Both the ability to perform consistently over the long term (necessary for good grades) and the ability to perform very well in a short term high stress situation (like a high stakes exam) are valuable in life (and most jobs). They require different skills.
But the growing aversion to high stakes testing in the US high school and college systems is exceptional compared to other countries. At least part of it seems to be because it’s harder for less talented members of the elite to get a good SAT score (hence Varsity Blues) than it is for them to put together (potentially with external assistance) good grades, impressive extracurricular activities and well written college essays. When it comes to things other than college, like the Armed Forces, the elites don’t care that high stakes testing is used, because most of them aren’t interested in that sort of career.
I will freely admit that some kids are not the best standardized test takers bur they are likely in the minority.
Anyone with a computer and internet access can prep for SAT/ACT/AP. There are many free resources that are better than adequate out there.
A kid can retake exams as well and most school districts in NC offer free ACT (mandatory) and AP tests for those that care. All other things being unequal, like ECs, resources, academic achievement of parents, standardized tests are that one things that one cannot game easily, at least not just yet.
At the end of the day, it is hard to game grit and initiative.
I also noted another question you had for me regarding average GPAs. The average GPAs of kids that are going off to college here in NC at our school district is near or above 4. UNCW is a solid state school but not a state flagship. Take a look at the CD (C11): https://uncw.edu/irp/ir/analysis/documents/cds_2021-2022_post.pdf
60% of the kids have >4.0 GPA. So, literally every other kid has a 4.0. Now of course one could go down the list to other schools that are less competitive but for most competitive majors, good luck!
Sadly I don’t think the point about standardized tests meaning something at least in wealthy academically focused areas like mine Is just not true any more. In our top tier private any kid not testing well on the practice standardized test generally gets intensive one on one test tutoring and ends up scoring pretty much as well as a kid who could have gotten a high test score by walking into a test blind. So don’t see what it shows. I have a good friend who is an Ivy AO. She says the only real use of the standardized tests if you have a kid from a bad school/poor family/distressed economic situation etc who gets a high score. This can reinforce the impression that the kid is very smart and reassure the AOs that he can succeed at the college. Everyone from wealthy areas applying to highly selective schools will have a high score and no meaning can really be ascribed to that. And that’s not taking TO into account.
There are many kids in our wealthy suburb who get one on one tutored and can “only”get their ACT score up to 28-30 range. Many have grades in the 90s with some rigor. I hear their parents say “well it doesn’t matter they will just apply test optional” Rarely do I see just a “good” student achieve high range (34-36) scores. If you are test optional from a wealthy suburban high school applying to a highly selective school I believe you need to give them another really good reason to accept you if you apply test optional. I think in mid range (good)schools, it does not matter as much as long as grades and rigor shine through.
What I am more interested in is the study in a few years that tells us if the test optional student did as well in the same college as their test submitting peers.
I won’t argue but my friend says they don’t question why someone is TO and just go by other stuff. And If a kid from a rigorous high school they know has the grades and the recs they will trust those more anyway. I agree that the average excellent TO Kid needs something additional/special to get into super selectives but a kid with high tests scores does too. Now having said that, I will contradict myself and agree that many selectives appear to have a soft ACt/SAt cutoff where only exceptional cases get in below that score. Usually you can see that on the naviance.
We went to visit Emory and the AO specifically said if you don’t submit your test score you need to give us another good indicator of why we should accept you. Although I agree that some schools say it doesn’t matter. There are test optional kids getting in, but it is at a lower rate than when tests are submitted. During the height of pandemic when testing was not available- I agree that schools needed to look past test scores -but now that testing is widely available again , It’s not the same excuse for wealthy suburban students.
I think schools benefit from test optional - greater number of applicants to chose from- minorities with strong grades that might not have applied with a test threshold.
In the end it has become another point of reference, if it makes your application stronger then submit it - if it doesn’t then don’t submit it.
I don’t think there is any single test that can, on its own, adequately test all students appropriately. If you use MC, people will complain that it doesn’t test deep knowledge. If you use essays, people will complain that some students don’t like to write. I do know that a lot of middle and high income students who did not test well where able to get in to better schools in the 2021 session by going TO and now some AOs have caught onto that. There are students that won’t test well but will still do very well when they get to college. I don’t have an answer to the issue as there are so many different reasons why. The way things are done in Europe where is is only by merit also do not serve everyone well. I don’t think everyone should go by only one way. Thee should be different paths for different people because we are all different.
The average ACT and SAT scores in this country, with a population that is partially self-selected for those who are motivated to do well on the exams (and that includes a decent number of exams taken by people sitting for them for the nth time, which correlates with higher scores), are respectively 20.3 and 1051. And that’s an average, remember—that means lots and lots of lower scores.
So no, I wouldn’t say that most kids are great at taking standardized tests.
Are you saying that standardized test scores accurately reflect grit and initiative? Because I’d like to see the evidence for that.
I cry foul on the nonrepresentative sample. You’re making the leap from UNCW being a regional public to the idea that the data from that one institution can be generalized across the population as a whole, and also that the population of your local school district can be generalized nationally. Neither of those assumptions is likely to be correct, and should be justified if your wider claims based on those samples are to be accepted.
Your very point in saying that kids can prep extensively for these exams and can retake them as many times as they want undermines your point that these exams can’t be “gamed.” They are continually gamed by those students with the resources to game them. Isn’t that why some parents love to append the braggy “in one sitting” comment to their kids’ test scores?
If they are merely a measure of hard work and grit, isn’t GPA not only a better gauge, but a better use of the student’s time?
GPA as a primary measurement would work If it was a consistent measurement across schools - which it clearly is not.
I agree the tests can be gamed but only to a certain extent - you can’t just easily game the system to a 34-36 ACT. If you are applying for a highly rejective school and you are not asking for financial aide and go test optional, I would see this as a red flag for 2023 graduates. Something else in your portfolio has to be spectacular to give you an edge.
Schools love test optional - why wouldn’t they? Only large publications see this as an issue because it’s too much qualitative data to sift through for too many student. I think we all can agree that one has to understand an individual situation and make the best decision for their child.
99.9% of the population couldn’t get a 1600 SAT score no matter how much prep and how many retakes they did. Even in our not particularly elite high school at least 3-5% of students get a perfect 4.0 UW GPA each year.
While GPA may be a better indicator of how well you will do in college, the SAT is somewhat closer to a measure of intelligence (ie it is more correlated with IQ test results). Arguably the PSAT, which is one and done, is better equipped to measure that than a test you can repeat.
I have looked, and have seen no non-anecdotal evidence of GPAs being inconsistent across high schools.* I find it noteworthy that studies investigating grade inflation** have found that grades have gradually risen in concert across US high schools, which wouldn’t be expected if grading is inconsistent from school to school.
*Caveat: There are, presumably, outliers. But outliers are outliers, not trends.
**I do wonder whether grade inflation is the right way to conceptualize it, though. Despite frequent claims of an educationally halcyon past, students are graduating high schools these days with a higher level of competence and achievement than earlier in history. Higher grades may simply be a natural outgrowth of that.
Since these tests are in service of college admissions, though, what should colleges be interested in? How well a student is likely to do at their school or what their IQ is?
How are the kids’ college lists coming? My S23 has his likely final list of 14 and ED/EA strategy formulated subject to one last visit to a few colleges over Labor Day weekend (not ideal but kids are back at school then at least) which may cause some movement depending on what he thinks of them…
D23 finished her common app essay and will be working on supplemental essays in August for 1 ED and 5 EA schools. Plans are in motion …. Now it’s all about execution!
It depends on whether you mean “inconsistent” in the letter grades awarded or in what level of knowledge an “A” grade represents. It’s perfectly possible to have a race between schools to increase the grades awarded (“our rival school gives more As”) while maintaining considerable differences in the standard of teaching (which might not change at all).
The fact that it’s only highly reputed (often prep) schools with excellent teaching that seem to resist grade inflation would appear to support this idea: they have no need to award more As to make their students look competitive.