Posted on 10/17/2018 5:22:00 PM PDT by reaganaut1
Making college admissions “test-optional” has been steadily gaining steam among elite and liberal arts American colleges. In late September, Colby College and Rosemont College joined the hundreds of other institutions that do not require their applicants to submit standardized test scores to be admitted to the school. Other schools that have “test-optional” policies include Bowdoin College, Bryn Mawr College, George Washington University, Sarah Lawrence College, the University of Chicago, and Wake Forest University.
And now, the University of California system has announced plans to study whether including standardized tests adds value to the admissions process. Many observers, including students, scholars, and at least one UC regent, have interpreted this move as a precursor to UC adopting test-optional policies in the future.
But a book released last year already offers a decisive answer to that question. Measuring Success: Testing, Grades, and the Future of College Admission, edited by Jack Buckley, Lynn Letukas, and Ben Wildavsky, presents essays from more than 20 scholars who study standardized testing. The book provides considerable evidence that standardized tests add significant value to the admissions process—most notably because it is the only transparent, objective measure available. By giving up standardized testing, colleges may be losing crucial information on whether prospective students can succeed in the college environment.
The book is organized into three sections, the first of which makes a strong and convincing empirical case for standardized testing. But the editors are even-handed: They devote section two to exploring test-optional admissions practices and section three to analyzing current challenges for college admissions.
Section one begins with a chapter by Paul R. Sackett and Nathan R. Kuncel of the University of Minnesota thoroughly debunking what they call, “Eight Myths about Standardized Admissions Testing.” (A shortened version of the chapter was printed in the Wall Street Journal.)
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
[and intrusive wrt Meta (race/ethnicity) Data].
Standardized tests are Rent Seeking....
They also allow people who are late bloomers, went through a lot of things growing up, or who hated high school, to prove they are capable.
Back in 1964 when my college got its first computer, the Dean of Admissions asked my to find a formula to predict Freshman Grade Point Average. Standardized test were significant, but High School GPA was the strongest predictor.
so are licensing requirements also going to do away with standardized testing?
for driving? concealed carry? becoming a bartender? becoming a barber? becoming a lawyer? becoming a doctor?
Really interesting.
This latest move is in anticipation of that outcome; all traces of objective criteria used in admissions determination will be removed. Admissions are going to be made on the basis of things that can be easily hidden or denied, such as for example, if you originate from a "specially designated" (read: affirmative action) school district.
Buttttt. . .they can get government guaranteed loans for students who are pretty much guaranteed to fail, after going 10’s of thousands of dollars into debt they will never be able to repay. Why can’t rational people see this? Turning able-bodied, capable people, who are not academically inclined, into perpetual debt serfs is such a noble thing to do!!!
They don’t need their future income to buy houses and raise honest hard-working families. Private property for any but the self-proclaimed “elite” is a crime against humanity. And they shouldn’t be having babies anyway, they should be having abortions (you know climate change and all).
The academics are so much more important to society, we all need to go into debt to support their lavish decadent lifestyles where they also get government grants to pursue hobbies that are of no value to anyone, but which entertain them greatly, while paying minimum wage to graduate students to do all of the teaching, grading and grunt work of academia, in exchange for debt relief to be provided by the plumbers, electricians, waitresses, hairdressers, admin assistants, carpenters, police officers, soldiers and all of the rest of the detritus of society.
There, I believe I’ve explained it clearly. Now can you see how destructive standardized testing is for academia?
Let’s test the schools. Which ones provide the best futures for their students? Who are working in their fields of choice, making a living, 5 years on? Who were turning a profit after student loan payoffs each month?
Yes, standardized testing is an objective tool to use for admissions.
But this article misses a few points:
First, those studies might’ve been based on pre-2016 SAT test scores.
Before 2016, colleges were giving more weight to SAT scores
because the SAT scoring process was tougher.
Back then, some colleges even awarded scholarships purely based on SAT scores alone.
But, in 2016, the SAT changed its scoring process.
Now, no points are deducted for wrong answers, and average SAT scores are trending higher.
So, now colleges aren’t giving as much weight to SAT scores.
Meanwhile, some colleges that have “test-optional admissions” require higher high school GPAs.
If you have a lower GPA, you can submit high SAT scores for consideration.
Making standardized tests easier, dumping standardized tests and all of this is done for one reason and one reason only... This is so that colleges can admit the demographics that they want and not admit the demographics that they do not want. Standardized tests are one of the last feeble protections that students who are not members of a protected class rely on to ensure fairness in the process.
The SAT change wasn’t about demographics. It was a business decision.
In fact, now higher SAT scores are expected for admission because the average scores are higher.
Also, the questions on the new version aren’t easier.
And, in the last SAT version, Math was only 1/3 the score.
In the new version, Math is 1/2 the score.
The reason the SAT scoring methods were changed is that more and more students were opting for the ACT test (a competitor)
because ACT questions are more straightforward and the ACT doesn’t deduct points for wrong answers.
More and more colleges have been accepting the ACT, even for scholarships.
So, the SAT test-makers decided to stop deducting points for wrong answers, too.
The reason the new SAT scores are trending higher is that now students can guess answers with no points deducted.
Sorry for the long post.
We’re a homeschool family. The first two took the old version; youngest now studying for the new version.
Thanks for the info in the SAT tests. Thank you for home schooling your kids. It is a lot of work.
Sure, that has been known for decades, and it has also been known for decades that the combination of tests and high school GPA is a better predictor than either alone.
Colleges should not rely TOO heavily upon test scores, but to ignore or reject such information is simply stupid.
“The article further acknowledged that “complaints about bias in college admissions have persisted since at least the 1920s, when a Harvard University president tried to cap the number of Jewish students.”
Does Harvard currently discriminate against white applicants? If they subscribe to the SAT bonuses for blacks and Hispanics described above, the answer is obviously yes.”
The ultimate solution here is the same plan that the city I worked for 25 years came up with. Basically, just use a shell game type system that completely disregards written test scores whenever they decide the results do not allow them to get the demographic mix that they want. It is all a sham to hide their discrimination based on sex, race and these days or whatever LGBTQ status they claim. I have seen this up close as a participant in the hiring process and I guarantee that it is as ugly and immoral as you can imagine.
That is why I thanked you for homeschooling your kids. They deserve better than the types of unfair treatment that they receive in public education... especially when they are small.
Agreed, it’s bad policy, whether used in college admissions or gov’t contracts.
In college admissions, that policy doesn’t even help the students it claims to help (imho),
because it advances a negative stereotype that is, quite frankly, insulting.
Thanks for the comments on homeschooling. I never understood the obsession with the Ivy League.
I once worked for a boss who threw away resumes from Ivy League graduates,
so an Ivy League degree doesn’t guarantee a job.
I don’t know about anyone else here, but, in our family, it’s all about graduating college debt-free.
If that means starting at a community college and then transferring to a university and commuting from home, then so be it.
One son applied to one Ivy because his SAT score was high enough.
He was rejected, but he went to a state college that offered a full ride including tuition, room, and board for all four years.
He graduated with zero debt and was hired right out of college.
The job is where the real education starts, anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.