If we had some kind of system (say, an AI system) that evaluated holistic application components in a predictable and unbiased way, would that count as a standardized tool?
The SAT is good at measuring SAT performance. Have you never known anyone who was really smart and good at a lot of other stuff, but was not good at SAT performance?
Edited to add: I happen to be a person who is way better at SAT performance (and other standardized tests) than at a large number of other things that I think are more important. Iām one of those super good test takers, and this often got me into situations where I was over my head a bit. So Iām sincerely interested in how to measure things that arenāt ābeing good at test taking.ā
Iām trying to avoid discussions about posters instead of the topic since they seem . . . unproductive. But this is too enticing, so Iāll bite . . .
What are my fantasies about my own kids? And what am I scared of?
Do you really believe this statement? Maybe you do, I just want to clarify.
Do you really think that, if one person gets a 1580 and someone else gets a 1060, that we wouldnāt be able to take those 2 numbers and come up with a reasonable expectation for who would perform better on the ASVAB, or the Wonderlic or any predictive index testā¦or college in general?
Yes, and that āother stuffā was captured in other parts of their college application: ECs, clubs, and essays. But the academic measures of GPA, course rigor, and a standardized test were the typical measure of academic attainment.
The SAT is a pretty simple test and students with a firm education on the basics of vocabulary, writing, and math should do well enough for most colleges. Most freshman level classes at many colleges consist of, wait for it, writing and math.
When you have high demand for something that is funded by taxpayers one would hope that allocation of the resource is transparent and seen as equitable.
This current section of this thread came about because of a post regarding a lack of test seats in CA which is a direct result of the states movement to a Test Blind stance for CA public schools driving a completely foreseeable huge drop in test demand in CA. This negatively impacts kids who want or need testing for applications to selective privates and OOS schools where test scores could be helpful. It really hurts kids who are looking to apply to those schools (mostly elite) who are once again requiring tests. I have personally experienced these challenges. My kids school has testing twice a year which is great but when she had to test off cycle the nearest test site available was 4 hours away which while doable for our family could be difficult for many. I also know of families who traveled to NV to take the SAT.
In CA admissions transparency for the UCs and top CSUs is non-existent.
Test Blind policies support āequityā.
Grade inflation makes everyone look the same especially when combined with āCappingā to obscure rigor. A 4.0 from a bay area āmeat grinderā looks like a 4.0 from a poorly resourced inland school but they arenāt remotely similar.
The result is that admissions arenāt remotely transparent even at āstats onlyā schools like SLO or SDSU and nobody trusts the system.
The CA public system is a big cut above most in that there is a large number of schools which are all good/excellent. But for the āEliteā high demand schools they are badly failing the highest performing kids and their taxpaying families and a lack of transparency in admissions just compounds the frustration.
The SAT is not āpretty simpleā for many students (average 2023 score was 1028)ā¦and that doesnāt preclude these students from higher education. Many students with sub 1000 scores go on to graduate college and have good careers in many different job types and industries. I know doctors who had SATs in the 1200s just for one example.
I have no problem with holistic admissions that include all those things along with tests. With a variety of components in the application, everyone should be able to present something that shows their strengths.
And I have no problem with different schools using different subsets of these things to evaluate their applicants, too. That makes sense because different schools have different priorities.
This is more my concern:
I feel that when we are talking about top tier state flagships that can only accept a small percentage of applicants, skimming off the very top of the standardized test-takers with some kind of high cutoff score is going to yield ā¦ a bunch of good standardized test-takers. Nothing wrong with those people, but it would seem (to me) to leave out some very strong students who arenāt in this category. Because Iāve met plenty of people who were weaker test takers than me, but that I feel are smarter and better students.
The so-called ātest prepā isā¦drumroll, the previous 11 or 12 years of compulsory education. It isnāt as if the SAT and ACT people are springing some area of human knowledge that high school kids have never encountered before. They arenāt all of a sudden having string theory dropped in their laps.
Itās pretty easy: itās a defense of the ego. Kid who has been told they are super bright and gifted, 4.9 weighted gpa, friends and family extolling how amazing they are, then takes a test a gets aā¦22. The ego mounts a defense, e.g. āIām a bad test takerā. No, you arenāt, you are a competent test taker. Just because you didnāt score as well as you thought you would doesnāt invalidate the test.
To be fair, some studentās who donāt have great GPAs also have success later on. But no one thinks it is a good idea for selective schools to go GPA optional. Thatās the issue. The SATs get singled out as being unfair, etc when they are really not different than other parts of the application ā flawed but helpful.
As I wrote, it is āa pretty simple test for students with a firm education on the basics of vocabulary, writhing, and mathā¦ā Basically, what high school is supposed to teach.
So it looks like standardized testing was not a barrier for them. Nice
Probably more accurate to say it would yield a bunch of high schools graduates that learned the basics that the SAT measures - vocabulary, writing, math.
Iām sure that āthose peopleā (ouch) would argue they would actually be a better students.
I attended one of those poor under resourced schools and I agree with you whole heartedly in general. I am also a huge proponent of āevaluating in contextā for kids and their applications.
But, in CA for the CSUs they do look the same as long as they are approved A-G courses.
