changed all college-pre courses to honors) that goes on re GPAs. And it's not just weighting and grading scale issues. Some school systems let kids take courses over and the previous grades are "forgiven," while others still count that failed grade in the GPA even if the course is taken over. </p>
<p>Standardized tests are going to come for many students sooner or later...or shall law schools do away with the LSAT, the med schools with the GMAT, etc.? </p>
<p>And then there are professional licensing exams that are (gasp!) standardized.</p>
<p>I guess what I would like from colleges is honesty about their goals as an institution and how their admissions policy reflects meeting those goals. That would be refreshing. Instead what I see as a myriad of institutions trying to implement admissions policies that do not run afoul of discrimination laws. Could it be that SAT scores do not justify the admissions decisions these institutions are making to create the kind of student body they desire? Is that the reason SAT scores are being eliminated or diminished in importance? If that's the case then just say so. I can accept that. What I can't accept is the mental gymnastics of trying to concoct a rationale for doing away with SAT scores.</p>
<p>How does a college know that all students with 4.0's are equally prepared? A 4.0 from Exeter or Andover may mean something, but what about a 4.0 from Rural no name High or Inner City High? Will colleges assume that they are just as well prepared without some type of standardized test?</p>
<p>Excellent question, powerbomb! I think the new collegeboard policy could have the effect of increasing the number of times students re-take the SATs, and provide further advantage to the already advantaged.</p>
<p>"I guess what I would like from colleges is honesty about their goals as an institution and how their admissions policy reflects meeting those goals."</p>
<p>I think colleges are fairly honest aboout their institutional goals and using admissions to achieve those goals. Elite schools want a diverse, accomplished class - - that means if the school has/wants an orchestra, the oboe player get a bit of a boost; if it has/want a football team, the linebacker gets a bit of a boost; if wants to be meaningfully co-ed boys will ge a boost and becasue the long-term economic health of the institution is always a factor donor apps will also get a boost. </p>
<p>College admissions is NOT a meritocracy - - it never was. (Or "most qualified" depends on what a school is looking for.) The numbers are just a part of the package - - but the numbers should not be limited to those the applicants' schools can "fix."</p>
<p>
[quote]
This move toward multiple subject tests will put the disadvantaged at more of a disadvantage and the advantaged at more of an advantage. Subject tests really can be prepped for - and it's the wealthy that can purchase the prepping for their kids.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I totally agree with this. In our case, my kids, who are not socioeconomically disadvantaged and have very educated parents, did well on the SAT 1, but very uneven on subject tests, both AP and SAT 2. Those which are content-based are much harder for students who come from less adequate high schools; you can be the smartest kid on the block, but if you didn't learn the stuff, you can't do well on these tests. Changing from the SAT 1 to content-based tests is a recipe for eliminating more low-income students and students who come from poorer high school preparation. I said this back when UC first started emphasizing SAT 2, and I'm glad to see they're finally recognizing it now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At least someone had the balls to challenge the system. The next generation won't even know who should get the credit. </p>
<p>Someday pontificators on this site won't recommend SAT-optional schools as just "safeties", and all schools will be judged on how well they fit an applicant's needs and wants. And maybe there won't be any wars, either. We can always dream.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Balls and credits had nothing to do with the reasons why SLC was "slammed" on this board, but everything to do with a desire to have the cake and eat it too. </p>
<p>SLC was critical of the US News decision not to allow for a creative ranking based on the absence of important elements in the rankings. USNews --for once-- did have the "balls" to delist a school that was in the news. </p>
<p>The only regret one should have is that the USNews does not use a zero-tolerance policy for every school that does not provide the full information or plays cat and mouse games.</p>