Most eye-opening statement in UT Austin’s announcement:
“Of 9,217 first-year students enrolled in 2023, those who ‘opted in’ (i.e., asked to have their standardized scores considered in a holistic review) had an estimated average GPA of 0.86 grade points higher during their first fall semester, controlling for a wide range of factors, including high school class rank and GPA.”
I don’t know if this is UT Austin cherry picking numbers to support a narrative, or whether it has anything to do with their top 6% rule, but 0.86?!? Wow.
The school is pretty blunt on how they think of standardized tests, unlike Dartmouth, Yale, and Brown which provided few hard numbers and sounded almost apologetic in their announcements. UT Austin also made no mention of wanting to uncover “diamonds in the rough.”
Can’t have one without another: Texas A&M soon to follow?
The top 6% takes care of finding “diamonds in the rough”. So test scores will be important to determine who gets into what major - assuming they’ll use the Math score for STEM, in particular.
UT also says it’ll help them determine who among their top 6% admits will need extra support.
That difference in GPA makes sense compared to the test score difference (1160 v 1420) between the 2 groups, probably reflecting a different level of K12 preparation.
I am quite certain any school can be a test center if it makes it a priority. If it isn’t one, then that responsibility is with the school admin and parents who don’t prioritize it.
Truly, one can not in good faith claim cost or administrative obstacles when so many more poor and overburdened schools manage to pull it together for testing. If one opposes testing, one may not support test centers. At least let’s identify the issue honestly. It is a choice those schools and parents made.
Yeah, it seems to reveal a high degree of grade inflation in some of those schools and has probably increased dramatically throughout the country. UT makes a pretty strong argument for bringing back the SAT… perhaps they hoped for ‘diamonds in the rough’ under the previous method, but found mostly silt?
Again, UT Austin will still be accepting the top 6% from all the schools that participate, regardless of how low some of those students’ test scores may be. The difference is now those students do have to take a test, whereas for the last four years they haven’t had to.
UT is not using SAT scores to find “diamonds in the rough”. The system is already set up that way - all top 6% students are admitted, whether they come from TitleI or high performing districts, huge urban HS or tiny rural HS: these students have shown they have the intelligence and discipline to rise to the very top of their class and deserve a place at UT.
However with so many As how do you determine who will be best for the most competitive majors? Quoting UT: Who shows acheivement, who shows promise, who needs support ?
@roycroftmom : yes, the school would have done it if it were easy but it was VERY low on their list of priorities. If CB had set it up and paid people to organize, administer, etc, they would have let it happen but since there was heavy lifting to do and no one cared with many more important things to do, it never went anywhere.
Perhaps CB will figure out a way to administrer it like duolingo English test, where you can test at home.
True. It will help UT identify students in the 6% that may need more support and may decrease the admits who may have previously been accepted based on other criteria but fell outside of the 6%.
Um, no, I don’t think CB will do that. Why would it? It has a system which works well in the vast majority of states and is mandatory in over half, along with being available in hundreds of foreign countries. It, too, is “busy”.
Yes, that was my point…probably made poorly. Fewer acceptances for those who may have had really good grades at a school where everyone gets good grades but falls outside the 6% and probably do poorly on the SAT.
Regardless, it’s interesting how clearly they outline the value of the SAT in projecting who will perform well in college. Not mincing words. I wonder why other schools are not seeing / discussing / revealing this?
Roycroft mom and I disagree on much- but I ABSOLUTELY agree that schools take on all sorts of complex logistics- pep rallies and football games and bake sales complete with the gluten free/no nuts options, and proms and pre-proms and chaperoned after parties, and yearbooks and class trips and youth orchestras and cheer/dance competitions. All of which involve money and travel and the need for supervision and security and bus companies and fundraising and PR… and getting approval from the superintendent’s office on every aspect of the safety protocols, which in some cases also involves separate meetings with law enforcement. The days where a couple of “mean looking dads” provided security at a sporting event at a high school with hundreds of kids in attendance- no. Probably paid, professionals.
And we actually believe that an SAT administration is “too complicated” for a high school to pull off?
I don’t think too complicated is the issue. It’s the already overburdened counseling staff who at most schools are social emotional counselors first, and they don’t have the time to undertake running tests. For example, if they were to undertake the testing prep activities after school hours they would not get paid for that time.
IMO that’s the primary reason there are far fewer testing sites and seats than pre-Covid (more pronounced in some areas than others…e.g. California, where the UCs/CSUs are test blind). There are other reasons of course, but that seems to be the one I hear most often.
Again IMO, it’s close to business as usual in well funded schools that have dedicated college counselors and/or a dedicated testing coordinator. But even then, the number of seats they run per test is sometimes lower than pre-covid.
Please. Millions take the tests; some prepare and some don’t. If Cali wishes to limit its kids’ options, that is a deliberate decision.
At first glance your theory that wealthy public schools hold tests doesn’t seem supported. In SF, there are 18 test centers for the May test (some Catholic schools, some apparently poor schools) within 100 miles of SF. In my area, there are 75, as most every public high school is also a test center. I am certain many of our public schools also have overburdened counselors-that circumstance is not unique to CA. If it’s not important to most parents there, that is fine, just accept that and the consequences. There are plenty of other schools. Beside, the private school Cali kids seem to take the test and apply just fine, so at least wealthy Cali kids end up well represented everywhere.
I have no horse in this race. What I do have is the benefit of hearing what HS counselors think about testing, etc…that’s all I’m sharing, so people have perspective…it is what it is. Maybe parents can change policies at some of their schools and get more tests administered, who knows?
I also did not say overburdened counselors are unique to CA. Your data on Bay Area testing is in line with what counselors have been saying…there are no available testing sites within a many hours drive (for tests where registration is open). Obviously that’s an access issue and with about 60% of CA public school students qualifying for free or reduced lunch, most aren’t taking an overnight stay or flying anywhere to get a test seat.
A HS does NOT need a member of the counseling staff for test prep, proctoring, etc. The Catholic school near me which opens up its open seats to any kid who needs a test uses the gym teacher and athletic coach to proctor. They are used to working weekends, and are often in the school building or on the grounds anyway.
I don’t think the counseling staff should be asked to work without compensation. But having had my kids take a wide variety of tests at a bunch of different places, it’s hogwash that someone needs to be a certified guidance counselor with state licensing to either make the five phone calls required to set up a test site, or to get a few members of the district staff or faculty to proctor.
We are all making this way too hard. The country that landed a man on the moon- and brought him back safely-- can’t figure out how to administer a nation-wide, standardize test???
There are not enough testing sites in CA and some kids have to travel a little bit or make plans but it’s totally doable.
They have tried to train us to ‘not take it’ and buy into their evaluation process.
Only after the UCs take only 4.0 students do parents realize it’s all just a lottery and there is little differentiation between those admitted and those declined. UCs should bring standardized testing back to provide a level measuring stick because all 4.0s are certainly not equal.