Colleges turning their backs on the SAT and ACT scores

It's about what you are exposed to. Is it fair to penalize a kid from Anacostia because he doesn't know the square root of 9 and praise the kids from the suburban school who does?

 

Actually, it's a pretty straight forward process. All selective admission schools (what we're talking about here) have a prior history of all applicants (as well as admits) from every HS they've previously dealt with. Simple answer: class rank and prior history of like applicants from the particular high schools. Nothing nearly as insidious as Twoback implies.....and yes, this is what i do for a living.

 

I don't have a problem with giving the test scores less weight, but do not require that they be submitted is a little iffy. I mean, if you score a 850 on your SAT, there's no way you would send it in if your grades are good, and I think it gives an incomplete picture of your abilities. At least require that they be submitted, and then pay no attention to them if you want.

 

I don't have a problem with standardized tests or using those scores. They are not end all, but some schools are better than others and a kid in the 75th percentile in one school may just be more qualified than a kid in the 97th percentile in another.

Suburban schools have similar problems, you have a set of kids taking all AP classes and another that take the regular set of classes, a kid that pulls in all b's abd b+'s in AP will score rings around the kid that gets A's in the regular. The AP kid gets penalized for taking the harder track. Some schools now give weighted grades to equalize it.
The SATs are the equalizer. They show how school work may be a measure of how much a kid worked and is capable of but the SATs put it in context.

 

And SATs have been proven over and over and over again to be a bad predictor of actual academic success in college.

 

But again Abbott, it's a test on what you've been exposed to as a student.

 

Bad? No. They're an incomplete indicator. That's why, in a competitive admission process, they're but one of a large number of elements considered. They do help round out a complete picture, though.

Frankly, this entire article smacks a bit too much of "Look at us!" Rollins, as well as most selective admit. schools (including my current employer) has been de-emphasizing standardized test scores as part of their overall decision matrix, for years. It's far more of a cheap PR move, than a major change in the way competitive admit schools do business.

 

Perfect example of where the test scores do work. Or.....in what's becoming a REAL challenge for us.....the home schooled child. In most cases, it's not all that hard to be valedictorian of Sofa Side High (and no....that's NOT meant to be a slam on home schooling). In a competitive admit. scenario.....we've got to have SOMETHING to work with. Flawed or not, the tests do fill the bill.

 

I know somebody who got a 910 on the SAT.
Straight A's in high school. Straight As in college.
Now a VP at a Fortune 500 corporation.
SATs are a scam. Always have been. Always will be.

(Oh, and just to clarify -- it's not me. I did fine on the SATs. But the fact my math score was higher than a classmate who went onto become one of his city's most esteemed orthopedic surgeons while I have trouble doing simple division -- a scam, period. And they're non-profit, to boot. Makes me wretch just thinking about it).

 

Don't forget that you also must have frustrated the hell out of your parents, Rags.

 

SATs are a scam. Always have been. Always will be.


[/quote]

And on that, we'll just have to disagree. They're a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. But these decisions aren't made in a vacuum. Guys like me gather all the information we can, to make the best decisions we can. They don't serve the same purpose they did 10-15 years ago....but in their proper context, they're still viable.

Actually Twoback......you sound a lot like a parent I had on the phone, about an hour ago