Removing the ACT/SAT certainly doesn’t help build trust in higher education among the general public - it just contributes to the narrative that higher education has become more focused on other things than education.
In addition, it leads to the allegation that test-optional is about keeping out certain groups (I’ve seen this mentioned on other forums and communities) and trying to limit their numbers - I’ve seen this on a few Jewish and Asian-focused communities. Not saying this is at all valid but I can’t see how it helps build trust in those communities either.
Maybe sounds counterintuitive, but sadly not surprising. I remember several years ago there was a cluster of teen suicides in Palo Alto. At my daughter’s high school (not in Palo Alto), there were also a few several years ago, all among high achievers. The pressure can be incredible and it can be extremely hard to find support or even have the courage to ask for it.
Depends on the test, for what it is used, and whether the juice is worth the squeeze. But generally, I don’t have a blanket issue with testing in high school or beyond. For example, I have no issue with requiring attorneys to pass a bar exam. Or requiring doctors to pass their boards. Or a host of other licensing tests/requirements. If Google wants to only hire people who can pass some coding test, that’s understandable. I also have no issue with AP tests for kids who have access to AP classes. Demonstrating sufficient mastery is important in lots of contexts.
I think facing some (gentler!) form of the kinds of obstacles you’ve faced is preferable to a “cushy” path through HS or college. Hardens the spirit and drive, flexes one’s coping muscles, and trains your adult self better than any single class. The gain in perspective alone is so valuable. It is the kind of thing that could attract a committee to admit a student over another, and that’s good.
And I think talking about MIT here is instructive. Testing may make sense in some environments and not in others. For MIT, it makes sense. For Caltech (and the UCs), it doesn’t. For Google, perhaps testing makes sense. Where I work, we would never - we have no interest, no need (although for some positions, we do require a work sample that the applicant can self-select). BUT we are not tech and we do not receive a million applications per opening. So I don’t think a blanket expectation that workplaces do some sort of testing of applicants makes sense. But, sure, maybe it works for some employers, depending on things like what the job entails and application volume and whether proficiency in a specific skill is make or break for the job. Well, and then there is the issue of test design, but assume those designing the test would be very thoughtful about that.
After all of our discussions, I don’t think it is speculating to say that we have very different views of what higher education should be.
But let’s set that aside. The point remains. This discussion is about parents and others who want tell colleges that the colleges must attach the same level of importance to these tests that they do. And it is about parents who disagree with what the mission of colleges should be.
Especially if those police cars are in another state.
The pressure to excel on these students can obviously be intense, and that includes the SAT/ACT. These students have private tutors, take the tests multiple times, and the current state of test optional has led to uncertainty to what constitutes a good enough score for them, and if they can even go TO at some schools that allow it. In many ways, test optional is not working for this group of students.
(This was a bit of a discussion pivot but I’ll agree it’s appropriate)
Yes test optional is not helpful for non-underserved kids wrt stress. Because of these underserved vs not-underserved accommodations that occur in commitee (I’m guessing but it’s explained as such in several places… e.g. “in context”), many of these students feel they must do ECs that outshine those of under resourced kids. I.e. “privileged” kids can’t avoid ECs. Can’t avoid taking AP classes. And yes, can’t avoid SAT prep. (And while one can argue this points to deleting the test as an consideration, one can also argue one should delete rigor and ECs as considerations as well for admission. And also jobs: should jobs that help family finances be considered with a higher weight than a job used to save money for college?)
It’s sad since not every “privileged” family wants to do this… some feel their hand is forced by committees… others refuse to do it and bear the handicap in committee.
If we want to talk about a race to nowhere, it has to begin with what committees are utilizing to pick their students. If it is hidden or vague, then game theory dictates that people will spam the criteria and do (too) many things. The other place it can begin is how companies hire, but that’s a topic for a different thread.
I think it’s the UC app (but might be the CSU app?)…But there is a specific question about how you used any money you earned from a job. Obviously, I do not know how AOs use this information, but it is possible that they are weighting responses in some way.
The first students admitted without SAT/ACT at Caltech have not graduated yet. In any case, the Caltech curriculum is much harder than the SAT/ACT, so that should be enough vetting unless the employer values a much lower level test taken in high school over completing a rigorous college curriculum.
Caltech may also have less industry interest because it is tiny, and a large portion of graduates go to graduate school – i.e. low yield for most employers.
No, my daughter did not. I can’t speak for how anyone else, obviously.
And how is this vetting even relevant? The “vetting” would have taken place four years prior to graduation before having the benefit of four years of Caltech education…And one would both hope and assume that students come out more knowledgeable and skilled than when they went in. What relevance does an SAT taken as a 17 year old junior in high school have compared to someone holding a four year degree from Caltech? Does taking a test as a teenager outweigh the value of an excellent college education? Do they really think that Caltech is passing through and awarding degrees to students who can’t do basic algebra? I mean, even if such a student somehow managed by total miracle to sneak in (likely impossible except in complete fantasy), really? This just seems ridiculous to me.
Well, for one, how about access to high speed Internet which would allow one to use the self-study materials available free online at Khan Academy? Not all students in the US have access to high speed Internet at home. And they might have to legitimately work a lot at a part-time job in order to help their parent(s)/guardian(s) pay the bills for the household.
Whether or it they are “non-underserved” it is less stressful for those who decide not to bother with the tests. This is easier to do in CA (where the tests aren’t required) and it seems to be becoming more commonplace. Maybe not so much at the pressure packed competitive high schools, but even at those there are cracks in the perceived importance of these tests, and that helps with stress for those who choose a different path.
But this isn’t really a product of TO, is it? So long as there are far more spots than there are qualified applicants, some families will try to whatever they can to try to improve their chances. And so long as families prioritize admittance to the elites, it won’t change. This isn’t new since TO. And the odds are long whether these schools are TO or not, and kids with high scores don’t now whether they’ll get in whether the schools are TO or not.
Why not focus on breaking down the perception that a kid can earn entry because they got X test score, or did Y trip abroad? Why not emphasize that it is beyond the kids control. Because it is. They might as well pursue their passions, or get a job, or be true to themselves, because going to school X isn’t something they can check boxes and earn. It is out of their hands.
Speaking for myself, I think it’s great the colleges have unique missions to fulfill the needs of millions of students with a range of interests, talents and values. Students can attend a religious college, a single-sex college, a STEM-focused college, a SLAC, HBCU, a big state school, community college…on and on. I don’t think anyone is disputing the right for a college to define a niche and serve a particular population.
We’re debating the broader mission of higher-ed in general, not a particular college’s mission. When most colleges have, en masse, decided to no longer require test scores that have, for decades, been an important element of the application (for many, many colleges), obviously people will have opinions and will explore the reasons for and the impact of the change. And they’re entitled to do so. It’s not about “telling colleges what to do”, it’s about a change that has repercussions for millions of students and possibly for higher education more broadly.
Uneven SAT scores are a symptom of an equity problem–the canary in the coal mine–not the cause of the problem. Doing away with scores doesn’t address the problem at its source, it kicks he can down the road. Same with grade inflation; you can give someone an A+ in an honors or AP class, but if they can’t perform or demonstrate mastery, the A+ doesn’t mean much.
We’re debating whether or not colleges should modify their admissions and their curriculum to address these deep and long-standing inequities in PK-12. I’m advocating that, as a society, we attempt to address the problem earlier on so that colleges can truly be institutions for higher learning and that more students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are prepared for the rigors of college right out of high school. Obviously many students do emerge ready and their grades and test scores reflect it. Others are less prepared and this fact is obscured through grade inflation, TO policies and a transcript full of honors or AP classes that may or may not live up to the name.
Ideally, sure. But easier said than done. Even if the funding were there (and it’s not for many districts) it would likely take years to institute, test, adapt, and embed the necessary changes to create a more level playing field. And frankly few schools have the capacity (or robust teacher pipeline) for that - which is why charter schools have stepped in in some cases, but that’s whole 'nother can of worms.
This is exactly backwards for typical donut hole families in CA who can’t afford the luxury of full pay private colleges. Now they must pursue two different strategies in parallel to find cheap options for college: taking tests to get merit at places like Alabama while focusing even more on ECs to get admitted into UCs that ignore those test scores and have become much less predictable in admissions. And the pressure starts earlier because a few Bs in sophomore year may put some of the UCs out of reach.
The only privileged parents who might feel less stress are those who are wealthy enough not to feel they should prioritize the UCs for financial reasons.
EDIT: Or those with a top 1-2% kid who is still getting into a good UC, the only question is which one.
And even there the less predictable outcomes are causing more stress to many.
I don’t know anyone amongst our friend group who felt less stress with 2023 and 2024 admissions compared to pre-pandemic admissions for their older kids. Invariably it was the other way round.
Wait, no. We can not afford private schools so that took all the stress of testing off since all UCs and CSUs - the schools that were more affordable to us and which my daughter therefore focused on - are all test blind. No testing stress at all as a result. They are (relatively) affordable and test blind. So why would there by any testing stress? If becomes a total non-issue.
(My daughter did apply to two private schools test optional - neither affordable without significant aid - one she was waitlisted at, the other she was accepted to and did receive a nice chunk of merit as a TO applicant, but the UC was much, much more affordable, so that clinched it. She could have just as easily applied to only UCs and CSUs with exactly the same outcome, so again, it was a total non-issue.)
So wealthy parents who can afford private schools can have at them. Less wealthy families who can’t afford private schools - like our family - can focus solely on UC and CSU requirements which…do not include tests. I completely fail to follow your logic on this.
I’m probably not the right person to ask that question. I work in a profession where there are basically annual mandatory examinations required for recertification as well as state mandated proficiency exams for topics not related to my own work. During each step of my educational process, I had to take exams to advance.
Most of my colleagues and I feel that these exams have very little to do with what we do on a day to day basis. But we take these tests on our dime because that is what the public, our governing board, and the government expect from us. On the other hand, I’m sure the public would be very uneasy if people who scored poorly or failed these exams multiple times were allowed to continue to work. I would probably feel the same way if the roles were reversed.
