[JustAnotherFan]

If the standardized tests are not "standardized," why not fix the tests rather than throw them out?  These tests should be color blind, culture blind, and religious blind.  The tests should be a gauge of the students' grasp of reading, writing, and math.  

Should be and not gonna be can coexist.

[JustAnotherFan]

If the standardized tests are not "standardized," why not fix the tests rather than throw them out?  These tests should be color blind, culture blind, and religious blind.  The tests should be a gauge of the students' grasp of reading, writing, and math.  

Should be and not gonna be can coexist.

[Leftcoast]

Aren't you assuming that "smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad schools" have bad GPAs?  Why would you make that assumption?  - Teejers

No, but we ARE questioning how Universities will differentiate between a horde of undifferentiated GPAs.  I think they'll choose the high GPAs from "better" schools, offering more AP classes, with better extra-curriculars.   And I KNOW that will factor against many, many students from poorer schools.  (Less AP opportunities, fewer kids sent to class-A schools, more likely to have an after school job than Model UN, etc).

What do you think they'll use? Is your choice really harder to game than an objective college board test?

It's popular to cast stones at standardized testing and has been for 50 years.  But throwing away an objective standard and replacing it with a bunch of subjective weighting and expecting more diverese results is .... counter-intuitive.  Heck we might as well take everyone above a 3.7GPA and throw them into a lottery.  You'd probably get a more diverse selection and it would have the advantage of being harder to game.

Beware the unintended consequences.

[Leftcoast]

Aren't you assuming that "smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad schools" have bad GPAs?  Why would you make that assumption?  - Teejers

No, but we ARE questioning how Universities will differentiate between a horde of undifferentiated GPAs.  I think they'll choose the high GPAs from "better" schools, offering more AP classes, with better extra-curriculars.   And I KNOW that will factor against many, many students from poorer schools.  (Less AP opportunities, fewer kids sent to class-A schools, more likely to have an after school job than Model UN, etc).

What do you think they'll use? Is your choice really harder to game than an objective college board test?

It's popular to cast stones at standardized testing and has been for 50 years.  But throwing away an objective standard and replacing it with a bunch of subjective weighting and expecting more diverese results is .... counter-intuitive.  Heck we might as well take everyone above a 3.7GPA and throw them into a lottery.  You'd probably get a more diverse selection and it would have the advantage of being harder to game.

Beware the unintended consequences.

[teejers1]

What do you think they'll use?  Is your choice really harder to game than an objective college board test?

I think the absence of standardized tests will allow universities to do whatever the hell they want to do on admissions and still claim to be getting the cream of the cream (assuming high gpas are endless).  I guess where we disagree is WHY universities want to do away with standardized testing.  You believe it is to allow them to admit more privileged kids from great high schools; my belief is the opposite - it will allow them to more easily check their multi-faceted diversity boxes, which will include factors like poor/wealthy, rural/urban, historically disadvantaged races (i.e., non White, non-Asian), historically disadvantaged religions, etc., etc., etc. And they can do that and claim they are getting "best and brightest" without having those pesky standardized tests potentially undermining their claims.

P.S.  I never said I support doing away with standardized testing in admissions process.  I recognize arguments on both sides.

[teejers1]

What do you think they'll use?  Is your choice really harder to game than an objective college board test?

I think the absence of standardized tests will allow universities to do whatever the hell they want to do on admissions and still claim to be getting the cream of the cream (assuming high gpas are endless).  I guess where we disagree is WHY universities want to do away with standardized testing.  You believe it is to allow them to admit more privileged kids from great high schools; my belief is the opposite - it will allow them to more easily check their multi-faceted diversity boxes, which will include factors like poor/wealthy, rural/urban, historically disadvantaged races (i.e., non White, non-Asian), historically disadvantaged religions, etc., etc., etc. And they can do that and claim they are getting "best and brightest" without having those pesky standardized tests potentially undermining their claims.

P.S.  I never said I support doing away with standardized testing in admissions process.  I recognize arguments on both sides.

[M T]

Or, since this thread is about the NCAA and standardized tests,

I suspect that dropping standardized tests will allow colleges to admit athletically privileged 18 year-olds without regard as to whether their high school grades represent classroom performance.

It isn't just athletics.  Just imagine how easier it would have been for Singer not to have needed "special" standardized testing sessions for the kids of rich parents.

[M T]

Or, since this thread is about the NCAA and standardized tests,

I suspect that dropping standardized tests will allow colleges to admit athletically privileged 18 year-olds without regard as to whether their high school grades represent classroom performance.

It isn't just athletics.  Just imagine how easier it would have been for Singer not to have needed "special" standardized testing sessions for the kids of rich parents.

[DC 86]

I think the absence of standardized tests will allow universities to do whatever the hell they want to do on admissions and still claim to be getting the cream of the cream (assuming high gpas are endless).  I guess where we disagree is WHY universities want to do away with standardized testing.  You believe it is to allow them to admit more privileged kids from great high schools; my belief is the opposite - it will allow them to more easily check their multi-faceted diversity boxes, which will include factors like poor/wealthy, rural/urban, historically disadvantaged races (i.e., non White, non-Asian), historically disadvantaged religions, etc., etc., etc. And they can do that and claim they are getting "best and brightest" without having those pesky standardized tests potentially undermining their claims.

100% this. The Harvard lawsuit exposed the biases in elite university admissions, both if favor of wealthy donors and legacies, and in favor of certain cohorts at the expense of others. Standardized tests are the objective criteria that support questions being asked that universities don't want to answer. Harvard doesn't want Jared Kushner's SAT score to be public knowledge just as it doesn't want their complete standardized test statistics to be broken down by ethnic group or otherwise. No university wants to be SFFA's next target and have SAT/ACT information entered into evidence against them or leaked to the media.

---

Or, since this thread is about the NCAA and standardized tests,

I suspect that dropping standardized tests will allow colleges to admit athletically privileged 18 year-olds without regard as to whether their high school grades represent classroom performance.

It isn't just athletics.  Just imagine how easier it would have been for Singer not to have needed "special" standardized testing sessions for the kids of rich parents.

It will allow universities far more latitude in admitting whoever they want for whatever reason, whether to strengthen athletic teams, cater to wealthy parents or achieve diversity goals however they define them.

[DC 86]

I think the absence of standardized tests will allow universities to do whatever the hell they want to do on admissions and still claim to be getting the cream of the cream (assuming high gpas are endless).  I guess where we disagree is WHY universities want to do away with standardized testing.  You believe it is to allow them to admit more privileged kids from great high schools; my belief is the opposite - it will allow them to more easily check their multi-faceted diversity boxes, which will include factors like poor/wealthy, rural/urban, historically disadvantaged races (i.e., non White, non-Asian), historically disadvantaged religions, etc., etc., etc. And they can do that and claim they are getting "best and brightest" without having those pesky standardized tests potentially undermining their claims.

100% this. The Harvard lawsuit exposed the biases in elite university admissions, both if favor of wealthy donors and legacies, and in favor of certain cohorts at the expense of others. Standardized tests are the objective criteria that support questions being asked that universities don't want to answer. Harvard doesn't want Jared Kushner's SAT score to be public knowledge just as it doesn't want their complete standardized test statistics to be broken down by ethnic group or otherwise. No university wants to be SFFA's next target and have SAT/ACT information entered into evidence against them or leaked to the media.

---

Or, since this thread is about the NCAA and standardized tests,

I suspect that dropping standardized tests will allow colleges to admit athletically privileged 18 year-olds without regard as to whether their high school grades represent classroom performance.

It isn't just athletics.  Just imagine how easier it would have been for Singer not to have needed "special" standardized testing sessions for the kids of rich parents.

It will allow universities far more latitude in admitting whoever they want for whatever reason, whether to strengthen athletic teams, cater to wealthy parents or achieve diversity goals however they define them.

[Leftcoast]

Actually, I do not assume malicious intent from most universities - and our favorite university has 50 years of well rounded classes. 

I believe good universities desire a formulaic, and DEFENSIBLE, ranking system to show alumni, review boards, and in foreseeable cases the court system.  When a useful tool is yanked away they will grasp at subjective and less useful but still quantifiable ones.  There will always be parents who demand answers on why their son/daughter was rejected and it's helpful for both state schools (likely law suits) and private schools (alumni/donors) to have an answer at hand.

I don't assume malicious intent - just unintended consequences.

But I see how others can be more hopeful - Particularly when we see our own university take its mission seriously.

[Leftcoast]

Actually, I do not assume malicious intent from most universities - and our favorite university has 50 years of well rounded classes. 

I believe good universities desire a formulaic, and DEFENSIBLE, ranking system to show alumni, review boards, and in foreseeable cases the court system.  When a useful tool is yanked away they will grasp at subjective and less useful but still quantifiable ones.  There will always be parents who demand answers on why their son/daughter was rejected and it's helpful for both state schools (likely law suits) and private schools (alumni/donors) to have an answer at hand.

I don't assume malicious intent - just unintended consequences.

But I see how others can be more hopeful - Particularly when we see our own university take its mission seriously.

[Softball Fan]

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran...-diversity

Stanford tied for first in diversity ranking of usnews.com.  If Stanford can have that kind of ranking with its high test score requirements one might ask how racist is it to require test scores.

[Softball Fan]

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ran...-diversity

Stanford tied for first in diversity ranking of usnews.com.  If Stanford can have that kind of ranking with its high test score requirements one might ask how racist is it to require test scores.

[BostonCard]

I agree that not having the SAT shields universities from scrutiny and accusations of bias.  Given historic precedent, there is good reason to be suspicious of universities' motives here.  On the other hand, just because something can be reduced to a number doesn't mean that said number is an accurate measure of what you are trying to capture.  In fact, one thing about well measured variables like SAT is you can also measure the effect of factors that contribute to the scores.  There is, to give one example, a very strong correlation between household income and SAT score.





That's about a 400 point (~250 points scaled to 1600) between the highest and lowest family income levels.

Ultimately, I think how someone feels about schools having the increased flexibility that not using test scores affords them probably reflects whether they trust the schools to use that flexibility in a way that they approve or not.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree that not having the SAT shields universities from scrutiny and accusations of bias.  Given historic precedent, there is good reason to be suspicious of universities' motives here.  On the other hand, just because something can be reduced to a number doesn't mean that said number is an accurate measure of what you are trying to capture.  In fact, one thing about well measured variables like SAT is you can also measure the effect of factors that contribute to the scores.  There is, to give one example, a very strong correlation between household income and SAT score.





That's about a 400 point (~250 points scaled to 1600) between the highest and lowest family income levels.

Ultimately, I think how someone feels about schools having the increased flexibility that not using test scores affords them probably reflects whether they trust the schools to use that flexibility in a way that they approve or not.

BC

[chrisk]

I agree that not having the SAT shields universities from scrutiny and accusations of bias.  Given historic precedent, there is good reason to be suspicious of universities' motives here.  On the other hand, just because something can be reduced to a number doesn't mean that said number is an accurate measure of what you are trying to capture.  In fact, one thing about well measured variables like SAT is you can also measure the effect of factors that contribute to the scores.  There is, to give one example, a very strong correlation between household income and SAT score.





That's about a 400 point (~250 points scaled to 1600) between the highest and lowest family income levels.

Ultimately, I think how someone feels about schools having the increased flexibility that not using test scores affords them probably reflects whether they trust the schools to use that flexibility in a way that they approve or not.

BC

Another issue with test scores that Harvard faced is that Asians score high than other ethnicities. If test scores were weighted heavily, the proportion of Asian students would be even higher than it is currently. Thus, the claims of bias by Asians in the Harvard case.

[chrisk]

I agree that not having the SAT shields universities from scrutiny and accusations of bias.  Given historic precedent, there is good reason to be suspicious of universities' motives here.  On the other hand, just because something can be reduced to a number doesn't mean that said number is an accurate measure of what you are trying to capture.  In fact, one thing about well measured variables like SAT is you can also measure the effect of factors that contribute to the scores.  There is, to give one example, a very strong correlation between household income and SAT score.





That's about a 400 point (~250 points scaled to 1600) between the highest and lowest family income levels.

Ultimately, I think how someone feels about schools having the increased flexibility that not using test scores affords them probably reflects whether they trust the schools to use that flexibility in a way that they approve or not.

BC

Another issue with test scores that Harvard faced is that Asians score high than other ethnicities. If test scores were weighted heavily, the proportion of Asian students would be even higher than it is currently. Thus, the claims of bias by Asians in the Harvard case.

[BigJohn043]

I agree that not having the SAT shields universities from scrutiny and accusations of bias.  Given historic precedent, there is good reason to be suspicious of universities' motives here.  On the other hand, just because something can be reduced to a number doesn't mean that said number is an accurate measure of what you are trying to capture.  In fact, one thing about well measured variables like SAT is you can also measure the effect of factors that contribute to the scores.  There is, to give one example, a very strong correlation between household income and SAT score.





That's about a 400 point (~250 points scaled to 1600) between the highest and lowest family income levels.

Ultimately, I think how someone feels about schools having the increased flexibility that not using test scores affords them probably reflects whether they trust the schools to use that flexibility in a way that they approve or not.

BC

This is the least surprising chart ever.  In a modern society, intelligence is a key driver of success.  Intelligence is also highly inheritable.  It would be shocking if more successful families didn't have smarter kids who would do on average better on a test of intelligence like the SAT....

---

And if we are going to have this discussion at least lets use the best data.  The UC systems commissioned a bunch of their professors to examine their data.  Here is the resulting study:

https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-resea...report.pdf

The short answer is that SATs are predictive of college outcomes after taking into account HS GPAs.  In fact, in some metrics they are actually better predictors of success.

They also shockingly find that using SATs actually leads to a more diverse class rather than less.  When you think about it, it is not surprising that the SAT might find some very bright kids from lower income brackets that never got the kind of support they might have needed to do well in school.

Of course we all know the reason SATs are being banned is they have different results for different racial groups.  That very fact is just unacceptable for our leaders in higher education....

[BigJohn043]

I agree that not having the SAT shields universities from scrutiny and accusations of bias.  Given historic precedent, there is good reason to be suspicious of universities' motives here.  On the other hand, just because something can be reduced to a number doesn't mean that said number is an accurate measure of what you are trying to capture.  In fact, one thing about well measured variables like SAT is you can also measure the effect of factors that contribute to the scores.  There is, to give one example, a very strong correlation between household income and SAT score.





That's about a 400 point (~250 points scaled to 1600) between the highest and lowest family income levels.

Ultimately, I think how someone feels about schools having the increased flexibility that not using test scores affords them probably reflects whether they trust the schools to use that flexibility in a way that they approve or not.

BC

This is the least surprising chart ever.  In a modern society, intelligence is a key driver of success.  Intelligence is also highly inheritable.  It would be shocking if more successful families didn't have smarter kids who would do on average better on a test of intelligence like the SAT....

---

And if we are going to have this discussion at least lets use the best data.  The UC systems commissioned a bunch of their professors to examine their data.  Here is the resulting study:

https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-resea...report.pdf

The short answer is that SATs are predictive of college outcomes after taking into account HS GPAs.  In fact, in some metrics they are actually better predictors of success.

They also shockingly find that using SATs actually leads to a more diverse class rather than less.  When you think about it, it is not surprising that the SAT might find some very bright kids from lower income brackets that never got the kind of support they might have needed to do well in school.

Of course we all know the reason SATs are being banned is they have different results for different racial groups.  That very fact is just unacceptable for our leaders in higher education....

[BostonCard]

This is the least surprising chart ever.  In a modern society, intelligence is a key driver of success.  Intelligence is also highly inheritable.  It would be shocking if more successful families didn't have smarter kids who would do on average better on a test of intelligence like the SAT....

---

I wondered if somebody would bring up the idea that causality is confounded by intelligence.  So here is the thing, general intelligence (as measured by IQ) is actually a woeful predictor of wealth:

"Using the NLSY79, which tracks a large group of young U.S. baby boomers, this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant. Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth. Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial
difficulty."

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46...GGSLRBV4ZA

BC

[BostonCard]

This is the least surprising chart ever.  In a modern society, intelligence is a key driver of success.  Intelligence is also highly inheritable.  It would be shocking if more successful families didn't have smarter kids who would do on average better on a test of intelligence like the SAT....

---

I wondered if somebody would bring up the idea that causality is confounded by intelligence.  So here is the thing, general intelligence (as measured by IQ) is actually a woeful predictor of wealth:

"Using the NLSY79, which tracks a large group of young U.S. baby boomers, this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant. Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth. Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial
difficulty."

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46...GGSLRBV4ZA

BC

[BigJohn043]

This is the least surprising chart ever.  In a modern society, intelligence is a key driver of success.  Intelligence is also highly inheritable.  It would be shocking if more successful families didn't have smarter kids who would do on average better on a test of intelligence like the SAT....

---

I wondered if somebody would bring up the idea that causality is confounded by intelligence.  So here is the thing, general intelligence (as measured by IQ) is actually a woeful predictor of wealth:

"Using the NLSY79, which tracks a large group of young U.S. baby boomers, this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant. Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth. Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial
difficulty."

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46...GGSLRBV4ZA

BC

Your link doesn't work so it is hard to comment on that single study.  My sense is that the best data is that IQ is linked to income although apparently not wealth.  While wikipedia is of course not the gold standard of information, this article more or less matches my understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen...altogether.

[BigJohn043]

This is the least surprising chart ever.  In a modern society, intelligence is a key driver of success.  Intelligence is also highly inheritable.  It would be shocking if more successful families didn't have smarter kids who would do on average better on a test of intelligence like the SAT....

---

I wondered if somebody would bring up the idea that causality is confounded by intelligence.  So here is the thing, general intelligence (as measured by IQ) is actually a woeful predictor of wealth:

"Using the NLSY79, which tracks a large group of young U.S. baby boomers, this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant. Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth. Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial
difficulty."

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46...GGSLRBV4ZA

BC

Your link doesn't work so it is hard to comment on that single study.  My sense is that the best data is that IQ is linked to income although apparently not wealth.  While wikipedia is of course not the gold standard of information, this article more or less matches my understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen...altogether.

[martyup]

Standardized tests should level the playing field, giving kids from any socioeconomic background an equal opportunity for a college education.  Throwing out the standardized tests because they are biased against minorities does not achieve a level playing field.  In fact, I would argue that it will make it more difficult for smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad high schools to gain admission to top colleges.

If the standardized tests are not "standardized," why not fix the tests rather than throw them out?  These tests should be color blind, culture blind, and religious blind.  The tests should be a gauge of the students' grasp of reading, writing, and math.  

I'm sorry to bring common sense to such a complex issue that touches on the delicate third rail of racial and social justice by suggesting an Occam's Razar approach.  Maybe I've just been drinking too much Brawndo these days.

Aren't you assuming that "smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad schools" have bad GPAs?  Why would you make that assumption?  Mine would be the opposite.  Stated differently, if smart kids in bad schools have great GPAs (which I think far more likely than them having non-stellar GPAs), then how would keeping standardized tests help them in college admissions process?

No, I was talking about the smart kid who is not inspired to and does not get good grades because she has crappy teachers and perhaps has poor attendance at school because she has to babysit her siblings when her mother goes on a binger.   Or the brilliant kid who misses a lot of classes because of harvesting season on the farm that takes precedence, in his father's opinion, over school.  These kids might have mediocre grades but would get a high SAT scores.

[martyup]

Standardized tests should level the playing field, giving kids from any socioeconomic background an equal opportunity for a college education.  Throwing out the standardized tests because they are biased against minorities does not achieve a level playing field.  In fact, I would argue that it will make it more difficult for smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad high schools to gain admission to top colleges.

If the standardized tests are not "standardized," why not fix the tests rather than throw them out?  These tests should be color blind, culture blind, and religious blind.  The tests should be a gauge of the students' grasp of reading, writing, and math.  

I'm sorry to bring common sense to such a complex issue that touches on the delicate third rail of racial and social justice by suggesting an Occam's Razar approach.  Maybe I've just been drinking too much Brawndo these days.

Aren't you assuming that "smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad schools" have bad GPAs?  Why would you make that assumption?  Mine would be the opposite.  Stated differently, if smart kids in bad schools have great GPAs (which I think far more likely than them having non-stellar GPAs), then how would keeping standardized tests help them in college admissions process?

No, I was talking about the smart kid who is not inspired to and does not get good grades because she has crappy teachers and perhaps has poor attendance at school because she has to babysit her siblings when her mother goes on a binger.   Or the brilliant kid who misses a lot of classes because of harvesting season on the farm that takes precedence, in his father's opinion, over school.  These kids might have mediocre grades but would get a high SAT scores.

[teejers1]

Standardized tests should level the playing field, giving kids from any socioeconomic background an equal opportunity for a college education.  Throwing out the standardized tests because they are biased against minorities does not achieve a level playing field.  In fact, I would argue that it will make it more difficult for smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad high schools to gain admission to top colleges.

If the standardized tests are not "standardized," why not fix the tests rather than throw them out?  These tests should be color blind, culture blind, and religious blind.  The tests should be a gauge of the students' grasp of reading, writing, and math.  

I'm sorry to bring common sense to such a complex issue that touches on the delicate third rail of racial and social justice by suggesting an Occam's Razar approach.  Maybe I've just been drinking too much Brawndo these days.

Aren't you assuming that "smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad schools" have bad GPAs?  Why would you make that assumption?  Mine would be the opposite.  Stated differently, if smart kids in bad schools have great GPAs (which I think far more likely than them having non-stellar GPAs), then how would keeping standardized tests help them in college admissions process?

No, I was talking about the smart kid who is not inspired to and does not get good grades because she has crappy teachers and perhaps has poor attendance at school because she has to babysit her siblings when her mother goes on a binger.   Or the brilliant kid who misses a lot of classes because of harvesting season on the farm that takes precedence, in his father's opinion, over school.  These kids might have mediocre grades but would get a high SAT scores.

I know you were talking about those hypothetical kids.  I just think you're putting WAY too much weight on this relatively small group of kids. I suspect smart kids in crappy rural schools are far more likely to have stellar GPAs than poor GPAs.  You evidently disagree.  NBD - that's what makes the world go round.

[teejers1]

Standardized tests should level the playing field, giving kids from any socioeconomic background an equal opportunity for a college education.  Throwing out the standardized tests because they are biased against minorities does not achieve a level playing field.  In fact, I would argue that it will make it more difficult for smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad high schools to gain admission to top colleges.

If the standardized tests are not "standardized," why not fix the tests rather than throw them out?  These tests should be color blind, culture blind, and religious blind.  The tests should be a gauge of the students' grasp of reading, writing, and math.  

I'm sorry to bring common sense to such a complex issue that touches on the delicate third rail of racial and social justice by suggesting an Occam's Razar approach.  Maybe I've just been drinking too much Brawndo these days.

Aren't you assuming that "smart kids from poor neighborhoods and coming out of bad schools" have bad GPAs?  Why would you make that assumption?  Mine would be the opposite.  Stated differently, if smart kids in bad schools have great GPAs (which I think far more likely than them having non-stellar GPAs), then how would keeping standardized tests help them in college admissions process?

No, I was talking about the smart kid who is not inspired to and does not get good grades because she has crappy teachers and perhaps has poor attendance at school because she has to babysit her siblings when her mother goes on a binger.   Or the brilliant kid who misses a lot of classes because of harvesting season on the farm that takes precedence, in his father's opinion, over school.  These kids might have mediocre grades but would get a high SAT scores.

I know you were talking about those hypothetical kids.  I just think you're putting WAY too much weight on this relatively small group of kids. I suspect smart kids in crappy rural schools are far more likely to have stellar GPAs than poor GPAs.  You evidently disagree.  NBD - that's what makes the world go round.

[BostonCard]

I'm reminded of Idris Elba's character on The Wire (Stringer Bell), who was the intellectual taking business classes at community college while being part of a drug gang.  You do wonder how far someone like him could go, and whether standardized testing would help someone like him (a bit academic given the state of Baltimore's schools). 

But there's also the flip side of that; the brilliant but lazy kid who just never put in the work.  The lore among Stanford admissions officers was that absent a good reason (like one of the examples Marty mentioned), when they got a kid with high SAT but low GPA that it would be a red flag that this was an applicant who wasn't maximizing their potential.  I wonder, when there is a significant mismatch between GPA and test scores, what accounts for it.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm reminded of Idris Elba's character on The Wire (Stringer Bell), who was the intellectual taking business classes at community college while being part of a drug gang.  You do wonder how far someone like him could go, and whether standardized testing would help someone like him (a bit academic given the state of Baltimore's schools). 

But there's also the flip side of that; the brilliant but lazy kid who just never put in the work.  The lore among Stanford admissions officers was that absent a good reason (like one of the examples Marty mentioned), when they got a kid with high SAT but low GPA that it would be a red flag that this was an applicant who wasn't maximizing their potential.  I wonder, when there is a significant mismatch between GPA and test scores, what accounts for it.

BC

[Papa John]

Just wondering out loud here, but I would think that the group most disadvantaged by the exclusion of standardized tests in undergraduate admissions would be home schooled students.

The latest that I've heard is that the University of California system is looking into using the Smarter Balanced Assessment in admissions.

I don't think they've given up on devising a new test that is more reflective of the California Common Core curriculum, but that wouldn't be ready for at least a few more years anyway.

My sense is that mandatory testing of some kind is going to return as a part of undergraduate admissions. But I admit I'm biased towards having an additional measure beyond GPA, high school course load, essay writing, extracurriculars and special talents/challenges overcome as a part of an admissions decision.

[Papa John]

Just wondering out loud here, but I would think that the group most disadvantaged by the exclusion of standardized tests in undergraduate admissions would be home schooled students.

The latest that I've heard is that the University of California system is looking into using the Smarter Balanced Assessment in admissions.

I don't think they've given up on devising a new test that is more reflective of the California Common Core curriculum, but that wouldn't be ready for at least a few more years anyway.

My sense is that mandatory testing of some kind is going to return as a part of undergraduate admissions. But I admit I'm biased towards having an additional measure beyond GPA, high school course load, essay writing, extracurriculars and special talents/challenges overcome as a part of an admissions decision.

[BigJohn043]

Just wondering out loud here, but I would think that the group most disadvantaged by the exclusion of standardized tests in undergraduate admissions would be home schooled students.

The latest that I've heard is that the University of California system is looking into using the Smarter Balanced Assessment in admissions.

I don't think they've given up on devising a new test that is more reflective of the California Common Core curriculum, but that wouldn't be ready for at least a few more years anyway.

My sense is that mandatory testing of some kind is going to return as a part of undergraduate admissions. But I admit I'm biased towards having an additional measure beyond GPA, high school course load, essay writing, extracurriculars and special talents/challenges overcome as a part of an admissions decision.

The UC Study Group looked at various forms of the SAT and found that none really added anything to the standard SAT.

But lets be honest about the real issue.  The SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT and pretty much any other standardized test you can devise are all highly correlated with IQ.  They are all quite effective and work to predict success, but their effectiveness isn't the issue.

The issue is that any way they devised these tests they are going to have different average results for different races.  And remember, when facts run into deeply held beliefs, deeply held beliefs win every time.

Furthermore, the fact that tests provide a solid level of both prediction and objectivity is a minus for many of these admissions offices.  They are deeply committed to discriminating against Asians and Whites in favor of Blacks and Hispanics.  Despite the fact that this is against CA law and pretty unpopular, this is clearly the goal and objective measures make this much harder.

That is the issue and that is why tests aren't coming back to CA.

[BigJohn043]

Just wondering out loud here, but I would think that the group most disadvantaged by the exclusion of standardized tests in undergraduate admissions would be home schooled students.

The latest that I've heard is that the University of California system is looking into using the Smarter Balanced Assessment in admissions.

I don't think they've given up on devising a new test that is more reflective of the California Common Core curriculum, but that wouldn't be ready for at least a few more years anyway.

My sense is that mandatory testing of some kind is going to return as a part of undergraduate admissions. But I admit I'm biased towards having an additional measure beyond GPA, high school course load, essay writing, extracurriculars and special talents/challenges overcome as a part of an admissions decision.

The UC Study Group looked at various forms of the SAT and found that none really added anything to the standard SAT.

But lets be honest about the real issue.  The SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT and pretty much any other standardized test you can devise are all highly correlated with IQ.  They are all quite effective and work to predict success, but their effectiveness isn't the issue.

The issue is that any way they devised these tests they are going to have different average results for different races.  And remember, when facts run into deeply held beliefs, deeply held beliefs win every time.

Furthermore, the fact that tests provide a solid level of both prediction and objectivity is a minus for many of these admissions offices.  They are deeply committed to discriminating against Asians and Whites in favor of Blacks and Hispanics.  Despite the fact that this is against CA law and pretty unpopular, this is clearly the goal and objective measures make this much harder.

That is the issue and that is why tests aren't coming back to CA.

[cctop]

But there's also the flip side of that; the brilliant but lazy kid who just never put in the work.  The lore among Stanford admissions officers was that absent a good reason (like one of the examples Marty mentioned), when they got a kid with high SAT but low GPA that it would be a red flag that this was an applicant who wasn't maximizing their potential.  I wonder, when there is a significant mismatch between GPA and test scores, what accounts for it.

Instead of "brilliant and lazy", I think a more likely description is "brilliant and bored".

The smartest guy I've ever known -- and I include all the people I met at Stanford -- was a C student at my high school. I think he just couldn't be bothered to do homework.

He was the secret weapon on our school's Academic Decathlon team, which had to be composed of two A, two B, and two C students.

[cctop]

But there's also the flip side of that; the brilliant but lazy kid who just never put in the work.  The lore among Stanford admissions officers was that absent a good reason (like one of the examples Marty mentioned), when they got a kid with high SAT but low GPA that it would be a red flag that this was an applicant who wasn't maximizing their potential.  I wonder, when there is a significant mismatch between GPA and test scores, what accounts for it.

Instead of "brilliant and lazy", I think a more likely description is "brilliant and bored".

The smartest guy I've ever known -- and I include all the people I met at Stanford -- was a C student at my high school. I think he just couldn't be bothered to do homework.

He was the secret weapon on our school's Academic Decathlon team, which had to be composed of two A, two B, and two C students.

[BostonCard]

Yes, boredom is often an issue.  You could certainly imagine someone who can do complex math in their head chafing at having to show every step of their process, when the answer is self-evident.  But laziness can also be an issue. Intelligence and diligence are not necessarily correlated. The concern here (either way) is that at some point, the material will become challenging enough to meet their ability and they won't have developed the skills to go beyond their innate smarts.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes, boredom is often an issue.  You could certainly imagine someone who can do complex math in their head chafing at having to show every step of their process, when the answer is self-evident.  But laziness can also be an issue. Intelligence and diligence are not necessarily correlated. The concern here (either way) is that at some point, the material will become challenging enough to meet their ability and they won't have developed the skills to go beyond their innate smarts.

BC

[needle]

I’m confident that I had the highest SAT score in my podunk HS, but my class rank didn’t reflect that.

Maybe I wasn’t as competitive as some about grades. I think some people really, really want to be valedictorian. I certainly was no C student, so maybe the “gap” between my grades and test scores isn’t the sort of thing other posters have referred to.

My overall feeling without reflecting too much is that the SAT measures a pretty narrow range of abilities while even an average HS curriculum ends up testing students on a broader range of things.

[needle]

I’m confident that I had the highest SAT score in my podunk HS, but my class rank didn’t reflect that.

Maybe I wasn’t as competitive as some about grades. I think some people really, really want to be valedictorian. I certainly was no C student, so maybe the “gap” between my grades and test scores isn’t the sort of thing other posters have referred to.

My overall feeling without reflecting too much is that the SAT measures a pretty narrow range of abilities while even an average HS curriculum ends up testing students on a broader range of things.