Was test optional, ultimately, a disservice to kids or was it the right choice?

Parents Forum
428

That’s what occurs in the UK, except that it happens in school. At D’s school, they basically finish the syllabus for each subject at least one term in advance of the exams and the remaining time is spent essentially prepping students to take the tests (and do extension work).

What I don’t understand is superscoring. I understand the rationale behind allowing students to take the SAT/ACT more than once (twice sounds like a sensible limit) and I kind of get permitting them to send their best overall score (or choose which overall score to send). But to introduce the splitting of different tests and considering only the best score from each section? Doesn’t that just result in further compression of the applicant pool, making it harder for colleges to distinguish the stronger candidates from the weaker ones and rendering test scores less useful? Why have colleges chosen to do this?

429

Suppose 2 colleges are peer schools, with a good number of cross applicants and students interested in both schools. One of these colleges superscores and the other does not. Superscoring will give one of the 2 colleges a slight edge in reported test scores over their peer. Comments on these forums suggests that even this type of slight differences in reported test scores can have a noteworthy influence on how some students compare the 2 peer scores. The one that has the slightly higher reported SAT may be thought of as better or more selective in some way, resulting in slightly more applicants, slightly higher yield among cross admits, slightly higher rankings, etc. Superscoring helps the college.

Superscoring also helps the CollegeBoard or others making the tests. Superscoring encourages students to take the test more times, which means they make more money in test fees, so it’s not surprising that the CollegeBoard is receptive to superscoring.

Superscoring also gives an advantage to more knowledgeable and well resourced students who are more likely to take the test multiple times, and this group tends to be the more influential ones for policy decisions.

I think the better question is why wouldn’t a college choose to superscore? I won’t repeat the studies that have been posted earlier in this thread, but the general conclusion was that test scores add little to prediction of academic success beyond the rest of the application (rest of application includes more than just HS GPA in isolation). I doubt this will change much with superscore vs non-superscore

If a particular college is concerned about increasing the advantage given to wealthier or more resourced kids, they might use superscores for reporting purposes, but have different policies in considering how scores are used for admission decisions. Rather than simply choosing the kids with the highest superscored total, they might consider the score in the context of the application and resources available to the applicant, including both subsection scores and if necessary, reviewing scores on all tests the student has taken.

430

If the incentives and motivations are the way you’ve described, it’s a pretty broken system. What’s next, then? (Actually, I have a sense that TO will be gamed in a way to give colleges an ever more marginal edge.)

I will be glad when all of this is over for us!

6 Likes
431

Today’s standardized tests in America (AP, SAT/ACT) are NOT aptitude tests. They are assessing something, although I am not sure what that is. Regardless, the UK system has and always will be more test oriented. This includes testing all the way up to pre-employment. Pros and cons to each system. I can’t imagine becoming more test oriented in America at a time where the fairness of tests is in question, and then there is UK’s government involvement… UK feels too hierarchical for the times IMO.

2 Likes
432

China has a high stakes national exam. Kids can only take it once and students jump off buildings afterwards due to the pressure. That’s not something I want here. Standardized tests have a place but they aren’t the end all be all.

4 Likes
433

The current versions of the standardized tests try to be too many things and they end up not doing anything well. If I were to design the tests, I’d split them into two types of tests:

  1. A required “knowledge” test in a set of core subjects. It’s meant to be a uniform measure of what students have learned in high schools across the country. It serves as a complement to high school grades. A student can take the test no more than twice. The test is preparable and students are encouraged to do so (Why not encourage them to fill gaps, if any, in their knowledge through preparations in these subjects?).

  2. The second test is a real “aptitude” test. It’s optional for most students. Only some colleges or certain majors in other colleges may require it. It’s designed to be much less preparable, if at all. And it can only be taken once. It serves the purpose for these colleges (or departments) where such skills are highly desirable.

434

@1NJParent. – the first is precisely what the IB is but you can test only once (afaik). What I like about it is that it keeps both the student and school honest because the grading is done by third parties.

435

Yes, I agree. And I wish we had a uniform standard for all high schools in this country, but unfortunately we don’t.

436

Same with the AP tests which are pretty well designed with MC and FRQ. Not the online version that we had this year but the full tests. IMO, similar tests need to be introduced for HS English and Math, not for AP-level English and math which is essentially college-level material (so not everybody can take).
The problem with the SAT/ACT is that they are easy but very fast tests. If the test went more in depth and tested real understanding, it could allow more time and reduce the stress.
The level of stress in the US HS is already through the roof and kids jump under trains instead. It’s unsettling how many kids on CC are being medicated for anxiety or ADHD. IMHO, this is due to the pressure to have stellar academics and ECs. How is it possible for a 15-16 yrs old to keep up at school while simultaneously being asked to spend 20 hrs a week dancing, playing a sport, or doing research? Kids are overscheduled and prevented to do what they should be doing at this age - hanging out with friends, figuring out who they are, sleep. I don’t know whose fault it is, people are just trying to do the best for their kids but the admission race is brutal here.

7 Likes
437

That’s essentially the system that exists in the UK if you’re applying to Oxbridge or for certain subjects where, in addition to A Levels, aptitude-like tests (e.g., TSA, LNAT, BMAT/UCAT) must be taken.

A Levels can be repeated (in the following year). Not sure if aptitude tests can be retaken.

I grew up with the US grading system (where every quiz/test counts) and thought that I would really dislike the UK system. But seeing D22 go through secondary school in the UK, I think it’s somewhat liberating to not have to worry about your performance on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, the A Level exam for each subject contains multiple modules taken over different days so not everything rides on a single sitting.

My quibble with the A Level system is that it is very focused (3-4 subjects for 2 years, forcing students to make hard choices at 15-16).

2 Likes
438

There isn’t a single human being who does everything well. A society would be better off as a whole if individuals within the society can be encouraged to do best in areas where they’re relatively better at. The current US college admission criterias, on the other hand (with a few exceptions), encourage generalities. Many talented “generalists” end up in places like Wall Street where no specialty is required, causing severe misallocation of human capitals.

4 Likes
439

It is a 100% disadvantage

A test score can complete a picture of an applicant and also validate them. It’s another way to evaluate a student.

Maybe their high school grades especially hard? Poor experience with teacher? How can you compare an easy grading school versus a more challenging one? What if 25 AP courses aren’t available? Since when did aptitude not matter in college?

3 Likes
440

The first looks like the kind of tests common in other countries. Or conceptually like using something like SAT subject and AP tests in the US.

For the second, how would you measure aptitude without relying on prior knowledge, and how would you design a test that cannot be affected by preparation? Once a test is attached to something that is high stakes like college admission, there will be preparation for it. Note that older (1980s) SATs were marketed as “aptitude” tests, but they depended heavily on prior knowledge (English vocabulary, algebra, geometry), and some students who were naive in SAT test taking techniques did improve through preparation.

441

There’s a difference between a test marketed as “aptitude” test and a real one. Even the older SAT tests failed in that regard, because they tried to be both an “aptitude” test and a “knowledge” test. The only good part, in terms of “aptitude”, of the older tests was the “analogies” section, IMO. The issue with esoteric vocabularies can be dealt with by printing standard dictionary definitions right next to them on the tests. The main purpose of these “analogies” shoud be to see if a student can make correct inferences, not whether s/he recognizes some particular words.

442

If standardised testing were to be phased out, I wonder how adcoms would continue to be able to compare the rigour of various high schools across the country without that information.

While it may not say very much about the individual student and their chances to succeed, they do say a lot if you have aggregate numbers of a cohort.

It may severely penalise students from less well known high schools when adcoms will pass on them simply because they cannot put their qualifications in perspective.

1 Like
443

Not that I’d defend SATs. In fact, I am going to throw out a very unpalatable suggestion: these tests are eugenics.

Designed to measure, well, “something”, as a previous poster mused - but with the idea behind it that that something is inborn, immutable nature, which is supposed to determine your “merit”, whether you deserve admission to a particular college or not.

Cue the agonising about “test prep” for a test that is supposed to be “unpreppable”, that it’s meaningless, that it measures family socioeconomic status (well, if ever anything was determined by births it’s that).

It’s actually possible to design meaningful tests. They may not be perfect, but they do measure what you’ve learned. And you’re supposed to prep for them, because as you study, you learn. Meaningful things, and thus studying for the tests becomes meaningful, and so becomes using them as a measure to determine your academic readiness, which should be meaningful for an institution of higher learning. More than, gasp, who you “are”, as determined by two pieces of creative writing that no one knows how much input anyone else has had on, or how well you throw a ball, or manage your time.

But I am veering into dangerous territory here, I know. However, with things in such flux, and some changes imminent, I urge parents not to shut down the suggestion of looking at how other countries do this and taking away what might work or what might not with “they jump down roofs after”.

1 Like
444

I wouldn’t support that at all. Having a national testing day would make a lot of kids more nervous. There is no value in everyone testing on the same day. If a kid is sick or a family member dies or any other reason, why take a test that is so important.
My kid tests really well and will likely test just once. I don’t think there are multiple cycles of test prep for many. Some kids take the test only once some take it many times and some prep for years ( or not at all).
What may work for one kid doesn’t work for all. Let people decide what is best for them.

3 Likes
445

sure some may be sick, etc but I would think that number is very small. what is it with our kids in the US that they are so fragile they will completely fall apart under any pressure…how is that going to work out for them later in life? dealing with pressure is part of growing up and failing to be able to do so will curtail your ability to progress in many jobs…

I do understand that kids are different and cope differently but it is a skill most of us must learn. not to say that the kid that cannot deal with any pressure should be doomed to failure but perhaps they should not be able to go to a Top 20 school and major in X…

2 Likes
446

When I was in HS back in the mid 1980’s, you took the SAT in the spring of junior year. If you weren’t satisfied with your score, you could take it again during the fall of your senior year. That was it, just two chances at the SAT (nobody took the ACT in my part of the country). Scores were lower back then too. It was very rare to hear of someone scoring in the 1500’s and scoring in the 1300’s was good enough for even the top schools. There was test prep, but nothing like what’s out there today. We were ranked based on our GPA too, from first in the class to last in the class. Most high schools don’t rank anymore. I guess because they feel it’s too harsh.

3 Likes
447

Some here (and I’ll try not to hint who) are making my head spin. Lol. You start with some assumptions (or even convictions) and build from there. I don’t find that effective.

First, from at least the 50’s on, “aptitude” was a focus of many psychological studies. As with many academic topics, it was driven by some curiosity. Not necessarily meant to come up with some absolute type of measurement.

And you always need to put studies and their results into some context- here, college. So what, about aptitude? Colleges care less about some vague potential and more about how you’ve actually used that, how you actually performed and likely will continue to. In holistic, it ranges into other ways we integrate, influence, are influenced, and move forward.

I said, and still see, that the standardized tests are simply another hurdle. You want to do well, as it’s another metric. They exist (up to now.) I do not see them as intended to validate course grades. Sure, they may. But doing well is (usually) a matter of focus, recognition that you face this and can put the effort into doing well, that you are that type. And elite holistics are looking for that type.

In the holistic scenario, it’s useless to take the std test results and try to stack them (that this 800 is better than that 720.) Stacking in that way is not holistic. It’s hierarchical thinking. (It’s true you’ll face a bar, for the most- and highly-competitive colleges. And, in the end, IF they’re going to cherry pick among kids otherwise fully compelling, they may choose the higher score kid. But remember, fully compelling is much more than academic might.)

Nor is it about, “Omg, the poor dears.” I feel we keep returning to the fear of “stress” (any implying) as a reason to hold back. Kids take on this challenge or not. If they can’t bear it, the issue is likely how they respond to a challenge or uncertainty, in the first place, confidence, a willingness to go for it, and more. I.e., inherent. Something that could have been recognized earlier, a decision made how to handle this. If they can’t bear it, why are they in the high stakes game? Why? And there are plenty of kids who do thrive with full schedules, the balancing act, still have friends, fun times, enough sleep, et al. They’ll adapt to the pressures of a tippy top better.

Then all the fuss about prep. Rich kids are not the only ones getting support. Lower SES kids are not all the common picture of babysitting 11 siblings, suffering awful high schools, with no encouragement, mentoring, opportunities. I think you’d have to be exposed to these higher performers, their full picture, what some do achieve- and get away from the dang stereotypes.

A lot of this IS about drives, awareness, how an individual approaches challenges, resilience, etc.

The top colleges are not an easy ride. If you want to avoid various challenges, hurdles , comparisons, etc, pick a different set of targets. Don’t just repeat about the tests being the fault, how they should be thrown out. Be realistic.

4 Likes