Yes. Many – not all! – are too invested. Some seem to think going test optional is somehow harming their kids. Any time there is a change parents react this way. Soccer changed its age cutoffs a few years ago from July to January and the amount of parental angst was extraordinary.
7 Likes
Testing is never going to be popular and there’re actually more people against testing of any kind. I’ve never met any reasonably-sized group of people online or offline who enjoy to be tested.
It’s the Sunday night before we all head back to school and work tomorrow. Plus, the RD due dates for many schools were this week. For those of us in the thick of it, it’s been a crazy stressful last few months. Throw in the uncertainty of an application cycle unlike any other in history and you get a bunch of edgy parents.
Uncertainty and change breeds stress.
5 Likes
Note that McGill has about 4 times the number of undergraduates as highly desired US universities like Harvard, but is in a country with 1/9 the population of the US. So the “slice” of Canadian students going to McGill is about 36 times as large as the “slice” of US students going to Harvard.
So McGill probably has no need to resort to anything other than basic high school academic qualifications to determine admission for Canadian applicants. since it is not trying to figure out which small subset of applicants at the ceiling of basic academic qualifications to admit.
Other highly desired universities in Canada (Toronto and UBC) are larger.
1 Like
Of course, the LSAT is the subject of heavy test preparation.
This is the type of rhetoric I don’t love.
I happen to think that the Test Optional policy this year was way too liberal. That’s just my humble opinion and I realize that others have differing opinions. It’s a complicated and nuanced issue with no clear right answer (hence the 400+ replies here).
It doesn’t mean I think my child is a “little darling” in need of coddling and protection.
3 Likes
A test that’s less prepable doesn’t mean people won’t try to prepare. All it means is that improvement due to preparation will be much more marginal.
We could try to get back to the original thread question. Or maybe this thread has run its course.
@DoingOurBest I started this post before seeing your latest. Maybe you’re right, that all the stresses are being seen. What follows is what I started.
…
I personally feel that TO does present new challenges. Of course. (And the whole year has been one of confusion and attempts to adapt.) But I feel the long standing emphasis, at tippytops, on the rest of the package, allows kids to still (try to) put their best foot forward.
That’s opinion. Or, you could say, my position here. Mostly based on experience. Not an attack on anyone else’s thoughts. Not the freaking battle of the century.
Imo, I feel the original post was thoughtful. I’m not surprised to see folks line up on either side. i’m just surprised by some of the tone.
So be it. I said it. No one needs to overly worry it’s directed at them. (Not to the extent that one comes back with both barrels loaded.) I do think there’s value in trying to walk between the lines: go ahead an say what you think, without crossing over into where TOS can snag you.
Yup. we’ll disagree, at times.
1 Like
^Yes, this is one of the issues people clearly disagree. But we don’t need to question other people’s motives.
1 Like
Where do you get that? Our S got a 1400 on his first practice SAT, self studied for a summer and got a 1540 with 800 math. Some kids can and do study to get a high score. Same for many of S19 and D21’s friends.
4 Likes
I live in a suburb of a major city. People handled the news of test optional different ways:
- Some prepped to the very last day and traveled to find a test location, dealt with the challenges because they wanted that test - and made it happen.
- Some prepped till COVID hit and concluded very early that testing was not going to be appropriate this year; whether that meant safe for them, a criteria at schools or maybe to their advantage.
- Some were thinking test optional the whole way. This was the minority.
So, the question is whether anyone really benefited or anyone was really hurt? There is little doubt that people were upset by the confusion and uncertainty.
I realize I am not covering all people and by default suburb of major city implies middle income and greater. My daughter fell into #2 and I am pleased with the result. On the other hand, I think she would have likely ended up in the same place if she traveled to test locations and submitted scores.
Whether the test is fair, I think it is not, but I do not feel overwhelmingly strong about it and am happy some people excel at taking it.
A test is never going to be completely fair to everyone. But the real quesiton is whether it is fairer than some of the other measures we use in admissions?
1 Like
It is a data point, like many of the other measures.
Should it remain a data point then (post-COVID, of course)?
I am indifferent. I don’t mind test optional because I think it offers meaning, too. Test blind may have been more appropriate this year, but I do feel for the strongest test-takers who needed that segment of their profile to shine. So far, it does not seem that non-submitters have been hurt. I have not heard many stories of losers, but the night is still young.
I agree test blind is more appropriate this past year. However, if test optional is reasonable, why shouldn’t we make other measures (suich as essays) optional too? There’re plenty of people who feel they have been disadvantaged by those measures as well.
That’s easy. It’s more fair than boosting the admissions for the kids of the rich, the famous, and the well-connected.
Who benefited: students who are weak SAT/ACT-takers relative to the rest of their academic and other college admission qualifications. I.e. the “strong in everything (that the college considers) except SAT/ACT scores” applicants.
Who lost: those who are rejected because those “strong in everything (that the college considers) except SAT/ACT scores” applicants get admitted in their place.
Some suburban areas are lower income for their region.
1 Like
Standardized test scores are on average higher for affluent students for a number of reasons, including the fact that they can pay for significant test prep, take the test multiple times, and over the last year, travel to other states to take tests. Affluent students are also more likely to seek testing accommodations, where extra time especially on the ACT is a huge advantage, just to take one example.
Essays show a slice of a person’s life and how well people write. From my experience, they breath air into an application. People can spend as much time or as little as they want writing and even choose their topic to some extent. Most essays do not help or hurt an application, but 10% of the kids improve their odds and 10% of the kids hurt themselves with it. I like offering people this opportunity. Tests are less fair and weighted heavier - so we are talking apples and oranges.
1 Like