You did: “If we all agree that TO affects college admissions, then it seems to me that we have to agree, logically, that it will impact college education as well. The colleges would have to either accommodate academically those students who wouldn’t have been admitted otherwise, or deal with other consequences that may result.”
1 Like
That’s totally different. Adopting a different standard will surely change, to some degree, who get admitted. Some of them wouldn’t be admitted otherwise under the old standard, because AOs would have to judge with fewer data points, which inevitably will lead to less optimal, and certainly different, decisions in some cases.
Lol. OK. Your implication seems to be that anyone who did not submit a test score will need to be “accommodated academically” and “wouldn’t been have been admitted otherwise.” Is that not what you’re saying?
3 Likes
I have no problem with “test optional” but I think “test blind” as is the case with many public universities (UC and CSU) was a disservice to many kids. I think phasing the SAT/ACT out is fine. I think changing the rules as little at 2 weeks before accepting applications is not.
8 Likes
Where did I say anyone? Someone, yes, but not everyone.
[quote=“nucities, post:169, topic:2803241”]”I think phasing the SAT/ACT out is fine. I think changing the rules as little at 2 weeks before accepting applications is not.”
[/quote]
I totally agree with this ^^^.
3 Likes
“Someone” is always admitted who isn’t necessarily qualified. The system is not perfect and involves a lot of subjectivity. This year will be no different from any other. For the record, I don’t think TO policies will affect college education and I think it’s strange to claim it will. We don’t have to agree “logically” to that at all.
4 Likes
I agree with your first two sentences, but not the last one. Subjectivities inevitably lead to some errors and decisions that aren’t the best. If there’re more subjectivities (which will be the case this year), then potentially there could be more errors and poorer decisions.
The latest research indicates grades are five times more likely to predict college success than ACT scores, so going TO is not that big a deal. To anyone who says grades are subjective, that’s what the school report is for.
4 Likes
We just found out that our school will still be holding midterms even though we are in a hybrid learning situation. Half the kids will be taking midterms at school; the other half will be taking midterms at home. Meanwhile, many other schools in our state have canceled midterms because they feel it’s not possible to administer them fairly in a remote or hybrid situation.
I mention this to point out that these are they types of things that make GPA and grades less reliable this year when comparing students. Skewing the numbers are these considerations: it’s way easier to cheat on exams at home; some kids wear glasses so taking a huge test with a mask on in school with fogging glasses is a distraction; some kids have distractions at home, etc, etc, etc.
In our school, midterms are tough and are weighted heavily. They rarely raise your grade; they usually pull it down a bit. So, kids from our school will be submitting Semester 1 grades to colleges that reflect this. They will then be compared to other kids from our state that didn’t have to deal with midterms at all.
GPA and grades are way too subjective (IMO) to serve as the sole basis for academic achievement.
This year is going to be challenging for everyone. With the dramatic increases in the volume of early applications at “elite” colleges, I wonder how they affect readings of these applications. I wouldn’t think colleges will be able to hire additional experienced readers, as they must be in demand this application season. If that’s the case, how much less time can each of them spend on an average application? From 10 minutes down to 5 minutes?
1 Like
Going back to OP’s original question, I don’t know if I would call it a “disservice,” but if you applied ED to an elite school with a top SAT/ACT score, TO certainly didn’t help you for the simple reason that it dramatically increased the number of applications, thereby making even more difficult to get in. As far as it being the right choice - it was really the only choice given the circumstances. It will be interesting to see how many schools remain TO once things (hopefully) get back to normal.
1 Like
UF reported 12,000 applications without scores but the students had until 12/15 to order their scores from SAT/ACT. So we don’t know yet how many will actually be without scores.
Elites have long had their teams of experienced additional readers.
For the college i know best, there will be a quick and tough initial assessment to weed out those applicants obviously unsuitable. Less time spent on borderline apps. The goal is roughly the same number of apps past first cut as in years before.
Once into the actual apps, the focus on “the rest,” the non-stats, should be roughly the same as before.
Keep in mind the old statements (Harvard) that there can be roughly 6x finalists as seats. Thats the reality of the nature of the competition. Same focus on finding those- again, without all submitting scores.
3 Likes
Would the initial assessment be partially based on stats? If so, how do the missing scores complicate the initial assessment?
It complicates because you can’t just lean on scores. In the past, sure, there’s been some cherry picking (when a candidate is otherwise compelling, taking a high stats kid over a middling one. That can explain some of the high stats trends you see, after the fact.)
But the emphasis on “the rest” remains critical. Just looking at stats is never enough. Too many kids focus on stats and their high school standing and miss that.
4 Likes
This is not inherently true, but it depends on the design of the test.
The older SATs that were billed as “aptitude” or IQ tests certainly did depend on prior learning and could be affected by preparation (particularly in SAT test-taking methods), so it looks like you would not consider them well designed tests for the goals you describe above.
It is not like UC had a choice in the matter after the late-decided lawsuit went against them.
CSU did announce test blind significantly earlier, probably because it could not adapt its formulaic admissions practice to some applicants with and some applicants without SAT/ACT scores.
I’m well aware; I wasn’t trying to place blame on UC. Ultimately that is what happened. There were other schools that made that choice very late. U of Arizona went test blind for merit within a week of applications being accepted. There are dozens of examples. Test optional would have been fine given the circumstances but test blind was in some cases punitive from my point of view.
I don’t know if AOs are taking any student “over” another student. Students aren’t really head to head unless (maybe) at the same high school and even then lots of top schools take multiple kids from one high school. So, how many times is a TO student “taking” a seat away from a student with a test score? If that student with a test score has everything else and fits what the college is looking for, then they are more likely to be admitted, no? It’s a bummer for kids who busted their butts and didn’t get a test score but is it really a bummer for kids who similarly busted their butts and got a score to send? They are not at a disadvantage.
3 Likes