Until you control for socioeconomic status, at which point the usefulness of the test scores diminishes greatly. If you want to give fair opportunity to all kids, providing an option to the SAT is a valid means of achieving that goal. If you only are concerned with affluent kids, then keep requiring SAT for everyone.
And while the SAT I and SAT II are both standardized tests, they test very different things. The SAT I is attempting to test aptitude. The SAT II is testing knowledge of particular subjects. If you argue that adding the SAT I increases the ability to predict performance, why would you then dismiss the fact that the SAT II is even more predictive? Some test-optional schools WILL ask for subject tests.
I don’t understand why there’s so much animosity towards schools that are exploring different options to ensure student success. You’d think that would be a desired outcome. Much more recent studies, tracking students all the way to graduation, have shown no decrease in student achievement after schools go test-optional. Schools report graduation rates as well as SAT scores. If they were admitting low-achieving kids under the test optional umbrella, there should be a corresponding impact on graduation. Unless they’ve decided to just start selling diplomas.
@InigoMontoya Likewise, I find the cynicism, negativity and conspiratorial voices both sad and laughable. It is amazing that parents would take these positions knowing that the children of friends, neices and nephews and even their own children might benefit from such an approach. The post about it being a tool to admit full pay students under the radar is absolutely precious.
It is likely that over the next 3 - 5 years most schools will be test optional. Get used to it.
The UCSC study did indicate that the predictive value of the SAT I was reduced when socioeconomic status was taken into account. However, that was not the case for the SAT II (see Table 4).*
I said that tests help predict performance. Where do you think I dismissed the SAT II in favor of the SAT I?
These schools are generally considered “test flexible” rather than “test optional” (see, e.g., http://www.blackenterprise.com/education/test-optional-or-test-flexible-what-you-need-to-know/).
*Another 2012 study from Psychological Science shows no substantial impact of SES on the predictive relationship for the SAT (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22858524).
I still don’t understand the reason for all the extreme negativity towards the test-optional admission criteria. Seems like a win-win to me:
-If you are a student whose SAT I (or ACT) scores enhance your record, you submit the scores and you’ve made the admissions office job easier
-If you are a student whose SAT I (or ACT) scores do not enhance your record, you can seek out schools that allow alternatives, such as:
-Test-flexible schools allow submission of SAT II or AP or other scores that more accurately reflect ANY student’s ability to succeed in college
-Test-optional schools typically require submission of some extra material - extra essay, extra LOR, so on, and the school evaluates you in a more holistic manner
I still see this as a way schools try to level the playing field for those kids who don’t do as well on the SAT I but are likely to succeed in college, but perhaps I’m naive to the conspiracy for schools to admit sub-par students in a pure money grab. Regardless, I’ll leave the remainder of this thread to others.
@foosondaughter There are plenty of data points on the transcript to indicate college readiness or predict success, for example whether a student took Calculus and what the grade was.
Standardized tests tell you what you already know in 99% of cases. They are completely redundant.
The test optional or flexible route is for the true and rare outlier.
Imagine a world without for-profit US News rankings, for-profit ACT, for-profit SAT, or for-profit AP.