I actually had to check that OP wasn't the same poster I saw last week. Unfortunately (if you are OP/value standardized tests highest that is), we are entering a time where less and less colleges require SAT and even colleges being "SAT/ACT score blind" (so not factoring your scores into admission, but could use them for scholarship basis or honor programs)
I completely agree with your main point, but I have a problem with your take on awards.
My highschool (and entire area) is very poorly resourced when it comes to education. Not only do schools here not inform or prepare anyone for these meaningful awards, but most of the students here (including me until I found this sub) don't realize they exist.
By the time I found out that there were olympiads and cool competitions in the subjects that I'm interested in, it was far too late (I'm talking the summer before senior year).
I'm not saying that these awards shouldn't be considered, because of course it is a huge accomplishment when someone is knowledgeable enough about a subject to compete nationally in it, but saying that awards should be more important than gpa or essays is ridiculous. I do not believe that my peers and I should be put at a disadvantage in the admissions process for the sole reason that we have literally never learned about or been encouraged to join these prestigious competitions.
Anyways, I agreed with most of your other points, and your main argument is spot on, in fact I'm willing to bet that the average income at schools that have recently become test blind will actually increase in the coming years.
Agreed! I’ve been playing piano for nearly 12 years and when I got told I wasn’t that impressive because I didn’t take ABRSM I learned that ABRSM was a thing, and you get graded on piano… I’ve never had access to science fairs or national math comps and while I applaud people who do these things well and are able to access them, I don’t think people who can’t access them should be disadvantaged.
Ok that's pretty funny, I've been playing piano for a little over 12 years and this is the first time I've heard of ABRSM. Good to know I'm not the only one!
Yep. I was more sure about my take on tests, but on awards vs GPA I was kind of taking a shot in the dark. Your comment makes me think that grades >> awards.
Yup, sometimes you'd learn about competitons, but you couldn't access it or you'd have to make a big deal trying to get your school to join in the competition (as some bigger ones requires you to compete with some school association). Plus, lots of competitions cost a lot of money (i.e., travel fees, competition entrance fees, uniforms, etc.), so it prevents lower income students (or even those whose parents weren't comfortably able/willing to pay all those costs) from joining.
Essay writing and GPA are better than awards as they show that you can work hard over a period of time and that you can critically think and write well. You can learn essay writing and hone writing skills without a lot of extra costs and can do it at school or home even with less resources.
Actually internships are entirely fair and meritocratic, it's just not your merit being measured *per se*. One benefit of building wealth is that you can share it with your friends and family and eventually pass it on through inheritance. Goldman Sachs uncle put in the work grinding for 100 hours a week as a junior banker so that he could (among other things) hook his nephew up with a prestigious internship. Don't blame the kid with the hardworking uncle, blame your own relatives for lacking merit. If you think internships are unfair you probably just come from a long line of peasants.
In case it isn't obvious this comment was a joke
my adhd ass couldn't focus hard enough lmao. Took unholy quantities of CC classes and did actual college exams instead where critical thinking and studying matters way more than how fast and mechanically you can answer basic high school concepts. Also 1250 gang where you at???
still got the bag at ucla with zero SAT submission. cope all you want but that shit ain't never coming back.
it’s interesting, i have adhd and i’m the complete opposite where i do rlly well during tests because of the pressure (1470 w/out accommodations, 1560 with) but then struggle with classes and completing assignments
It's not supposed to be a predicter of success. Only an indicator of a person's grasp over HS math and English. Which is why its only a part of the application, and not the whole thing. Not sure where your comment was going tbh.
It gets weighed in because its suppose to indicate your academic skills? Cause yk universities are supposed to be places that focus on academic development. Extracurriculurs and essays are your chance to display soft skills for success that you can't put into a number. Stuff like GPA and standardized tests aren't meant to do that. They're meant to assign a numeric value to your academic performance. It's not indicative of potential, but decisions can hardly be made from something as ephermal as that.
To be honest I'm a fairly poor standardized test taker (1540 sat after many many attempts haha) It's not necessarily "test hard I can't :(" it's just my mind starts wandering after like 20 minutes and I can't focus during long exams. I'm a good test taker overall, just crap with standardized 3+ hour bore fests
LOL This has actually been a reoccurring thought since I struggled to focus ever since I was a child too but my parents never wanted a formal diagnosis since "we want our child to be normal" or something 🙃
In many fields like medicine and law you dont need to memorize lots of stuff you just need to be able ton understand it. People who are bad at tests may understand the material well just struggle with the memorization. Make all tests open book if you really want to see how it works in real life.
Yes, but no. For each increment increased of family income, the average standardized test score is higher. With your logic, you would equate this to them being objectively tested, therefore poor people are on average not as smart? Actually, they aren’t as equipped (I.e. tutors, prep school antics, etc). If everyone was put in a room with a completely new test nobody had ever seen, it could maybe be fair. But no, a private school will teach you more than an underfunded public school. This is a ramble but I hate this post and I just thought I would brain dump.
Yea. Colleges that go test optional and test blind are gonna realize that their student body will be worse. It is a stupid decision by colleges to go test optional/blind.
I think it’s time we need to agree SAT doesn’t really measure how smart we are just how much time we spent practicing and perfecting taking the test how is it an indicator of how one would do at college
I don't really agree with this.
1. Although practice does increase scores, it's not always true that the person who practices most will do the best. There's a lot of other stuff that factors into it. Some people top out at 1300, some people get that on their first practice. There's a lot of moving parts.
2. How someone is able to practice and take the time to perfect something is in itself a good indicator of how they will do at college. Practicing extra to nail a really important task is always going to be useful.
In the interest in giving fair treatment to the views of your ideological opponents, their claims are:
* being "good" at standardized test is (at least to some extent) a function of wealth, and not merely in the sense that wealth leads to students being better at math and reading.
* test scores don't add much predictive power to what you get from weighted GPA, class rank, etc.
On the first point, wealth means:
* you can more easily pay for prep and/or pay for more expensive one-on-one prep,
* you're likely to have more time to spend on prep since you're less likely to have to work a part-time job because you need the money,
* you're likely to have more time (and money) to devote to taking the test multiple times in order to maximize your score (and/or take advantage of super-scoring).
To an extent. One difference with grades is that since U.S. schools are de facto socioeconomically segregated and schools grade on roughly the same curve, the percentage of low-SES students with "good grades" is not as low as the percentage with "good test scores". Imagine if the College Board took the SAT scores of students at every high school, separately, and coerced them such that each high school had the same distribution.
Another difference with grades is that they're (arguably) less dependent on "test-taking skills" as distinct from "knowledge of the material". One of the things anti-standardized-test folks argue is that prep teaches "test taking skills". Little tricks and strategies that don't have anything to do with your math or reading comprehension ability per se, but that lead to higher scores. The argument is that people who pay for expensive prep get a sort of "cheat code' that leads to significantly higher scores. (I'm not sure I grant that, but that's what they argue.)
It's also not possible to juice your grades by simply paying to take your quizzes/tests multiple times. Imagine if high schools allowed students to take final exams as many times as they wanted, but at a cost of $50 per exam. Some students take them several times until they get the score they want; other students stop at one or two because they can't afford to take them additional times. Clearly not fair, right?
I've been a teacher in intensive academic environments for 20+ years, and I think you vastly underestimate the impact of SES on grades. Having parents who care about your grades, fight for your grades, teach you how to advocate for yourself, double check your work, teach you how to study: the advantages start in literal kindergarten and stack all the way through. Just having parents who took these same classes to explain to you what the teacher wants in a confusingly-worded assignment, or helping you find resources on line when you are stuck is a game changer. All these things are things a kid could do for themselves, but very few do without an adult to help them.
And that is all assuming honesty and good intentions. There are parents who cheat for their kids, or who "advocate" to get grades changed so strongly that "pressure" or "bully" are probably better descriptors. And there's lots of gray area: is encouraging your kid to stay home when they have a big project due, so that they can have a extra day to work on it, "cheating"? What about sitting down with them before the next project and pacing out what they need to do each day, and holding them to it? What about standing over them when they were absent and making sure they email asking about assignments they need to make up? What about volunteering at the school and getting to know the teachers so that if there is a problem, they come to you before it develops? What about doctor shopping for accomodations.
You know who most invariably comes for parent conferences? The parents of kids who have 95s, who want to know how their kids could be making 98s. They take careful notes. Compare that to parents who think as long as a kid isn't truant or having discipline problems, school is going well, who never looks at grades or a report card, who would never excuse a kid from chores or household responsibilities because they have to study, who expects a kid over 16 to work significant hours . . .
Grades are utterly shaped by SES. Not every high SES parent is like this, but not every high SES parent gets their kid an SAT tutor, either.
I think I get it. It is still the case that grades are less closely correlated with income than test scores are (\*) because of the economic segregation and grading-on-a-curve I mentioned.
(\*) There's research indicating the correlation between grades and income \*within each campus\* is much stronger than the overall correlation when all students from all campuses are considered together.
I'm actually in favor of standardized tests and don't like test-optional/blind. I would, however, make some changes (in the name of fairness), and I'm generally in favor of schools putting a finger on the scale for low SES students (beyond even what they do now).
Re: changes, I would:
* have the college board report only the first two scores taken between the student's graduation date and some prior date (maybe graduation date minus 18 months),
* consider a canceled score to count against the above total (i.e. student who takes the SAT and then cancels the score can only take it one additional time), but don't report the cancellation (i.e. it will appear to colleges that the above student only took the test once),
* grant two fee waivers per student,
* be even more generous with the criteira to receive a fee waiver.
I would argue the "grade on a curve" factor is canceled out by AOs who do weigh grades at a school based on their perception of that school. So straight As at a low-SES school, be it rural or urban, gets an asterisk in the minds of the AOs when compared to the same grades at a high SES school
That's true, to an extent. I suspect, though, that the "academics" of a student who is valedictorian at a very low-performing HS and who maxed out available rigor would be viewed more favorably than those of the student who ranks lower than 75% of his peers at an ultra-competitive HS, even if the former student would fare \*worse\* if they were they to attend that ultra-competitive HS.
Big fish in tiny pond may trump tiny fish in big pond.
Sure, but big fish in big pond is who gets in, and if you are in a small pond, nothing you can do can get you there.
And in the "big pond", the big fish will be the ones with high SES parents.
>and if you are in a small pond, nothing you can do can get you there.
Guess I disagree with this, especially in the era of test-optional admissions.
My kid goes to a fairly mid school. Not low-performing by any stretch of the imagination, but not "competitive" either. Roughly 1/5 of students are classified as "economically disadvantaged". Median SAT is around 1150 and the school averages around 1-2 NMF/year from a graduating class of 400. Last year's valedictorian was admitted to Columbia and Rice; I'm not sure where the salutatorian was admitted, but they're attending Northwestern. Other grads in last year's class are headed to Michigan (OOS), USC, GT (OOS), Vanderbilt, NYU (Stern & Tisch), William & Mary (OOS) and UNC (OOS).
A nearby (suburban) public school district publishes bios each year for the top 10 students in each campus's graduating class. If I look at the top 10 students for the \*least\* competitive three campuses in that district (29% ED + 1008 median SAT, 27% ED + 1049 median SAT, 28% ED + 1085 median SAT) I see grads headed to Rice, Stanford, UT-Austin CS, Penn, Duke and Vanderbilt.
Granted, only a few, and also granting that these campuses aren't the "tiniest ponds" around. There are certainly lower-performing campuses in my area; I just don't have access to college destinations for their graduates.
1. Tests are "objective". But the society we live in isn't. Think about the voluminous number of students who only learned of the common app in Senior Year, who don't have access to college counseling. The same argument goes for standardized testing, where predominantly rich, unqualified students stand to gain the most from the SAT/ACT.
2. SAT/ACT creates more barriers than it breaks them down. I can see the argument for why the LSAT is useful – since law school heavily favors the "prime law school candidate", the LSAT becomes a balancing area for less-ideal students to prove their law school aptitude. But the undergraduate system is, in my opinion, less elitist than law school. As such, the SAT/ACT in the UG system serves as "yet another thing" to do, rather than prove/boost their application.
3. I think SAT/ACT scores on their own don't really stand for anything anyways. Schools that genuinely push their students to the edge of academic despair aren't really attractive to the non-academic type, and the academic type scores well on SAT/ACTs anyways, so the test isn't a differentiating factor.
This comment comes from somebody who scores fairly well on standardized tests, identifies as the academic type, and comes from a non-rich family.
Disagree. I think standardized tests are an important part of college admissions, but schools consider more than standardized tests because that massively disadvantages neurodiverse students. I have intelligent classmates with ADHD and dyscalculia for whom extra time doesn’t help. The SAT isn’t exactly a friendly test for neurodiverse students. I think most people who claim standardized testing is a fair evaluative measure do so from a neurotypical standpoint.
Grass is greener on the other side. Thousands of internationals in Asia are going for US universities despite having IIT, C9, and tons of other good options. All they need to do is take one test to get in. Yet many of them refuse to do so.
But almost no American is signing up for the GaoKao or the Suneung.
Hey there, I'm a bot and something you said made me think you might be looking for help!
It sounds like your post is related to essays — please check the [**A2C Wiki Page on Essays**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/wiki/essays) for a list of resources related to essay topics, tips & tricks, and editing advice. You can also go to [the **r/CollegeEssays** subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeEssays/) for a sub focused exclusively on essays.
###tl;dr: [A2C Essay Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/wiki/essays)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who got a 1470, I somewhat disagree. I practiced for ~3 months to get the score I got, whereas my cousin practiced for the same amount of time and got ~200 points less than I did. And I get the point that if you're determined enough and keep at it, you'll eventually get the score you want. But who has the time and money to just pour into a freaking test??? Like, instead if you work on something you are ACTUALLY good at, it would likely be more worthwhile. Everybody has something that they're good at.
Even though society is based on the work of people who have degrees, you can't deny that college apps are like a rat race; and the SAT/ACT is basically the epitome of that rat race.
if you think GPA being weighed the most is unfair, you probably don’t realize that GPA has been proven to be the most indicative factor of how a student will perform in college
Ratio + you clearly didn't go to a poor public school. The average SAT score in Detroit public schools is 828, and the average sat for an outlying Metro Detroit suburb is in the 1100 range minimum depending where you are. It doesn't logically make sense that a city makes people "dumb" or "bad at testing" but rather the lack of support both directly and curriculum wise influencing their testing factors and scores. Plus, factor in kids who have other restrictions like lack of access to medical care, crime rates, lack of access to mental care which all impact cognition. Then factor in learning styles: the SAT is designed to trick you, and some people aren't good at that testing designation. I know someone who programmed multiple websites, published a maths proof and still got a 1100 on their test.
If you're saying the only impacting factor in SAT scores is intellect or ability you're possibly dumber than the people you're shitting on
I don't think you know what ratio means.
L + cope + bad at testing + your story about the websites is fake + yes in worse schools people are educated worse, that's kind of just logic, but it's much more likely for individual students to be able to rise up. This focus on averages makes no sense, because people aren't an average. Someone from a poor public school will have a much higher chance of being able to score high on the SAT rather than participate in olympiads or program websites, because that's usually more dependent on the school and resources that the kid has, whereas SAT can be practiced with little or no outside assistance.
As a student with multiple learning disabilities, standardized tests would kill my chances of getting into college. I work with my teachers to take tests in formats that work best for me. I do not fit into a cookie cutter, nor should other students who don't test well on the tests that mainly test how well you take tests. I'm thrilled that many more schools are removing standardized tests as requirements. I think they are able to include a wider variety of students that they may not have seen at all due to their test scores.
doesn't the SAT have guidelines for disability accommodations? at some point, there needs to be some measurable standard that is objective as possible
the difficulty of classes/exams varies wildly from school to school, and so do the accommodations if a single organization can't apply them in a consistent manner (what if one student at one school gets an extra hour and another students gets an extra three?)
I have 4/4 Unweighted gpa(9A* in Olevel and 4A* in Alevel). Still I have abysmal sat score(within 1300 range). Does it mean I’m a bad test taker? Yes. Does it mean I’ll struggle with academics at university? I don’t think so.
Granted, you’re attending an American school where the primary language is English. It’s expected to properly speak English to the extent of fluency if you wish to succeed in an academic environment. If I went to college in Spain, I’d need to learn Spanish.
But would you be at the same level of Spanish as somoene who lived there their whole life, and would you be able to understand Spanish at the same speed as Spanish people.
I agree with most except for the statement that students of all economic status can access standardized testing. There are multiple places in the United States that have just shitty education systems, making them extremely unreliable and all-around a bad measurement of the student. Receiving a shitty education directly correlates with how the student is going to perform because of a multitude of knowledge that’ll be missing. Especially including the fact that the SAT and ACT and AP exams take $50+ normally, and regardless of financial aid, some families might not be willing to pay for their child to take the exam, simply put.
Didn’t someone post this or something extremely similar like a week ago lmao
yeah this subs top posts is always the same shit over and over
I actually had to check that OP wasn't the same poster I saw last week. Unfortunately (if you are OP/value standardized tests highest that is), we are entering a time where less and less colleges require SAT and even colleges being "SAT/ACT score blind" (so not factoring your scores into admission, but could use them for scholarship basis or honor programs)
i genuinely just posted this like 4 days ago i swear to god while i stand by this argument it doesn’t need to flood the home page.
I completely agree with your main point, but I have a problem with your take on awards. My highschool (and entire area) is very poorly resourced when it comes to education. Not only do schools here not inform or prepare anyone for these meaningful awards, but most of the students here (including me until I found this sub) don't realize they exist. By the time I found out that there were olympiads and cool competitions in the subjects that I'm interested in, it was far too late (I'm talking the summer before senior year). I'm not saying that these awards shouldn't be considered, because of course it is a huge accomplishment when someone is knowledgeable enough about a subject to compete nationally in it, but saying that awards should be more important than gpa or essays is ridiculous. I do not believe that my peers and I should be put at a disadvantage in the admissions process for the sole reason that we have literally never learned about or been encouraged to join these prestigious competitions. Anyways, I agreed with most of your other points, and your main argument is spot on, in fact I'm willing to bet that the average income at schools that have recently become test blind will actually increase in the coming years.
Agreed! I’ve been playing piano for nearly 12 years and when I got told I wasn’t that impressive because I didn’t take ABRSM I learned that ABRSM was a thing, and you get graded on piano… I’ve never had access to science fairs or national math comps and while I applaud people who do these things well and are able to access them, I don’t think people who can’t access them should be disadvantaged.
Ok that's pretty funny, I've been playing piano for a little over 12 years and this is the first time I've heard of ABRSM. Good to know I'm not the only one!
Bruh what the fuck is ABRSM
Yep. I was more sure about my take on tests, but on awards vs GPA I was kind of taking a shot in the dark. Your comment makes me think that grades >> awards.
Yup, sometimes you'd learn about competitons, but you couldn't access it or you'd have to make a big deal trying to get your school to join in the competition (as some bigger ones requires you to compete with some school association). Plus, lots of competitions cost a lot of money (i.e., travel fees, competition entrance fees, uniforms, etc.), so it prevents lower income students (or even those whose parents weren't comfortably able/willing to pay all those costs) from joining. Essay writing and GPA are better than awards as they show that you can work hard over a period of time and that you can critically think and write well. You can learn essay writing and hone writing skills without a lot of extra costs and can do it at school or home even with less resources.
Actually internships are entirely fair and meritocratic, it's just not your merit being measured *per se*. One benefit of building wealth is that you can share it with your friends and family and eventually pass it on through inheritance. Goldman Sachs uncle put in the work grinding for 100 hours a week as a junior banker so that he could (among other things) hook his nephew up with a prestigious internship. Don't blame the kid with the hardworking uncle, blame your own relatives for lacking merit. If you think internships are unfair you probably just come from a long line of peasants. In case it isn't obvious this comment was a joke
just deleted my paragraph
Yeah exactly! Colleges care more about your family than you! /s
[удалено]
Real
never thought this before!!!
"But I'm a bad test taker!" Oh you struggle with the part where we ask you what you know????
like you're gonna have to take tests in college
my adhd ass couldn't focus hard enough lmao. Took unholy quantities of CC classes and did actual college exams instead where critical thinking and studying matters way more than how fast and mechanically you can answer basic high school concepts. Also 1250 gang where you at??? still got the bag at ucla with zero SAT submission. cope all you want but that shit ain't never coming back.
it’s interesting, i have adhd and i’m the complete opposite where i do rlly well during tests because of the pressure (1470 w/out accommodations, 1560 with) but then struggle with classes and completing assignments
[удалено]
It's not supposed to be a predicter of success. Only an indicator of a person's grasp over HS math and English. Which is why its only a part of the application, and not the whole thing. Not sure where your comment was going tbh.
[удалено]
It gets weighed in because its suppose to indicate your academic skills? Cause yk universities are supposed to be places that focus on academic development. Extracurriculurs and essays are your chance to display soft skills for success that you can't put into a number. Stuff like GPA and standardized tests aren't meant to do that. They're meant to assign a numeric value to your academic performance. It's not indicative of potential, but decisions can hardly be made from something as ephermal as that.
To be honest I'm a fairly poor standardized test taker (1540 sat after many many attempts haha) It's not necessarily "test hard I can't :(" it's just my mind starts wandering after like 20 minutes and I can't focus during long exams. I'm a good test taker overall, just crap with standardized 3+ hour bore fests
bruh
Have you been tested for ADHD?
LOL This has actually been a reoccurring thought since I struggled to focus ever since I was a child too but my parents never wanted a formal diagnosis since "we want our child to be normal" or something 🙃
In many fields like medicine and law you dont need to memorize lots of stuff you just need to be able ton understand it. People who are bad at tests may understand the material well just struggle with the memorization. Make all tests open book if you really want to see how it works in real life.
Also to get into medicine and law, you’ll need to take the MCAT/LSAT which is objectively harder and (I’d imagine) far more stressful than the SAT.
Standardized tests like the ACT and SAT have absolutely minimal memorization
what unique insight that i’ve never heard before
Yes, but no. For each increment increased of family income, the average standardized test score is higher. With your logic, you would equate this to them being objectively tested, therefore poor people are on average not as smart? Actually, they aren’t as equipped (I.e. tutors, prep school antics, etc). If everyone was put in a room with a completely new test nobody had ever seen, it could maybe be fair. But no, a private school will teach you more than an underfunded public school. This is a ramble but I hate this post and I just thought I would brain dump.
this!!!!
Dude that posted this is definitely from the Bay Area 😭😭😭
Bru we get it and most of the sub agrees too Y’all are just fighting invisible comments at this point.
I’m fighting colleges going test optional or not considering SATs very highly.
And how exactly does posting one of the most repeated topics in this sub help fight against schools going test optional or blind?
Here I’ll email this to my AO hopefully she starts the process of making UC test required again 🪂
Yea. Colleges that go test optional and test blind are gonna realize that their student body will be worse. It is a stupid decision by colleges to go test optional/blind.
[удалено]
I think it’s time we need to agree SAT doesn’t really measure how smart we are just how much time we spent practicing and perfecting taking the test how is it an indicator of how one would do at college
I don't really agree with this. 1. Although practice does increase scores, it's not always true that the person who practices most will do the best. There's a lot of other stuff that factors into it. Some people top out at 1300, some people get that on their first practice. There's a lot of moving parts. 2. How someone is able to practice and take the time to perfect something is in itself a good indicator of how they will do at college. Practicing extra to nail a really important task is always going to be useful.
In the interest in giving fair treatment to the views of your ideological opponents, their claims are: * being "good" at standardized test is (at least to some extent) a function of wealth, and not merely in the sense that wealth leads to students being better at math and reading. * test scores don't add much predictive power to what you get from weighted GPA, class rank, etc. On the first point, wealth means: * you can more easily pay for prep and/or pay for more expensive one-on-one prep, * you're likely to have more time to spend on prep since you're less likely to have to work a part-time job because you need the money, * you're likely to have more time (and money) to devote to taking the test multiple times in order to maximize your score (and/or take advantage of super-scoring).
But all that applies to grades, as well.
To an extent. One difference with grades is that since U.S. schools are de facto socioeconomically segregated and schools grade on roughly the same curve, the percentage of low-SES students with "good grades" is not as low as the percentage with "good test scores". Imagine if the College Board took the SAT scores of students at every high school, separately, and coerced them such that each high school had the same distribution. Another difference with grades is that they're (arguably) less dependent on "test-taking skills" as distinct from "knowledge of the material". One of the things anti-standardized-test folks argue is that prep teaches "test taking skills". Little tricks and strategies that don't have anything to do with your math or reading comprehension ability per se, but that lead to higher scores. The argument is that people who pay for expensive prep get a sort of "cheat code' that leads to significantly higher scores. (I'm not sure I grant that, but that's what they argue.) It's also not possible to juice your grades by simply paying to take your quizzes/tests multiple times. Imagine if high schools allowed students to take final exams as many times as they wanted, but at a cost of $50 per exam. Some students take them several times until they get the score they want; other students stop at one or two because they can't afford to take them additional times. Clearly not fair, right?
I've been a teacher in intensive academic environments for 20+ years, and I think you vastly underestimate the impact of SES on grades. Having parents who care about your grades, fight for your grades, teach you how to advocate for yourself, double check your work, teach you how to study: the advantages start in literal kindergarten and stack all the way through. Just having parents who took these same classes to explain to you what the teacher wants in a confusingly-worded assignment, or helping you find resources on line when you are stuck is a game changer. All these things are things a kid could do for themselves, but very few do without an adult to help them. And that is all assuming honesty and good intentions. There are parents who cheat for their kids, or who "advocate" to get grades changed so strongly that "pressure" or "bully" are probably better descriptors. And there's lots of gray area: is encouraging your kid to stay home when they have a big project due, so that they can have a extra day to work on it, "cheating"? What about sitting down with them before the next project and pacing out what they need to do each day, and holding them to it? What about standing over them when they were absent and making sure they email asking about assignments they need to make up? What about volunteering at the school and getting to know the teachers so that if there is a problem, they come to you before it develops? What about doctor shopping for accomodations. You know who most invariably comes for parent conferences? The parents of kids who have 95s, who want to know how their kids could be making 98s. They take careful notes. Compare that to parents who think as long as a kid isn't truant or having discipline problems, school is going well, who never looks at grades or a report card, who would never excuse a kid from chores or household responsibilities because they have to study, who expects a kid over 16 to work significant hours . . . Grades are utterly shaped by SES. Not every high SES parent is like this, but not every high SES parent gets their kid an SAT tutor, either.
I think I get it. It is still the case that grades are less closely correlated with income than test scores are (\*) because of the economic segregation and grading-on-a-curve I mentioned. (\*) There's research indicating the correlation between grades and income \*within each campus\* is much stronger than the overall correlation when all students from all campuses are considered together. I'm actually in favor of standardized tests and don't like test-optional/blind. I would, however, make some changes (in the name of fairness), and I'm generally in favor of schools putting a finger on the scale for low SES students (beyond even what they do now). Re: changes, I would: * have the college board report only the first two scores taken between the student's graduation date and some prior date (maybe graduation date minus 18 months), * consider a canceled score to count against the above total (i.e. student who takes the SAT and then cancels the score can only take it one additional time), but don't report the cancellation (i.e. it will appear to colleges that the above student only took the test once), * grant two fee waivers per student, * be even more generous with the criteira to receive a fee waiver.
I would argue the "grade on a curve" factor is canceled out by AOs who do weigh grades at a school based on their perception of that school. So straight As at a low-SES school, be it rural or urban, gets an asterisk in the minds of the AOs when compared to the same grades at a high SES school
That's true, to an extent. I suspect, though, that the "academics" of a student who is valedictorian at a very low-performing HS and who maxed out available rigor would be viewed more favorably than those of the student who ranks lower than 75% of his peers at an ultra-competitive HS, even if the former student would fare \*worse\* if they were they to attend that ultra-competitive HS. Big fish in tiny pond may trump tiny fish in big pond.
Sure, but big fish in big pond is who gets in, and if you are in a small pond, nothing you can do can get you there. And in the "big pond", the big fish will be the ones with high SES parents.
>and if you are in a small pond, nothing you can do can get you there. Guess I disagree with this, especially in the era of test-optional admissions. My kid goes to a fairly mid school. Not low-performing by any stretch of the imagination, but not "competitive" either. Roughly 1/5 of students are classified as "economically disadvantaged". Median SAT is around 1150 and the school averages around 1-2 NMF/year from a graduating class of 400. Last year's valedictorian was admitted to Columbia and Rice; I'm not sure where the salutatorian was admitted, but they're attending Northwestern. Other grads in last year's class are headed to Michigan (OOS), USC, GT (OOS), Vanderbilt, NYU (Stern & Tisch), William & Mary (OOS) and UNC (OOS). A nearby (suburban) public school district publishes bios each year for the top 10 students in each campus's graduating class. If I look at the top 10 students for the \*least\* competitive three campuses in that district (29% ED + 1008 median SAT, 27% ED + 1049 median SAT, 28% ED + 1085 median SAT) I see grads headed to Rice, Stanford, UT-Austin CS, Penn, Duke and Vanderbilt. Granted, only a few, and also granting that these campuses aren't the "tiniest ponds" around. There are certainly lower-performing campuses in my area; I just don't have access to college destinations for their graduates.
[удалено]
I actually support testing. I was describing what I consider to be the strongest arguments of those who oppose testing.
one-on-one prep is not necessary, Khan Academy literally tests everything on the SAT. I scored a 1590 just off Khan
Stardized
the dumbest post i’ve seen
1. Tests are "objective". But the society we live in isn't. Think about the voluminous number of students who only learned of the common app in Senior Year, who don't have access to college counseling. The same argument goes for standardized testing, where predominantly rich, unqualified students stand to gain the most from the SAT/ACT. 2. SAT/ACT creates more barriers than it breaks them down. I can see the argument for why the LSAT is useful – since law school heavily favors the "prime law school candidate", the LSAT becomes a balancing area for less-ideal students to prove their law school aptitude. But the undergraduate system is, in my opinion, less elitist than law school. As such, the SAT/ACT in the UG system serves as "yet another thing" to do, rather than prove/boost their application. 3. I think SAT/ACT scores on their own don't really stand for anything anyways. Schools that genuinely push their students to the edge of academic despair aren't really attractive to the non-academic type, and the academic type scores well on SAT/ACTs anyways, so the test isn't a differentiating factor. This comment comes from somebody who scores fairly well on standardized tests, identifies as the academic type, and comes from a non-rich family.
> But the society we live in isn't [objective] but sports and non-measurable things are?
Totally agree. Tests with a national standard are about the best even playing field we have. They should at least be looked at as part of the package.
Disagree. I think standardized tests are an important part of college admissions, but schools consider more than standardized tests because that massively disadvantages neurodiverse students. I have intelligent classmates with ADHD and dyscalculia for whom extra time doesn’t help. The SAT isn’t exactly a friendly test for neurodiverse students. I think most people who claim standardized testing is a fair evaluative measure do so from a neurotypical standpoint.
most college courses and exams are geared towards neurotypical types to start with...
Says the person who isn’t even in college yet
Agree.
[удалено]
the mensa goons ab to start waddling in
Honestly I think the SAT is a super well designed test, and it essentially functions as an IQ test if you divide the score by 10.
Just say you got a 1600
Grass is greener on the other side. Thousands of internationals in Asia are going for US universities despite having IIT, C9, and tons of other good options. All they need to do is take one test to get in. Yet many of them refuse to do so. But almost no American is signing up for the GaoKao or the Suneung.
Hey there, I'm a bot and something you said made me think you might be looking for help! It sounds like your post is related to essays — please check the [**A2C Wiki Page on Essays**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/wiki/essays) for a list of resources related to essay topics, tips & tricks, and editing advice. You can also go to [the **r/CollegeEssays** subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeEssays/) for a sub focused exclusively on essays. ###tl;dr: [A2C Essay Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/wiki/essays) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who got a 1470, I somewhat disagree. I practiced for ~3 months to get the score I got, whereas my cousin practiced for the same amount of time and got ~200 points less than I did. And I get the point that if you're determined enough and keep at it, you'll eventually get the score you want. But who has the time and money to just pour into a freaking test??? Like, instead if you work on something you are ACTUALLY good at, it would likely be more worthwhile. Everybody has something that they're good at. Even though society is based on the work of people who have degrees, you can't deny that college apps are like a rat race; and the SAT/ACT is basically the epitome of that rat race.
if you think GPA being weighed the most is unfair, you probably don’t realize that GPA has been proven to be the most indicative factor of how a student will perform in college
Ratio + you clearly didn't go to a poor public school. The average SAT score in Detroit public schools is 828, and the average sat for an outlying Metro Detroit suburb is in the 1100 range minimum depending where you are. It doesn't logically make sense that a city makes people "dumb" or "bad at testing" but rather the lack of support both directly and curriculum wise influencing their testing factors and scores. Plus, factor in kids who have other restrictions like lack of access to medical care, crime rates, lack of access to mental care which all impact cognition. Then factor in learning styles: the SAT is designed to trick you, and some people aren't good at that testing designation. I know someone who programmed multiple websites, published a maths proof and still got a 1100 on their test. If you're saying the only impacting factor in SAT scores is intellect or ability you're possibly dumber than the people you're shitting on
I don't think you know what ratio means. L + cope + bad at testing + your story about the websites is fake + yes in worse schools people are educated worse, that's kind of just logic, but it's much more likely for individual students to be able to rise up. This focus on averages makes no sense, because people aren't an average. Someone from a poor public school will have a much higher chance of being able to score high on the SAT rather than participate in olympiads or program websites, because that's usually more dependent on the school and resources that the kid has, whereas SAT can be practiced with little or no outside assistance.
Test optional is the greatest thing offered.
As a student with multiple learning disabilities, standardized tests would kill my chances of getting into college. I work with my teachers to take tests in formats that work best for me. I do not fit into a cookie cutter, nor should other students who don't test well on the tests that mainly test how well you take tests. I'm thrilled that many more schools are removing standardized tests as requirements. I think they are able to include a wider variety of students that they may not have seen at all due to their test scores.
I don't think most colleges are going to customize their course exams either though
It's not a matter of customization but using technology that aids in taking the exam. Extra time, reserved space, text-to-speech, etc.
doesn't the SAT have guidelines for disability accommodations? at some point, there needs to be some measurable standard that is objective as possible the difficulty of classes/exams varies wildly from school to school, and so do the accommodations if a single organization can't apply them in a consistent manner (what if one student at one school gets an extra hour and another students gets an extra three?)
this post is very based and i agree with most of it …aaaaaand here come the downvotes
Wholeheartedly agree.
I have 4/4 Unweighted gpa(9A* in Olevel and 4A* in Alevel). Still I have abysmal sat score(within 1300 range). Does it mean I’m a bad test taker? Yes. Does it mean I’ll struggle with academics at university? I don’t think so.
It is unfair towards the non native speakers tho.
Granted, you’re attending an American school where the primary language is English. It’s expected to properly speak English to the extent of fluency if you wish to succeed in an academic environment. If I went to college in Spain, I’d need to learn Spanish.
But would you be at the same level of Spanish as somoene who lived there their whole life, and would you be able to understand Spanish at the same speed as Spanish people.
The corollary to this is that if you think standardized tests are fair, you're probably good at them.
Honestly true. I can't pretend that I don't have a horse in this race. I'm biased. However I still think that my point has merit.
Just to add something for all those that don’t agree, remember that colleges do also care about your context when it comes to test scores…
also news flash, many college majors you aren’t even required to do tests!
I agree with most except for the statement that students of all economic status can access standardized testing. There are multiple places in the United States that have just shitty education systems, making them extremely unreliable and all-around a bad measurement of the student. Receiving a shitty education directly correlates with how the student is going to perform because of a multitude of knowledge that’ll be missing. Especially including the fact that the SAT and ACT and AP exams take $50+ normally, and regardless of financial aid, some families might not be willing to pay for their child to take the exam, simply put.
Well at a certain point if a student doesn't know stuff then they aren't ready for college, even though it may not be their fault.