<p>Thanks, <em>. As I mentioned earlier, I do see these referenced articles as positive signs. I would have only a couple of (tentative?) reservations. One would be adding a *third</em> test to the already test-beleagured & process-beleagured applicants. I guess I would prefer to see it experimentally implemented as an add-on for a short period, until a choice (2 out of 3 or 1 out of 3 tests) were made. If the analytic portion were similar to the current SAT I, I don’t see the need to <em>require</em> both the SAT I and a tri-part or triarchic test as well. Again, I’m for optional packages. Those who choose, & who score particularly well in SAT I, it seems should be allowed to include those scores. This would put the unrecognized high schools on the map for consideration of their students. It would further validate certain aspects of a student’s profile that he/she may very well want validated (such as those applying for analytical category majors!).</p>
<p>I continue to be a tiny bit troubled by the assertions of Penn State (& probably most other colleges) who state they have no time to read complete packages. Then I vote for a fee for more comprehensive reading, to be credited back to the student’s account if admitted & if enrolled. I do think that plenty of students cannot be adequately evaluated by any test formats. (Not speaking of my own, necessarily, just in general among a variety of known high school students; don’t need the re-flames over & over.) It seems to me that colleges who ask & even “demand” thoughtful, complete, careful application packages would do well to grant the courtesy of a complete read to the students who do comply with that in spades. (Unless the dismissal of apps is after an elimination on the basis of stats not meeting a firm standard.)</p>