We might separate the temporary move to “test optional” due to the coronavirus, from any more permanent move caused by a perception of fairness or other issues.
Regarding the temporary move, I think that it is the best that can be done in an unfortunate situation. No one wanted there to be a pandemic. It happened anyway. Now we need to do our best in the situation we are in. Some very strong students had planned to take the ACT or SAT and couldn’t because the tests were cancelled. Some took it without prep, did significant prep in order to retake, and couldn’t retake because their test dates were cancelled. We cannot use our time turners and go back and undo the pandemic. We have to deal with the impact as well as we can.
Regarding the permanent move for other reasons, I am split. I do understand the value of tutoring. Not everyone can afford tutoring.
In my experience most of the students who had the strongest SAT scores also had very strong grades and very good references. It did not matter which of these admissions looked at because they were all telling the same story. I realize that this is not always the case, but the point of test optional is that the student with a strong ACT or SAT score can still submit them.
That compression of GPA is actually very clear in the data about admitted students. At Berkeley, the top 75% of the student GPAs were between 3.89 and 4.0, while at UCLA they were 3.9-4.0. On the other hand, the top 75% of the SATs were 1350-1600 for Berkeley, and for UCLA they were 1370-1600.
GPAs of 3.9 and 3.95 do not demonstrate any difference in ability to succeed in college, so it is impossible to derive the effects of HSGPOA on success of students with the data of 75% of the students at Berkeley or UCLA. However, to conclude from this that HSGPA does not affect student success would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic statistics, and basic experimental design.
It is like taking a group of men who are all above 6’ 7" and claiming that because, in that group, height is not correlated strongly (or at all) with the quality of their basketball skills, therefore height is not important in basketball players.
However, the analysis has other major flaws. Each UC has a different set of students, with different GPA and SAT distributions. At each of the UCs, the income range of the students are also very different. Each of the UCs also invests a different amount of effort into making sure that students succeed. All of those affect retention and freshman GPA, and controlling for the UC which a student attends could easily cause the effects of test scores to dissipate.
Mr Gerstmann, who wrote the Forbes article, is an expert in his field. However, his field does not include statistics or data analysis, so he took the results as presented, without seeing the very clear flaws in the analysis.
I see many posters comment that the SAT favors the wealthy and since Khan Academy now offers a very good SAT prep service for free I do not see how this still holds true? It is the only test prep one needs for the SAT. Fair enough if the kid has no internet connection but I do not think those are the kids being referred to most of the time when this argument is made.
Although most students with the strongest test scores also have high grades, removing the test scores from the picture really opens up the field. Every single year there are kids anguished because their test scores are the stumbling block to applying to the top colleges. Many with 4.0, many with GPAs higher than the ones getting into the most selective schools, many in the top 10% of class, many who are vals and sals have the test scores as their Achilles heel of their applications.
Look at my personal situation. My kid was right up there, except he had abysmally low test scores. Usually there isn’t that large of a discrepancy, but there were a lot of kids with great grades, difficult courses, up there with the ECs, some with hooks but the test scores in the 1200, 1300, even 1400 had those numbers as obstacles for the Ivies and other highly selective schools.
I have friends in VA with kids who were in that honor roll, on the honors track, great all around, but test scores not up there. Don’t tell me that isn’t an obstacle in getting into the top VA schools. Same with the selective CA schools
With the Hope awards in GA, friends told me getting into UGA has become extremely competitive. Great students most all want to go there, and it often comes down to test scores.
How these larger schools that have used the test scores in the admissions matrix to select their classes are going to filter now is something I want to see. I suggest getting those state apps in early. The date of one’s app is another set of numbers in that matrix that large state schools often use. There are simply more outstanding students getting the same narrow range of GPAs to filter with grades alone. I don’t know how they are going to do it. What distinguished me from the Val and Sal of my graduating class many years ago (I was number 3) was that I had 5s on AP exams, and close to 800 on all the SATs I took, including the subject tests. It made a huge difference in the colleges in our lists, the acceptances and merit money.
This isn’t really a true statement. Having a tutor can be invaluable for many. Taking a full course like Kaplan can be also. Many tip /tricks and lots of kids need the hand holding and expert to help them get past certain issues. There is a reason these class’s for many companies fill up. If their students didn’t do well no one would take them.
Those students with the self discipline and time to really focus on their test scores will certainly do well. Back in my day, I didn’t know anyone who took prep courses. I practiced with library reference books and one eventually ragged out copy my dad picked up. Got top scores
But very few people have that discipline. Those students who don’t can get similar results with tutors directing attention to the weak points. Not everyone will get top scores with tutoring. But many kids do improve greatly. Those kids as a whole do have a great advantage over kids without tutoring, limited time and resources to practice testing. My cousin’s son had to fight for computer time at home. Smart phone has a budget, and WiFi not reliable. Kids her (and teachers) aren’t able to get bandwidth to get school work done. Yes, the privileged get a big leg up on test prep despite Khan Academy and other online sites.
Cpt thanks for you feedback. We agree that test scores and GPA are not always correlated as we also know many kids with strong GPAs but less than stellar test scores. But for these test scores these kids would be competing for admissions to the highly selective schools.
This is the basis of my original question. Now that many schools including some highly selective schools, like WashU, UCLA and Cal, have gone test optional, it appears that strong students who are poor test takers or have a less than stellar score have an advantage over string students who are also strong test takers but no longer have the opportunity to take a test because of Covid.
I am not knocking kids who struggle on tests as we can debate the general need, merits, and/or measure of standardized testing all day.
Test optional will be a difficult and interesting situation for students and schools to navigate so that no applicant is “disadvantaged.” I agree with you that test results dictate so many admissions related issues, such as merit aid or specific program admissions. As such, the lack of normal testing requirements will unavoidably and most likely hurt some applicants more than others.
^ I think that Khan Academy was created to even that playing field but the research on it shows a lot less engagement than expected.
There’s a ton of research on this, and I admit to ambivalence on this topic. The grading scales at schools differ. The rubrics differ. Class rank can be gamed. Some test-in schools have kids in the bottom 25% who are still spectacular.
So a standardized test is a good way to compare applicants and I certainly see the value.
But I also look at kids I know, including mine, who are from more well off households. Based on environment and good education alone, he was able to score 790 on the English section with no prep. He, like lots of kids, had no interest in test prep. Unlike kids in a poor district, he had guidance about the importance of test scores and course choice and great direction in creating a college list (in addition to the foundation for doing well without prep)…
I am struck when I read about this (which I do) that one of the "failings " of colleges is getting top high school students from disadvantaged backgrounds “up to speed”. While that’s a topic in and of itself, what it does suggest is that they are also much less well prepared for standardized tests than their wealthier peers - even before you start talking about test prep.
A student without test scores still has to “prove” through their record that they are ready to take on the challenges of college. A student with good test scores will use them as one piece of “proof”.
Since admissions at selective colleges are a zero sum game, changing how applications are reviewed by definition hurts one group of applicants if it helps another.
The group that is benefited are the kids with high GPA’s who for one reason or another do not test well. The group who will be hurt the most will be the students who attend HS with major grade inflation who test well. If they were lucky to get a good score in, it probably hurts them less, but if they did not have a chance to test, it puts them in the same boat as the other “4.0’s” that they otherwise would have stood out against.
I actually think increasing the reliance on EC’s and essays tends to help the affluent. They are the ones who can afford EC’s that require time and money. They are the ones who can afford professional counselors who can “edit” essays or otherwise package the applicant. Even if they do not have private counselors, they will have family/friend resources who can help. Further, selective colleges that practice holistic admissions already internally adjust test scores. While they likely make adjustments for EC’s, placing more reliance on subjective measures brings in more reader bias and IMO goes in the wrong direction in terms of transparency in an already opaque admissions process.
Garden, your input is spot on. Students from “wealthier” backgrounds simply have more educational opportunities. Actual money and wealth are not the sole driving factors but there certainly is some correlation. Even at the college level, “wealth” is a huge driver for applying to and attending the highly selective colleges
Khan is a good tool for the masses. But Khan cannot really come close to attending a school in “wealthy” district or an elite private high school that offers test prep, college counselors, practice interviews, connections, essay workshops, etc. to all of its students (not to mention a myriad of curriculum, athletic, leadership, and community service opportunities). Of course, the price of entry to these high school schools are exorbitantly high.
My D happens to attend a very selective and elite private school and the opportunities offered to her are nothing short of amazing. We also at times question the failings of the selective colleges to address the direct and indirect inequities that exist as a result of students wanting to be admitted to and graduating from these schools.
BK, totally agree with what you stated. We also cannot see how the test optional policy will not be a disadvantage to some group of applicants. We also agree with you that looking for admissions factors outside of testing will be tricky and is fraught with potential unfairness. After all, standardized testing is supposed to be the equalizing factor amongst students applying to college (which we all have discussed may not be that accurate of an equal measure).
@knowstuff I only have the experience of DS and for him he only used Khan Academy and thought it was useful. He scored a 1550 on his first SAT attempt and will not retake.
Additionally, DS has only ever attended public schools, including a charter middle school. He is disciplined and a good student and admittedly does have a decent wifi connection.
Some high schools also incorporate test prep into the math and english curriculum, hold free practice exams, and free test prep. My D’s HS did that and no one had outside tutors. Of a graduating class of 205, they had 27 students score above the 98th percentile. Her school was part of the city’s voucher program so lots of socioeconomic diversity.
I definitely agree kids are different and some will benefit from having a tutor, but in many threads on CC it is stated such that only wealthy kids have a chance to succeed and that is not true.
I have seen it stated many times that parents did not want their kid to study for the SAT/ACT this summer as they are not sure they will get the chance to take it. If you were not able to get a decent score then I do not think it would be a waste of time to study as if you want to go to college there are skills being tested that you probably need to hone.
@yearstogo the wealth benefit comes from performing higher than you would if you didn’t have the resources. This happens across the spectrum. A student that moves from an 1100 to a 1200 has a huge wealth benefit. It is much easier for a wealthy parent to move an average student to above average than an excellent student to what ever is the next category.
Without test scores, I think the student’s high school will matter. If AOs know the high school, have taken kids from that high school in the past, and think highly of the high school, that is to the student’s advantage. For example, our D21 doesn’t have a score to use yet. Long story but her March, April all-school, and May SATs were all cancelled. She has a spot for August. But she’s trying to not be that worried. Kids from our high school with her rigor and weighted GPA tend to score pretty high on standardized tests. Colleges that know our school might give her a pass for not sending a score and assume she could get to the scores of the kids they’ve accepted before from our high school. Now, that may or may not be true. We don’t know if she can get to those scores.
I think it would be best if she gets a good score in the fall but, without it, the colleges she’s applying to know our high school and they’ll be able to see where she falls in the class (at least by top 10% - we don’t rank). So, for her, if she gets a good score then that’s awesome but, without it, I think she might still do ok.
She’s only applying to private colleges that have gone TO. I don’t know how large publics are going to evaluate candidates. Seems harder to be holistic with so many apps and many really big schools just don’t practice holistic admissions.
It should not be too surprising that, for any measure of merit used in college admissions (grades, test scores, extracurriculars, essays, etc.), parents with money commonly use money to help their kids do as well as possible in these measures.
Of course, the parental budget for actually paying for college is the primary factor in most high school students’ college choices, or whether they will go to college at all. Only within the parental budget constraint does the student’s own achievement matter.
Having a high test score helps a candidate. Just look how most colleges, including the test optional ones, boast about how their latest incoming class has the “highest test scores ever”. (I’ve seen this over and over again).
If they didn’t care, why boast about incoming SAT and ACT scores for incoming classes in their press releases?
Just one example from many. Most elite LAC have versions of this on their websites and in news releases.
"Representing 753 high schools, this year’s admitted class [Colby] comes exceptionally well-prepared academically: The middle 50-percent range of ACT scores is 32-35, and the middle 50-percent range of SAT scores is 1420-1540. www.colby(dot edu) /news/2020/03/30/class-of-2024-admitted-to-colby/