Respectfully, @Mwfan1921, but don’t you choose a ‘side’ when you say “tests further disadvantage already disadvantaged students”?
Is there an agreed upon definition of “disadvantage”? What does it mean precisely?
2 Likes
As it happens, there is: “an unfavorable circumstance or condition that reduces the chances of success or effectiveness”.
Well, then yes, having low standardized scores unquestionably disadvantages students in that it reduces their chances of success or effectiveness - regardless of whether or not they are admitted.
1 Like
Here is my take. Poor kids, minorities… score poorly the large majority of the time.
Why? Are the tests less accurate for them?
3 Likes
not sure if they are. I think they can catch up; the same way rich white underachievers catch up.
1 Like
bought experiences are super uninteresting these days. they get sniffed out.
4 Likes
Not that I know of.
We do know that URM and/or low SES students score lower on ACT and SAT and there are multiple reasons for that. But I know you know that. Hence why I don’t want to debate. Like I said above, I see the pro side for tests, and would never doubt schools where data show test scores are important to them/their process/their outcomes. Similarly I believe schools that have data showing the opposite. What’s good for MIT is not good for other schools, not even CalTech.
This thread seems the same tired rehash of so many other threads. I would encourage people who want tests to try to defend the other ‘side’, and also ask yourselves why do so many college administrators/trustees and enrollment/admissions leaders (across different levels of selectivity) support test optional or even test blind? (and no guessing/reading of tea leaves…I mean actually talk to these people). Likewise I encourage those who support no testing/TO to do the same exercise…how would you support the other position?
Lastly, I will make yet another plea…if you have time to be on CC, you have time to help an underprivileged student or two thru the college admissions process. Contact ScholarMatch, or College Possible, or College Greenlight, or a local to you college access org. I know some of you have done this, and thank you.
6 Likes
I think these issues tie into other educational issues. School districts being funded on property taxes continues to affect the quality of education disadvantaged students can access. Students that have to work jobs to help put food on the table have less time to study for these tests. That being said, I don’t think that is an argument to throw out these tests, only to view them contextually. A student that performs well relative to peers is undoubtedly talented and capable, and displays great academic potential.
2 Likes
All? Some? Or most? I’m just curious as to why that makes standardized score of no value?
I’m no expert on this but it would seem that more data is better than less. Especially if you look at it as part of an overall application.
4 Likes
On average.
Again, I don’t wish to debate…there is lots of data out there about this and I support schools doing what’s right for them.
1 Like
Anyone who doesn’t like or disagrees with test optional policies is welcome to either apply with test scores or bypass any college that does have a TO policy.
4 Likes
Yep. That’s what out D did. Everything works out for the best in the end 
3 Likes
Ironically, given the move to test blind in California, this is exactly how it used to work. Students from the Central Valley needed much lower SAT scores to get admitted to the UCs compared to students in the Bay Area. For example, at our Bay Area HS you needed close to 1500 on the SAT to get into Berkeley or UCLA, when the average instate SAT score was in the mid 1300s.
3 Likes
When the UC Academic Senate justified the need for testing, they came out with an extensive report explaining why it helped predict college performance. People can read that here:
Likewise, MIT explained its rationale as to why standardized testing works for them, and as I said, you can be pretty sure they got it right.
What I have yet to find is the test-optional side giving the same level of systematic analysis explaining the reasons that test-optional makes sense for them. I can almost write the report for why it doesn’t make sense at CalTech (the standardized test ceilings are too low, and CalTech applicants really are quite different from MIT applicants).
But what is it about the nature of Bowdoin applicants that is so different from the nature of Brown applicants, or their respective college curriculums, such that while both are test-optional, one really wants test scores and the other has long not cared.
Many people on CC know that I am a retired quant, and digging into a well-reasoned and revealing statistical analysis is something both something I enjoy, and second nature to me. Even if you aren’t willing to share your specific evidence to preserve confidentiality, surely there is something public you can point to.
7 Likes
App volume? 9k vs 50k
On another note, AOs consider an entire transcript in context. Can they not also consider scores in context?
3 Likes
I’ve never understood the argument against standardized tests. It is without a doubt the most objective assessment. Internships, club sports, music lessons, extensive volunteer work, AP class tutors to boost grades, etc are all a function of privilege.
8 Likes
The problem is first, that SAT has historically been used out of context. Using it in context is very complex and difficult and colleges have absolutely no incentive to do so. They have a simple measure of academics that they can plug into admissions, why should they start adding multiple other variables to their calculations if they don’t have to?
Second, they are correlating test scores to first year GPA. What about GPA at graduation? What about the ultimate test of “College Success”, i.e., graduation from college?
Luckily, there is such a study, that study shows that HSGPA is much more strongly correlated with college graduation than are SAT/ACT scores. Oh, and this study followed 55,000 high schools students across a large set of high schools, and they attended a large range of colleges. The study above looks at mostly wealthy kids who attended very good high schools and attended “multiple Ivy+ college”.
I’m sorry, but equating “first year GPA” with “College Success” is ludicrous. It is especially ridiculous to talk about “college success” for colleges with six year graduation rates of over 95%. Almost everybody succeeds at these colleges, no matter what their HSGPA or SAT/ACT.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110
10 Likes
Standardized tests are so relentlessly prepped. There are SAT summer camps, for crying out loud. If you have the money to pay for it, there are armies of tutors, programs, etc. In what way is this not a function of privilege? We know from various scandals that people with access to agreeable doctors have manipulated the very legitimate and needed special accommodations for students with learning disabilities.
Of course, a student without monetary resources can find a lot of free prep materials on line. All they need is time … but what if they’re working to help support their family, cooking their own food, and riding a city bus to get home from work? Time to study for a standardized test (as well as all of the other things that require studying in a demanding high school curriculum, with extra curricular activities, etc.) is also a privilege.
4 Likes
Some of the arguments are not against standardized testing in the abstract, but more against the SAT and ACT, which seems to be rather unusual among university entrance exams across countries (low ceilings, covers much less of high school content but still influenced by high school quality and test prep).
1 Like
I don’t quite get the “standardized tests favor the privileged” argument. Not because I don’t believe it’s true – it is. But because GPA and AP tests and ECs also favor the privileged, perhaps even more so than standardized tests.
A privileged student who can afford SAT/ACT tutoring can also afford private tutoring to boost GPA and ace AP tests. Some of those privileged also get to participate in fancy expensive ECs, pay-for-play research/publishing, etc.
An unprivileged student who doesn’t have time to study for SAT/ACT because, as @kaslew said, they’re working to help support their family, cooking their own food, and riding a city bus to get home from work, will also not have time to study for GPA and AP tests and participate in ECs.
If colleges are going to use the “privileged” argument to go test optional/blind, wouldn’t the same argument call for GPA and ECs optional/blind (as strange as they may sound), knowing that it’s not a level playing field for the unprivileged in all three categories?
15 Likes