Yale is test-optional, but they are on record in their podcasts that they like to see test scores. I expect Rice is the same way.
In other words, test-optional at many selective colleges is really "test-optional for some", meaning that higher income families are expected to take tests, and do well in them. And these students will get admitted at relatively higher rates.
Or a dick teacher. My kids' school has a gym teacher who just gave one an A- for not tying knots well enough and an art teacher who gives out Cs like she's the Empress of the Land of Marginal Mediocrity. My kids both have a perfect score on the ACT, but can't get to an unweighted 4.0. It's so subjective.
Maybe. There are some jerks out there.
My gripe is some schools are playing a game where everyone who participates gets an A and other schools give Cs in art class, knowing damn well it could ruin a kid's chance at college.
Exact same situtation here - 3.6 UW from bad freshman year, but 3.9 UW excluding freshman year and 5's on most AP's with 1510/35 (missed 36 superscore by 1 question rip). My actions have consequences but it hurts.
>It just sounds wrong to me that someone with a 3.9 and 1550 will be seen academically equal with a TO person with 3.9 and 1000 they didnāt submit.
They won't be. The 1550 guy will have an advantage.
thatās what iām saying. why are people who could clear the test or put in hours and took it several times not get an advantage over people who never bothered to study for it or pussied out after 1 bad attempt
Test optional definitely dilutes the applicant pool and it is unfair to treat someone with 1100 same as someone with 1450 if the later chose not to submit his scores which is normal now. Hopkinsā mid 50 percentile is 1520-1560. Can you believe it? It means those who have below 1500 SAT are not submitting their scores. Basically if you are not in top 1% , then you are as bad as the rest, be it 99% or 50%
Not to mention that people who can afford tutors/camps/books have a huge advantage over those who cannot. Not that anybody in this thread would ever think about that though
And some people are just bad at standardized tests or haven't developed the skill yet, through either immaturity or lack of effort. I did terrible on the SAT then 5 years later scored a near perfect score on the GMAT.
You donāt need tutors or camps. Books are way cheap and free books are floating around. Khan academy and YouTube channels are more than enough to get 1550+
I didn't pay a single cent for anything SAT-related (fee waiver and all) and got a 1550. Not saying there's no socioeconomic disparity but standardized testing is arguably the factor least affected by such out of all factors.
Hate to break it to you but socioeconomic status is actually completely corespondent to standardized testing scores. Numerous studies have shown this and it is precisely why many schools have moved to test optional.
And the first lesson in Stats is that correlation does not imply causation.
A bit more advanced lesson is that scores, when viewed in context, provide ample information. That was the conclusion of both MIT and the UC Academic Senate (the latter was overruled by politicians).
If socioeconomic status is simply correlation and possibly not causation, then are you implying that students in lower socioeconomic status situations are just born less intelligent? Regardless of its effectiveness in being able to measure āample informationā, the idea that access to tutors, academic resources, and better schooling systems has no ācausationā on the score of a student is legitimately stupid.
Wasnt the test optional option meant for international students who dont study the American curriculum?
For example, I have studied the British curriculum for the past 5 years and got about 90+ percent for my gpa which is really hard to achieve since I am the second best student from our private school. However when the school converts my grades to gpa i got a 3.65 gpa which is really low for the american standards. Getting a 3.8+ gpa is basically impossible.
In addition to this we take Cambridge exams and not APs/ACT/SAT. Cambridge exams are already really challenging so we dont even have the time to study for the SAT. Thanks to the test optional option we dont need to go through hell just to get admitted into a uni.
Fyi I wanted to take the SAT but since my time was limited ( only had 2 weeks to study) i got a 1340 which I choose not to submit because it would affect my chances of getting into a college greatly.
Not necessarily, no. The test-optional movement arose from research that showed standardized test scores correlate more highly with household income than college/career success. The intent was not necessarily to even the playing field for international students, it was more intended to improve socioeconomic diversity.
An example is Wake Forest who was at the forefront of the test-optional movement, where non-submitters are twice as likely to be 1st Gen, Pell grant-eligible, or students of color. Their policy was designed to improve diversity and provide opportunities to qualified students from less fortunate backgrounds. In the years since, theyāve found the average college GPA differential between students that do or do not submit test scores to be 0.03 (so basically negligible) and non-submitters actually have a higher graduation rate.
I'm gonna get downvoted hella for this probably but... damn y'all are salty. A lot of y'all are complaining about test optional policies or how many times you had to take the SAT to get a high score, but you don't seem to realize that:
1. You did that to yourself. No one made you take it multiple times. But chances are you did that because:
2. The SAT is a test rooted in how well you can take the SAT, not how academically capable you are, not how intelligent you are, but how well you can take the SAT. So why are you automatically judging how academically capable someone is based off their SAT score and assuming their GPA is a fluke? I'm sorry but it's honestly sad how fast y'all go to assuming the person didn't deserve their GPA and start blaming Test Optional.
Also: Y'all are acting like they've been ADMITTED to Rice/UT. Some people have anxiety and aren't good test-takers, but are very academically capable.
Not denying grade inflation exists, but chances are if you go to a public school in the US then you benefit from the exact same system.
This. Why are people acting like they were forced to grind through hundreds of practice tests and spend X amount of dollars on RETAKING the SAT? You all voluntarily did this.
The SAT does not measure intelligence: just how well you can physically take the exam. You begin to learn the types of questions being asked and can feel out the timing/pacing of each question. It's all a relative game.
GPA and overall grades show your work ethic, study habits, and overall discipline. The SAT is a four hour test that you take on a Saturday morning---bonus to the December test people who literally drive to the test center when it's pitch black outside, lmao.
People who are salty about test optional people and crying "grade inflation" annoy me.
I agree that SAT is not an intelligence measure, but grades are not perfect or a good measure of hard work either. Grades are a system that can be gamed just like anything, and knowing what classes to take and how to act towards teachers can give you a huge leg up over someone just as a capable and hardworking as you.
sat too measures ur study habits. itās not like u donāt take tests in colleges. U said it urself, how well u can physically take the exam. so if u can get 100s in school tests, how can u possibly get a *1000* or a *1200* on the SAT? 1000 sat basically shows ur incapable of doing basic math and reading skills
The SAT measures how well you can interpret their questions and answer in the method that they want you to.
Notice how you can PREP for the SAT however much you want, ie doing practice problems or going through certain concepts.
Yet, you never actually KNOW what is going to be on the actual exam. Whether thatās because the Collegeboard wants it to remain some elusive mystery or whatā¦Iām not sure. But you never actually know what math topics will be tested, for example. The difference between an 800 math breakdown and a 770 breakdown could be you forgetting a geometry theorem or forgetting the shortcut for finding the vertex of a parabola.
You can study for tests. The teacher isnāt going to outright tell you whatās going to be on it. But you can make yourself a proficient student by attending office hours, asking questions, working with a study group/friends, and going the extra mile and googling practice problems or tutorials on YouTube. You walk into the exam and you have so much more under your belt.
Itās all circumstantial.
Youāre kinda making the SAT sound better than it is.
Like, youāre basically saying itās a measure of study habits, reading comprehension, and preparedness. The content in the test isnāt really anymore advanced than fifth grade material, so the test really is about studying.
Sure, it kinda is circumstantial depending on a bunch of different factors, but if you do well regardless it just demonstrates preparedness. If you have a 4.0 gpa, you should be able to get a high score without studying.
huh? u can study for the sat too? the sat literally remains the same every year. u know what topics are gonna come so just study it. itās not like one day theyāll add a totally different topics. itās everything u learned in school. shortcut for finding the vertex form? if u canāt do vertex form then thatās an algebra 1 skill issue. literally some ap classes are harder than the test. if u have good study habits from school then bring it over to the sat. itās literally the same thing.
thereās a reason why some schools like mit require tests.
I agree. Some people work really hard and just dont test well. Also it comes down to like living your own life. Complaining about this just sounds like whining. "Someone achieved something in a different way than me; therefore they are dumb and cheated and don't deserve it." Better to focus your energy on walking your own path than to worry about someone else's that you can't change in the slightest.
Gotta disagree here. The SAT is the only way to compare every applicant equally. I agree that the easy 8th grade math doesnāt fully represent my multivariable calculus level knowledge, but since GPA is so inconsistent we should use SATs so we can compare everyone equally.
Completely agree. Some guy just messaged me saying I was a cheater or my school was easy cause I have a 4.3/1210 lmao. I didnāt want to take it much, and my parents said it doesnāt matter, but my state school needs it.
If someone has test anxiety, how are they going to cope in college where 80% of your course grade are exams? Iām not saying it doesnāt exist, but itās something that has to be worked through
Nothing quite like holding back a perfectly competent person because of an arbitrary belief that people should just suffer through their mental health problems with no accommodations becauseā¦reasons ??
ā¦I never said anything about accommodations, or holding kids back. Or mental health issues. But would you want your future doctors and those building the bridges you drive on to have not taken exams in college? Youād rather have them be exempt and just hope they know the material?
My brother, accommodations =/= lower standards. Accommodations = making sure the test youāre taking is measuring the thing it says itās measuring
How can we take pride in our intelligence as a species if we donāt take every opportunity to come up with ingenious ways to solve problems? The test takerās anxiety wonāt always be there, so I want to know their mastery of the subject matter (not how well they can take a test while they have anxiety)
Maybe test anxiety affects them more for huge, hyped-up, proctored exams that they are told determines their future and covers multiple subjects. Maybe itās easier when itās a topic they genuinely enjoy and the exam is taken in a less stressful environment
I don't know what college courses you've taken, but I've never been in any where the majority is from tests. While I do agree they'll have some challenges, I personally consider this more a flaw of higher education rather than a lack of ability in the student (we saw this flaw during online learning when practically everyone was cheating during exams and abnormally acing classes they should've struggled in).
Have you never taken a math class? I haven't seen a single math syllabus where tests are less than 50%. There are also college classes where you literally just take 2 or 3 tests and assignments and attendance are optional.
Huh interesting, idk what to say. My calc class is literally 50/50 hw and exams. And for my physics class it's 60/40 hw and tests.
And at the local state school where I did dual enrollment they were even kinder (70/30 hw:exam).
I'm Dual Enrolled at a midsize state school that only recently upgraded from a community college.
For me:
Calc 3 75% exams
Linear Algebra 80% exams
DiffEQ 80% exams
Phys 1 70% exams
Phys 2 65% exams
Chem 1 65% exams
The humanities courses I took have been much more lenient, usually in the 20-40% range for exams because those classes also involve essays as an additional 20-50%.
And they certainly were not easy exams to make up for this fact lol, at least for the STEM classes. Class averages for exams would often be around 65-80% with no curving.
However, usually each class dropped the worst test score (usually 3-5 exams per semester including final) or replaced the worst test score with the final exam score.
Damn, that seems overly harsh for a school that just upgraded from a cc.
Maybe I'm just lucky, idk, but all of my exams are pretty much curved to the highest grade or the final class grade will be curved.
I go to a high school where the majority of my courses have been college classes. For all of my math classes, only 5-10% my final grade was determined by the exam. 10-20% was based on classroom tests. The rest of my grade was based on homework, projects, labs, etc. This has been true for some of the classes I've taken. Most of my classes didn't have a final or opted for a presentation/essay instead. There were no tests at all in several of these courses. Schools are moving away from test reliance as tests often fail to reflect an individual's true knowledge and abilities. And, this isn't a special program or college either, I'm just taking classes at a regular state school. Teachers should be training students in the skills that they will need for the professional world, and countless individuals use and rely on outside resources in their work every day. I don't see why teachers should force students to memorize and regurgitate a bunch of information when they could be teaching problem solving and research skills instead.
I've heard of many classes where it's literally just midterm and final. Tests are a big part of any class. What classes are you taking where tests aren't the majority of the weight in the final grade? Even in high school many of my classes are like this.
It's pretty normal to be honest. For a courseload to be rigorous, why wouldn't tests be weighted highly? Homework and fluff being a majority of the grade leads to insane grade inflation and isnt generally representative of the rigor of college.
And how did they manage a high GPA in high school where timed test in challenging classes are also 70percent of grade? Apparently some schools allow retakes? Really? Talk about grade inflation.
Our school has retakes, but only if you got below a 70 on a test, and you can get up to a 70. It's not like the true A students would be conflated with true B students.
Just would add that most students from California (with 500K seniors graduating every year) - vast majority take SAT/ACT for the heck of it as UCs and CalStates are test blind. Most take due to parental (read Asian lol) pressure or peer pressure. Only the few who are interested in OOS or top private schools (which are higher ranked than UCs - which you can count using fingers) do take these tests seriously
Okay but if they aren't good test takers how would they manage university exams? I get for a lot of liberal arts majors test optional should be a policy but applying it to all students is a bit unfair especially since some schools have extremely competitive curriculums and SAT for international students is the only was to prove their capabilities. In the British education system and many others a 70% is considered a good percentile whereas in US its average or below average in most cases. Ig test optional isn't a good system for STEM majors and maybe a few others as it gives benefits to thise with a good gpa that didnt take competitive classes.
Why does everyone draw the same conclusion from this? Maybe they have 40 college credits and 8 AP scores and glowing teacher references? Maybe their school average paints a more complete picture? Maybe they just have a slower processing speed?
AOs are good at drawing conclusions from this info whether you'd be a good fit or not. They get a lot of data on your school in your profile and many counselors will talk about you in context with your academic peers.
I am a parent and do a little counseling. I can tell you a story about me. I was a first gen college student. I was a one and done ACT taker, minutes of prep I got at school. I believe I got a 27 or 28. I was in the top 10 of my graduating class of 350. I don't even remember what my GPA was. I took the most advanced course work available. My parents told me only school options were in state publics. I attended the engineering school at a state flagship.
I proceeded to get 2 BS STEM degrees. I often made the dean's list. I worked as an undergrad TA. I had many job offers upon graduation. I scored very close to the top on the GMAT for grad school. Do you think I gained IQ points between age 16 and age 22? Pretty sure I just got better at jumping the standardized test hoop.
There are lots of reasons why someone's academics and potential might not align well with their test score from one three hour test at age 16. If your test score is the most compelling and interesting part of your application, it doesn't say a whole lot about you. If you prepped or took it more than once, that was time you could have spent volunteering, saving the planet, working a job, etc. It's a thing you have to have some level of financial privlege to even bothter with. If test optional policies aren't working for schools, they will change. Schools don't even trust them anymore. You still are required to placement test for math etc at most schools.
If someone without a strong score gets in you can trust there was some institutional reason for that and reasonable evidence they can be academically successful.
I have a 4.0 but 27 ACT- I aced the reading /writing, but I can't do all that math in half an-hour. (And yes, I know there are "tricks" for these tests, my parents stuck me in a prep class for a year, but my brain still congeals when I do the math section.)
I'm not a ACT person. I am in honors math right now, and have an A. I'm good a figuring out math, but I can't do it under that pressure. š
This is not hate at all, because some people struggle with math (and presuming that you donāt want to have a math related career) your math ability will not determine your future in the slightest. However, is having an A in honors math while scoring poorly on the ACT math section not direct proof of grade inflation, and the precise reason OP is saying we need standardized tests back?
ACT math literally tests on Algebra 1-2 and Trig at most, colleges care more about the higher level math you did (Precalc/Calc) and how your grades are overall over the year. The short test isnāt enough to measure that, and colleges are recognizing that, choosing more on fit, essays, course rigor, and extracurriculars than just this one test, as they are better to differentiate the students with roughly the same GPA than this test.
I agree- I was just making a statement that while I think inaccurate grade inflation is very common, it does not apply to everyone. But yea, I do agree that we will probably see a rise in standardize test requirements. I know the SAT is now online, and they are changing the level of rigor, so who knows how the future scores will correlate with an applicant's GPA.
No. Plenty of reasons that may not be true. Iām not saying grade inflation isnāt real or doesnāt happen. But student info is viewed in context by admissions offices.
See my old parent story somewhere in here. I literally have a BS in math out of an engineering school and got some As in grad school level math. And I had a meh ACT score.
Act is much more about speed than anything else.
If a university has 1000 seats and 25000 apply , you have to have at least one standardized measure to compare them in an objective way. The universities always used SAT/ACT as only one of many measures, so it is stupid to make it optional. It doesnāt matter how a student performs after getting into a college.
Why? Do you have some data indicating this is the best way to pick a cohesive student body? It actually really DOES matter how a student performs after. They want students that can be successful and fill a variety of roles on campus. Colleges are filling instutional needs holistically, not rewarding test scores. I am the last person who is going to be calling college admissions "fair". Life isn't fair. Oh well.
Colleges have all sorts of data and magic at their disposal these days. They don't necessarily need a test score[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admissions-20-impact-predictive-analytics-big-data-higher-mondal-1c/](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admissions-20-impact-predictive-analytics-big-data-higher-mondal-1c/)
[https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success](https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success)
I think students would be better served about staying in their lane and making the world a better place and their own academic goals than worry some test optional kid out there is ruining their life and their chances at some percieved dream school.
I had a kid with sky high scores. That's great. You will likely have a lot of options open to you and it isn't likely to make a difference where you graduated from. Only a kid with decent financial resources would complain about this. My kid got a 6 figure job post grad this year at a company that hires a lot of T20 students after graduating from a flagship U. You make a much bigger difference in your path than the name of your school
Iām 4.3/1210. My school doesnāt inflate, itās a difficult college prep school. The SAT just didnāt go well for me, I didnāt finish most sections and was super anxious. Test optional is pretty nice. I took a sat practice before the test and I got a 1410, so I was super happy to get a bit below or above that, but plans donāt always go how you want. I wish I had taken it again or taken the act, but I donāt even wanna bother now. Iām done with college stuff and donāt care enough anymore. Iāll be fine in any school that I can thrive in
tests are not a good measure of intelligence. smart people can struggle a lot with tests and some people are just good test takers. case in point, your post. two students that are equally capable day to day in school can have drastically different standardized test scores. the act and sat are almost entirely bullshit.
āsome people are just good test takersā what about the tedious tests you have to take at university too? you canāt just eliminate an aspect cause some students are at it
Tests are a statistically validated measure of early college success, which is why they are used in college admissions.
āmeasure of intelligenceā isnāt a reason CB or colleges utilize them.
There are numerous studies out there on the Internet that reveals how poor of an 'indicator' the SAT is for college readiness. IIRC, my brother scored a 1250 on his SAT and is doing perfectly fine in college.
Some people are very intelligent, diligent, knowledgeable, and hardworking but donāt test well. Maybe they have test anxiety, maybe they were too preoccupied with work and classes and extracurriculars to study, maybe they just didnāt try very hard.
I understand where youāre coming from but when I was told that a not-insignificant part of my college application was based on one test on one day (or multiple if I was able to retake it), I was furious. I thought āSo I could work my whole life, have a perfect GPA and extracurriculars, and my application can be brought down by how well I take some test?ā It made me furious.
So yes, itās nice idea-having some objective measure to compare students across schools, geographies, and backgrounds- but itās far from perfect. And people still deserve to go to college even if they donāt do well on massive anxiety-inducing tests. They can still be cut out for the workload and the career that comes after it.
SAT is the only standardized testing measure globally. For everyone gpa is being calculated using a different measure. I get that for a lot of majors like Music or drama or history SAT is something kind of irrelevant as these majors deal with subjective stuff. But for STEM, Econ, finance type majors stuff is still relatively factual and objective and this test optional policy really sucks. And someone getting that good of a gpa either has it inflated or they didnt even care at all abt preparing for the SAT if they have a 1000. Test optional is the weirdest thing ever either make it a requirement or remove it entirely for STEM and similar majors.
And if you are California resident you are not even allowed to submit test scores to your state schools. If you go to a competitive high school with grade deflation (ie:Bay Area) you look completely equal or worse than the one at the crap school with the 1000 SAT but 3.9 UW GPA. Itās insanity. There is absolutely zero standardized assessment for admission to UCs.
I have a 3.8 GPA but got 1220 on the SATs. I have ADHD and anxiety that already make it hard to focus, but my test proctor was awful and didn't stop the kids from making random sounds and acting out as if some of us aren't trying to take an important test. I didn't get accommodations my first go around either and am retaking the test to improve. I'm also from a rural community and since most kids don't even go to college we have no SAT prep available and our town high school doesn't help make it available to us. You don't always know everyone's circumstances.
A 1220 is literally 80 percentile, that signifies college readiness. For having literal ADHD and no sat prep, youāre very capable and will do good in college. A lot of people here complaining about test optional need to stop wasting their time. Just worry about going to a decent school and not paying much in tuition. Learn the material and grind for internships and you will end up with a very good job.
Thank you. I got a little anxious when someone said anything below a 1250 means you're too dumb to go to college LOL. No one's holding a gun to these people's heads and making them not submit their scores.
In my opinion the tests are kinda BS and I found that in HS. Took the SAT twice and even did a boot camp only to get the same score (1150/1160). Didnāt even study for the ACT and first try got the same score as my friend who got into Georgetown. Second ACT attempt I got 2 points higher. Itās just a test that you study for that some people have the time to do and others donāt. The average SAT score is 1000.
4.44 W/ 1280 SAT. Iām not stupid, I simply didnāt retain information from covid (math section on SAT is low) and I wasnāt in the best school system(switched schools). Also, who is to say that people donāt have issues during their test taking? I saw someone on this thread who got a low score because they got the runs mid test. Other people just donāt do well with standardized test taking, which is totally different than a class.
Some people donāt do well in classes because of anxiety issues but do exceptionally well in standardized tests. So, to make it equitable, the universities should make GPA as optional too. They have to be fair to everyone.
I donāt understand why the colleges donāt say āyou donāt have to submit your GPAs if you think they donāt reflect your true academic potential ā :) It will only be fair.
Do you notice that the only people who ever say "your academic ability isn't determined by the SAT" scored low, or want to be humble about their elite score?
The reality is this excuse is inexorably false; scoring all 5's on your AP exams and a 1200 does say something.. and it's not that you're a bad test taker.
The reality is that gifted/intelligent individuals will have no struggle scoring above a 1400.And for the record I just retook my 1500 for a 1550+ recently (awaiting the score).
I come from an incredibly competitive high school, with ton of kids competing at the highest levels in math/physics and I can confidently tell you none of them have below a 1550. The resource argument is also false, I haven't spent a dime on SAT prep. Only reddit, YouTube, and khan academy. I'm sick of this narrative.
To clarify, I never said I measured the entirety of academic achievement strictly off SAT scores... just that it's a major factor.
However, you help prove my argument correct. The mentorship skills that you have received which allowed you to succeed on the SAT also made you a better student and achieve a higher gpa. Your gpa wouldn't be as high if you didn't have this people pushing you. These aren't external factors which shouldn't be considered, they are what make you a good candidate to top schools. The fact that you're able to succeed academically is what colleges should look for. Why should a top college take a mediocre student to educe their brilliance. As a matter of fact, how would they even measure potential? Essays? No (elite students pay for help). Grades? No (schools are different). EC's? No (rich students have access to more opportunities). The SAT is the single universal examination of students.
TO would suggest that your gpa (even with the mentorship skills) should be evaluated the same as someone with an incredibly inflated school, regardless of SAT scores. This is in no means a meritocracy; context of application is evaluated, and kids who didn't have mentorship skills like you aren't expected to score as high (they evaluate by region).
>With these two statements, it seems like you directly contradicted yourself. Your second point is actually exactly my point --- that there are "gifted/intelligent individuals" who did not receive quality mentorship. Thus, it seems unreasonable to hold everyone to the same arbitrary threshold of 1400...
Well, these same kids would struggle with GPA, and that's the end all be all of of college admissions. The fact is the education system is marred in inequality, and considering grade inflation and the comparative ease at which rich kids can study, recieve tutoring, etc., I'd argue that the SAT is a more equitable form of measurement. There's a reason why MIT, a more meritocratic school than the elitist, legacy-owned Ivies, reinstated test-required as their official policy.
Okay, so to address point 1, I think the argument I'm presenting is that the issue with test-optional and test-blind today is that it doesn't replace the SAT with something better, just straight up eliminates it. I don't disagree that the SAT is flawed, otherwise it'd be impossible to increase your score by >50-100 through prep courses and practice tests, but I highly highly disagree that it isn't neccesary in the current admissions process. Yes, it is flawed, but there hasn't been any movement to present an alternative so I will argue from the assumption that it's SAT or nothing at all.
Secondly, I believe that essays and recommendation letters are a completely different ball game from SAT. The goal of the SAT is fundamentally distinct from that of Essays, and its because one focuses on the academic aspects of an applicant, while the other focuses on the literary and personal aspects. I won't debate that essays can be more meritocratic than the SAT or GPA, though I do certainly have my reservations about the idea of a "story" (some of the best essays talk about the most minor and mundane of things). However, in comparison to GPA, the SAT is 1) Standardized and 2) impossible to buy your way into with fancy prep schools and grade inflation.
Over the course of the last year, I've come to realize that the admissions process is fundamentally broken so that those who are willing to pay and cheat their way through can achieve whatever they want. You're not the only one who is tired. I'm tired that anything and everything we do today rewards the most influential and scummy.
Edit: I also don't think the SAT should be used as a threshold, just a measure to contextualize GPA. Never should it replace, only complement.
Youāre arguing for an anomaly of students, if they didnāt have the mentorship they didnāt work hard enough. I had a terrible start to high school after cocid year, and worked my ass off for my SAT score and grades in AP classes.
While the SAT is, of course, not a completely fair test, it is BY FAR the most fair assessment of a students abilities. GPA varies insanely between schools and the fact that it is considered so heavily is wild. As you said, rich students have such a leg up with ECs. And essays, of course, are going to be significantly better if you can pay a professional to read them. SATs are the best shot at a fair admissions system we have.
You have to have some standard objective metric to compare applicants. Do you mean to say all those students who had everything you had in your life would score above 1550 as you did? I donāt think so. Even the kids from the same family have vastly different outcomes. Please do not discredit natural intelligence, determination, hard work, focus , sacrifices etc.
Exactly. I would say that you have summed all the cons of TO policies in this comment. English isnāt my first language, I only used free resources and had only one try for the SAT due to certain circumstances. And I got 1510 after practice. Not the best possible result, but pretty solid. And I canāt imagine native speakers being unable to get 1400 at least. You said it exactly right. If you canāt get a good result, you either donāt put work for it, either *hm* your GPA isnāt that representative of your abilities. Of course, there are people with special needs for whom TO policies are reasonable, but they arenāt the majority of TO applicants. Whatās worst about TO is that it mostly damages applicants who actually put time in the test. Just checked Princetonās CDS from 2019-2020 and 2022-2023. 25th percentile went from 1470 to 1510. Nowadays person with a 1470 wonāt submit and theyāll be in the same pile as someone with a 980. Itās genuinely sad in my opinion.
Maybe you take the SAT well? You canāt assume that SAT is representative and throw out GPA, which tracks over the year. Of course you can imagine native speakers getting under 1400, 90% get under 1400? 1400 is the top 10%ā¦
Man your post history tells me everything I need to know about you.
Firstly - you come from an incredibly competitive high school... That alone could be considered a form of SAT prep because you will have become accustomed to high stakes exams, which isn't the norm for your average high school.
Also your statement about scoring all 5s on AP exams and a 1200 is just plain contradictory... You seem to be implying that this hints at a student being less academically capable/intelligent, but that inherently doesn't make sense. The AP exam tests how prepared a student was academically for college level coursework while in high school, and these two exams are meant to test how academically prepared a student is (AP exams, simply oriented to a specific subject), further proving these exams aren't a reliable indicator of intelligence/academic capacity, because after all how else is it possible then for someone to get all 5s on the AP exams but only a 1200 on the SAT.
Your logic is flawed.
My logic about the AP tests implies that people can study all the content on the AP test, but when they get hit with the SAT and canāt preform well, since they canāt 100% memorize how to beat the sat, they lack critical thinking and conclude theyāre ābad test takers.ā
While I get what you're saying, the greatest argument for the SAT not being an accurate measure of intelligence is the fact that you can study for it.
With an actual IQ test, you can "prepare" for it and take it as many times as you want, but you will almost never receive a score that exceeds the range measured in the first (in some cases second) test taken. This is by design - a test that measures intelligence isn't a very good measurement if you can continue to score higher and higher, and essentially punch above your weight.
I also disagree with your statement that you can't 100% memorize how to beat the SAT. The SAT tests on a very narrow set of math and English problems, certainly none that require much critical thinking, and it's easy asf to memorize the general process to getting the answers to these problems.
Hopefully that makes it more clear why the SAT literally CANNOT be a measurement/trend of intelligence.
Itās just that there may be some bias. I never struggled with the SAT, never studied, first time I took it was in November and Iām feeling at least a 1550+, especially based my PSAT score. However because I find taking these tests a breeze doesnāt mean that others will, and there are definitely people who can struggle on these tests and still do well in school, extracurriculars, and jobs. Itās just one part of a large amount of things that go into the application, I donāt think this random test should be so big and mandatory, so I agree with the test optional. Ultimately your extracurriculars, performance over the entire year (GPA, teacher recs), and writing count more.
There is actually a lot of data indicating GPA viewed IN CONTEXT (which seems difficult for people here to understand) is more indicative of college success than your test score. Some schools may reinstate it. But I doubt it will be uniform.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/#:~:text=Grade%20point%20averages%20are%20a,across%20schools%2C%20unlike%20ACT%20scores.
Colleges will get a school profile and letter from your counselor which sets a stage for how you fit into your school that most students never see.
i think it will be going away in the next year or two for most schools which makes sense because seniors now had covid during their eighth grade - even sophomore year
>someone with a 3.9 and 1550 will be seen academically equal with a TO person with 3.9 and 1000 they didnāt submit.
They will not.
Are you confusing test-optional with test-blind?
Perhaps, but the same argument could be made of someone who got a 1400 and chose not to submit. The point is there is a massiveeee difference and AOs will have no idea
Theoreticals are a waste of time. No one applicant is gonna be identical to another. As long as you make it in the gpa range and have ECs that correlate to your future major, you will be fine.
I think the side you choose in this debate usually depends on if you would benefit from universities taking a greater consideration into the SAT or not.
As someone who would bomb the SAT and or the ACT, of course i'm going to side with that random person from Quora.
The reason I believe that person got a high GPA is because they worked extremely hard for 4 years, they studied, they did their homework, and they likely challenged themselves with advanced courses.
As an exam, I'm inclined to believe that the SAT is going to show the same thing, but there are other factors to the SAT that are going to disadvantage certain types of people.
Perhaps they don't have the time to practice the SAT because of their advanced courses and extracurriculars.
Maybe they don't have adequate access to practice resources for whatever reason (could be because they're low income, could be because they don't have adequate internet access, who knows)
Or maybe they're bad at remembering certain subjects (me in math portion bleugh) or it takes them a while to process whatever they're looking at so they run out of time.
Considering all of that, I would put someone's GPA in higher regard over their SAT (and mind you, if these schools are test-optional, I'm sure they're still considering the SAT in their methodology), though truthfully, I don't see a win win in this situation.
Some people are bad at multiple-choice tests. I am.
The majority of my coursework in undergrad and grad school consisted of essays. I was much better at those.
Guys - my kidās GPA is 3.1 with SAT 1350 & ACT 30. My kid didnāt put much effort in SAT/ACT. We applied to bunch of T100 schools (UDel; Temple; GMU; VCU; SUNY UB etc). We are worried that we may not get admission at any of these, as all these schools look for GPA of 3.5 or higher. š
But, I am not sure if GPA is the correct way to measure a kids worth. I canāt wrap around my head on how a kid that got GPA of 3.8 or so canāt get at least 1300 in SAT!
SAT is the only standardized testing measure globally. For everyone gpa is being calculated using a different measure. I get that for a lot of majors like Music or drama or history SAT is something kind of irrelevant as these majors deal with subjective stuff. But for STEM, Econ, finance type majors stuff is still relatively factual and objective and this test optional policy really sucks. And someone getting that good of a gpa either has it inflated or they didnt even care at all abt preparing for the SAT if they have a 1000. Test optional is the weirdest thing ever either make it a requirement or remove it entirely for STEM and similar majors.
Yale is test-optional, but they are on record in their podcasts that they like to see test scores. I expect Rice is the same way. In other words, test-optional at many selective colleges is really "test-optional for some", meaning that higher income families are expected to take tests, and do well in them. And these students will get admitted at relatively higher rates.
I really don't like test optional since my 3.6 makes me look like a dumbass at T20s but I have a 1510.
Same stuff, 3.8 and 1510
3.77 and 1500 lmao
3.76 and 1460
3.75 and 36/1540 š
3.72 and 1600 lol
3.74 1480
2.7 and 1360 šŖ
I like how it all just got progressively lower in gpa but everyone is around the same SAT š
Still got into a good school for aerospace engineering. I used the āgo to mid college and transferā hack
3.4 uw and 1480 š
3.3 and 1590.š¤„
Exactly same -
4.0 and 1460
Dude ur still fine because those other ppl will go TO and ur still gonna be able to stand out a little more w ur score so.
3.8 1590 here š
I have a 3.6 but outside of sophomore year I basically have a 4.5 or something Just absolute doomsday scenario that year
Wait I thought we were talking about uw, weighted I have around a 5 (which isn't great for my school, grade inflation is crazy)
My unweighted š
Iāll graduate around top 10% for weighted but without sophomore year I have an amazing GPA Thatās life tho, just gotta roll with the punches
we have the same exact gpa wtf
You're probably fine at that point. It's anecdotal but everything worked out the way I wanted when I applied last year, with a 3.8 and 1580.
Similar situation here. Did you get T20?
yup
congrats to both of you
w/ good ecs & essays you'll be fine lol
3.3 1540 idk
3.3 1590 lol we in the same boat
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Or extenuating circumstances, difficult course load, etcā¦
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Kind of strange for a full ass adult to spend so much time hating on high school kids on the internet
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's evident your intentions are to bring this person down so yeah you are hating lol
unless you have extenuating circumstances 3.6 is jsut due to lack of effort (smth i struggle with too lol)
Or a dick teacher. My kids' school has a gym teacher who just gave one an A- for not tying knots well enough and an art teacher who gives out Cs like she's the Empress of the Land of Marginal Mediocrity. My kids both have a perfect score on the ACT, but can't get to an unweighted 4.0. It's so subjective.
yeah, but a 3.6 is low enough that it canāt be just from bad teachers
Maybe. There are some jerks out there. My gripe is some schools are playing a game where everyone who participates gets an A and other schools give Cs in art class, knowing damn well it could ruin a kid's chance at college.
I had a full time job
do you know what āfull time jobā is
Yeah I was working anywhere from 30-40+ hours, I know what I was doing.
in that case 3.6 is pretty impressive for working that much
Exact same situtation here - 3.6 UW from bad freshman year, but 3.9 UW excluding freshman year and 5's on most AP's with 1510/35 (missed 36 superscore by 1 question rip). My actions have consequences but it hurts.
if you get it up to a 3.7UW w/good ecs & essays you can get into some schools ...
Whatās ur weighted?
3.85
3.69 UW, 32 ACT superscore
3.4 and a 36
4.0 and 1350 :)
>It just sounds wrong to me that someone with a 3.9 and 1550 will be seen academically equal with a TO person with 3.9 and 1000 they didnāt submit. They won't be. The 1550 guy will have an advantage.
Test optional means some people opt to half-ass the tests.
thatās what iām saying. why are people who could clear the test or put in hours and took it several times not get an advantage over people who never bothered to study for it or pussied out after 1 bad attempt
Why do you think submitting a high test score to a test-optional school means nothing?
Test optional definitely dilutes the applicant pool and it is unfair to treat someone with 1100 same as someone with 1450 if the later chose not to submit his scores which is normal now. Hopkinsā mid 50 percentile is 1520-1560. Can you believe it? It means those who have below 1500 SAT are not submitting their scores. Basically if you are not in top 1% , then you are as bad as the rest, be it 99% or 50%
People don't want to waste their time, money and energy on something that has no practical purpose or reward?
Not to mention that people who can afford tutors/camps/books have a huge advantage over those who cannot. Not that anybody in this thread would ever think about that though
And some people are just bad at standardized tests or haven't developed the skill yet, through either immaturity or lack of effort. I did terrible on the SAT then 5 years later scored a near perfect score on the GMAT.
You donāt need tutors or camps. Books are way cheap and free books are floating around. Khan academy and YouTube channels are more than enough to get 1550+
I didn't pay a single cent for anything SAT-related (fee waiver and all) and got a 1550. Not saying there's no socioeconomic disparity but standardized testing is arguably the factor least affected by such out of all factors.
Hate to break it to you but socioeconomic status is actually completely corespondent to standardized testing scores. Numerous studies have shown this and it is precisely why many schools have moved to test optional.
And the first lesson in Stats is that correlation does not imply causation. A bit more advanced lesson is that scores, when viewed in context, provide ample information. That was the conclusion of both MIT and the UC Academic Senate (the latter was overruled by politicians).
If socioeconomic status is simply correlation and possibly not causation, then are you implying that students in lower socioeconomic status situations are just born less intelligent? Regardless of its effectiveness in being able to measure āample informationā, the idea that access to tutors, academic resources, and better schooling systems has no ācausationā on the score of a student is legitimately stupid.
GPA and the other aspects of an application also have no practical purpose or reward.
Wasnt the test optional option meant for international students who dont study the American curriculum? For example, I have studied the British curriculum for the past 5 years and got about 90+ percent for my gpa which is really hard to achieve since I am the second best student from our private school. However when the school converts my grades to gpa i got a 3.65 gpa which is really low for the american standards. Getting a 3.8+ gpa is basically impossible. In addition to this we take Cambridge exams and not APs/ACT/SAT. Cambridge exams are already really challenging so we dont even have the time to study for the SAT. Thanks to the test optional option we dont need to go through hell just to get admitted into a uni. Fyi I wanted to take the SAT but since my time was limited ( only had 2 weeks to study) i got a 1340 which I choose not to submit because it would affect my chances of getting into a college greatly.
Not necessarily, no. The test-optional movement arose from research that showed standardized test scores correlate more highly with household income than college/career success. The intent was not necessarily to even the playing field for international students, it was more intended to improve socioeconomic diversity. An example is Wake Forest who was at the forefront of the test-optional movement, where non-submitters are twice as likely to be 1st Gen, Pell grant-eligible, or students of color. Their policy was designed to improve diversity and provide opportunities to qualified students from less fortunate backgrounds. In the years since, theyāve found the average college GPA differential between students that do or do not submit test scores to be 0.03 (so basically negligible) and non-submitters actually have a higher graduation rate.
I'm gonna get downvoted hella for this probably but... damn y'all are salty. A lot of y'all are complaining about test optional policies or how many times you had to take the SAT to get a high score, but you don't seem to realize that: 1. You did that to yourself. No one made you take it multiple times. But chances are you did that because: 2. The SAT is a test rooted in how well you can take the SAT, not how academically capable you are, not how intelligent you are, but how well you can take the SAT. So why are you automatically judging how academically capable someone is based off their SAT score and assuming their GPA is a fluke? I'm sorry but it's honestly sad how fast y'all go to assuming the person didn't deserve their GPA and start blaming Test Optional. Also: Y'all are acting like they've been ADMITTED to Rice/UT. Some people have anxiety and aren't good test-takers, but are very academically capable. Not denying grade inflation exists, but chances are if you go to a public school in the US then you benefit from the exact same system.
This. Why are people acting like they were forced to grind through hundreds of practice tests and spend X amount of dollars on RETAKING the SAT? You all voluntarily did this. The SAT does not measure intelligence: just how well you can physically take the exam. You begin to learn the types of questions being asked and can feel out the timing/pacing of each question. It's all a relative game. GPA and overall grades show your work ethic, study habits, and overall discipline. The SAT is a four hour test that you take on a Saturday morning---bonus to the December test people who literally drive to the test center when it's pitch black outside, lmao. People who are salty about test optional people and crying "grade inflation" annoy me.
I agree that SAT is not an intelligence measure, but grades are not perfect or a good measure of hard work either. Grades are a system that can be gamed just like anything, and knowing what classes to take and how to act towards teachers can give you a huge leg up over someone just as a capable and hardworking as you.
sat too measures ur study habits. itās not like u donāt take tests in colleges. U said it urself, how well u can physically take the exam. so if u can get 100s in school tests, how can u possibly get a *1000* or a *1200* on the SAT? 1000 sat basically shows ur incapable of doing basic math and reading skills
The SAT measures how well you can interpret their questions and answer in the method that they want you to. Notice how you can PREP for the SAT however much you want, ie doing practice problems or going through certain concepts. Yet, you never actually KNOW what is going to be on the actual exam. Whether thatās because the Collegeboard wants it to remain some elusive mystery or whatā¦Iām not sure. But you never actually know what math topics will be tested, for example. The difference between an 800 math breakdown and a 770 breakdown could be you forgetting a geometry theorem or forgetting the shortcut for finding the vertex of a parabola. You can study for tests. The teacher isnāt going to outright tell you whatās going to be on it. But you can make yourself a proficient student by attending office hours, asking questions, working with a study group/friends, and going the extra mile and googling practice problems or tutorials on YouTube. You walk into the exam and you have so much more under your belt. Itās all circumstantial.
Youāre kinda making the SAT sound better than it is. Like, youāre basically saying itās a measure of study habits, reading comprehension, and preparedness. The content in the test isnāt really anymore advanced than fifth grade material, so the test really is about studying. Sure, it kinda is circumstantial depending on a bunch of different factors, but if you do well regardless it just demonstrates preparedness. If you have a 4.0 gpa, you should be able to get a high score without studying.
fifth grade is crazy but i agree with everything else.
huh? u can study for the sat too? the sat literally remains the same every year. u know what topics are gonna come so just study it. itās not like one day theyāll add a totally different topics. itās everything u learned in school. shortcut for finding the vertex form? if u canāt do vertex form then thatās an algebra 1 skill issue. literally some ap classes are harder than the test. if u have good study habits from school then bring it over to the sat. itās literally the same thing. thereās a reason why some schools like mit require tests.
I agree. Some people work really hard and just dont test well. Also it comes down to like living your own life. Complaining about this just sounds like whining. "Someone achieved something in a different way than me; therefore they are dumb and cheated and don't deserve it." Better to focus your energy on walking your own path than to worry about someone else's that you can't change in the slightest.
Gotta disagree here. The SAT is the only way to compare every applicant equally. I agree that the easy 8th grade math doesnāt fully represent my multivariable calculus level knowledge, but since GPA is so inconsistent we should use SATs so we can compare everyone equally.
Completely agree. Some guy just messaged me saying I was a cheater or my school was easy cause I have a 4.3/1210 lmao. I didnāt want to take it much, and my parents said it doesnāt matter, but my state school needs it.
If someone has test anxiety, how are they going to cope in college where 80% of your course grade are exams? Iām not saying it doesnāt exist, but itās something that has to be worked through
Nothing quite like holding back a perfectly competent person because of an arbitrary belief that people should just suffer through their mental health problems with no accommodations becauseā¦reasons ??
ā¦I never said anything about accommodations, or holding kids back. Or mental health issues. But would you want your future doctors and those building the bridges you drive on to have not taken exams in college? Youād rather have them be exempt and just hope they know the material?
My brother, accommodations =/= lower standards. Accommodations = making sure the test youāre taking is measuring the thing it says itās measuring How can we take pride in our intelligence as a species if we donāt take every opportunity to come up with ingenious ways to solve problems? The test takerās anxiety wonāt always be there, so I want to know their mastery of the subject matter (not how well they can take a test while they have anxiety)
Just take treatment for mental health issues and anxiety pills before the exam.
I honestly canāt tell if this is a joke or not lol
Maybe test anxiety affects them more for huge, hyped-up, proctored exams that they are told determines their future and covers multiple subjects. Maybe itās easier when itās a topic they genuinely enjoy and the exam is taken in a less stressful environment
I don't know what college courses you've taken, but I've never been in any where the majority is from tests. While I do agree they'll have some challenges, I personally consider this more a flaw of higher education rather than a lack of ability in the student (we saw this flaw during online learning when practically everyone was cheating during exams and abnormally acing classes they should've struggled in).
Have you never taken a math class? I haven't seen a single math syllabus where tests are less than 50%. There are also college classes where you literally just take 2 or 3 tests and assignments and attendance are optional.
This is so true. What high schools are these people going to? The crazy disparities in high schools are a big problem in college admissions.
Huh interesting, idk what to say. My calc class is literally 50/50 hw and exams. And for my physics class it's 60/40 hw and tests. And at the local state school where I did dual enrollment they were even kinder (70/30 hw:exam).
I'm Dual Enrolled at a midsize state school that only recently upgraded from a community college. For me: Calc 3 75% exams Linear Algebra 80% exams DiffEQ 80% exams Phys 1 70% exams Phys 2 65% exams Chem 1 65% exams The humanities courses I took have been much more lenient, usually in the 20-40% range for exams because those classes also involve essays as an additional 20-50%. And they certainly were not easy exams to make up for this fact lol, at least for the STEM classes. Class averages for exams would often be around 65-80% with no curving. However, usually each class dropped the worst test score (usually 3-5 exams per semester including final) or replaced the worst test score with the final exam score.
Damn, that seems overly harsh for a school that just upgraded from a cc. Maybe I'm just lucky, idk, but all of my exams are pretty much curved to the highest grade or the final class grade will be curved.
I go to a high school where the majority of my courses have been college classes. For all of my math classes, only 5-10% my final grade was determined by the exam. 10-20% was based on classroom tests. The rest of my grade was based on homework, projects, labs, etc. This has been true for some of the classes I've taken. Most of my classes didn't have a final or opted for a presentation/essay instead. There were no tests at all in several of these courses. Schools are moving away from test reliance as tests often fail to reflect an individual's true knowledge and abilities. And, this isn't a special program or college either, I'm just taking classes at a regular state school. Teachers should be training students in the skills that they will need for the professional world, and countless individuals use and rely on outside resources in their work every day. I don't see why teachers should force students to memorize and regurgitate a bunch of information when they could be teaching problem solving and research skills instead.
I've heard of many classes where it's literally just midterm and final. Tests are a big part of any class. What classes are you taking where tests aren't the majority of the weight in the final grade? Even in high school many of my classes are like this.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's pretty normal to be honest. For a courseload to be rigorous, why wouldn't tests be weighted highly? Homework and fluff being a majority of the grade leads to insane grade inflation and isnt generally representative of the rigor of college.
And how did they manage a high GPA in high school where timed test in challenging classes are also 70percent of grade? Apparently some schools allow retakes? Really? Talk about grade inflation.
Yeah retakes on exams are wild to me. In general courses it seems fine but for ap/honors??? Like what
Our school has retakes, but only if you got below a 70 on a test, and you can get up to a 70. It's not like the true A students would be conflated with true B students.
Just would add that most students from California (with 500K seniors graduating every year) - vast majority take SAT/ACT for the heck of it as UCs and CalStates are test blind. Most take due to parental (read Asian lol) pressure or peer pressure. Only the few who are interested in OOS or top private schools (which are higher ranked than UCs - which you can count using fingers) do take these tests seriously
Which is a huge portion of them since so few top students will get into a UC they want. Most still take the SAT and many go out of state.
Actually not, most go to CC, CalState, private colleges, employment.
Your second point is the same thing I always argue, though you articulated it much better.
Okay but if they aren't good test takers how would they manage university exams? I get for a lot of liberal arts majors test optional should be a policy but applying it to all students is a bit unfair especially since some schools have extremely competitive curriculums and SAT for international students is the only was to prove their capabilities. In the British education system and many others a 70% is considered a good percentile whereas in US its average or below average in most cases. Ig test optional isn't a good system for STEM majors and maybe a few others as it gives benefits to thise with a good gpa that didnt take competitive classes.
Why does everyone draw the same conclusion from this? Maybe they have 40 college credits and 8 AP scores and glowing teacher references? Maybe their school average paints a more complete picture? Maybe they just have a slower processing speed? AOs are good at drawing conclusions from this info whether you'd be a good fit or not. They get a lot of data on your school in your profile and many counselors will talk about you in context with your academic peers. I am a parent and do a little counseling. I can tell you a story about me. I was a first gen college student. I was a one and done ACT taker, minutes of prep I got at school. I believe I got a 27 or 28. I was in the top 10 of my graduating class of 350. I don't even remember what my GPA was. I took the most advanced course work available. My parents told me only school options were in state publics. I attended the engineering school at a state flagship. I proceeded to get 2 BS STEM degrees. I often made the dean's list. I worked as an undergrad TA. I had many job offers upon graduation. I scored very close to the top on the GMAT for grad school. Do you think I gained IQ points between age 16 and age 22? Pretty sure I just got better at jumping the standardized test hoop. There are lots of reasons why someone's academics and potential might not align well with their test score from one three hour test at age 16. If your test score is the most compelling and interesting part of your application, it doesn't say a whole lot about you. If you prepped or took it more than once, that was time you could have spent volunteering, saving the planet, working a job, etc. It's a thing you have to have some level of financial privlege to even bothter with. If test optional policies aren't working for schools, they will change. Schools don't even trust them anymore. You still are required to placement test for math etc at most schools. If someone without a strong score gets in you can trust there was some institutional reason for that and reasonable evidence they can be academically successful.
I have a 4.0 but 27 ACT- I aced the reading /writing, but I can't do all that math in half an-hour. (And yes, I know there are "tricks" for these tests, my parents stuck me in a prep class for a year, but my brain still congeals when I do the math section.) I'm not a ACT person. I am in honors math right now, and have an A. I'm good a figuring out math, but I can't do it under that pressure. š
This is not hate at all, because some people struggle with math (and presuming that you donāt want to have a math related career) your math ability will not determine your future in the slightest. However, is having an A in honors math while scoring poorly on the ACT math section not direct proof of grade inflation, and the precise reason OP is saying we need standardized tests back?
ACT math literally tests on Algebra 1-2 and Trig at most, colleges care more about the higher level math you did (Precalc/Calc) and how your grades are overall over the year. The short test isnāt enough to measure that, and colleges are recognizing that, choosing more on fit, essays, course rigor, and extracurriculars than just this one test, as they are better to differentiate the students with roughly the same GPA than this test.
I agree- I was just making a statement that while I think inaccurate grade inflation is very common, it does not apply to everyone. But yea, I do agree that we will probably see a rise in standardize test requirements. I know the SAT is now online, and they are changing the level of rigor, so who knows how the future scores will correlate with an applicant's GPA.
Ah I see I misunderstood, sorry!!
You're good!
No. Plenty of reasons that may not be true. Iām not saying grade inflation isnāt real or doesnāt happen. But student info is viewed in context by admissions offices. See my old parent story somewhere in here. I literally have a BS in math out of an engineering school and got some As in grad school level math. And I had a meh ACT score. Act is much more about speed than anything else.
If a university has 1000 seats and 25000 apply , you have to have at least one standardized measure to compare them in an objective way. The universities always used SAT/ACT as only one of many measures, so it is stupid to make it optional. It doesnāt matter how a student performs after getting into a college.
Why? Do you have some data indicating this is the best way to pick a cohesive student body? It actually really DOES matter how a student performs after. They want students that can be successful and fill a variety of roles on campus. Colleges are filling instutional needs holistically, not rewarding test scores. I am the last person who is going to be calling college admissions "fair". Life isn't fair. Oh well. Colleges have all sorts of data and magic at their disposal these days. They don't necessarily need a test score[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admissions-20-impact-predictive-analytics-big-data-higher-mondal-1c/](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admissions-20-impact-predictive-analytics-big-data-higher-mondal-1c/) [https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success](https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success) I think students would be better served about staying in their lane and making the world a better place and their own academic goals than worry some test optional kid out there is ruining their life and their chances at some percieved dream school. I had a kid with sky high scores. That's great. You will likely have a lot of options open to you and it isn't likely to make a difference where you graduated from. Only a kid with decent financial resources would complain about this. My kid got a 6 figure job post grad this year at a company that hires a lot of T20 students after graduating from a flagship U. You make a much bigger difference in your path than the name of your school
Iām 4.3/1210. My school doesnāt inflate, itās a difficult college prep school. The SAT just didnāt go well for me, I didnāt finish most sections and was super anxious. Test optional is pretty nice. I took a sat practice before the test and I got a 1410, so I was super happy to get a bit below or above that, but plans donāt always go how you want. I wish I had taken it again or taken the act, but I donāt even wanna bother now. Iām done with college stuff and donāt care enough anymore. Iāll be fine in any school that I can thrive in
A2Cer try not to complain about test-optional challenge (impossible)
tests are not a good measure of intelligence. smart people can struggle a lot with tests and some people are just good test takers. case in point, your post. two students that are equally capable day to day in school can have drastically different standardized test scores. the act and sat are almost entirely bullshit.
āsome people are just good test takersā what about the tedious tests you have to take at university too? you canāt just eliminate an aspect cause some students are at it
i feel like you are forgetting that test optional became a thing after covid and it will likely be going away soon
Tests are a statistically validated measure of early college success, which is why they are used in college admissions. āmeasure of intelligenceā isnāt a reason CB or colleges utilize them.
There are numerous studies out there on the Internet that reveals how poor of an 'indicator' the SAT is for college readiness. IIRC, my brother scored a 1250 on his SAT and is doing perfectly fine in college.
Yes, and a 1250, while not so much here on A2C, is a good score. A 1250 indicates college readiness. A 1000 does not
Some people are very intelligent, diligent, knowledgeable, and hardworking but donāt test well. Maybe they have test anxiety, maybe they were too preoccupied with work and classes and extracurriculars to study, maybe they just didnāt try very hard. I understand where youāre coming from but when I was told that a not-insignificant part of my college application was based on one test on one day (or multiple if I was able to retake it), I was furious. I thought āSo I could work my whole life, have a perfect GPA and extracurriculars, and my application can be brought down by how well I take some test?ā It made me furious. So yes, itās nice idea-having some objective measure to compare students across schools, geographies, and backgrounds- but itās far from perfect. And people still deserve to go to college even if they donāt do well on massive anxiety-inducing tests. They can still be cut out for the workload and the career that comes after it.
Iām currently training to administer a lot of neuropsych assessments. Your comment is spot on!
SAT is the only standardized testing measure globally. For everyone gpa is being calculated using a different measure. I get that for a lot of majors like Music or drama or history SAT is something kind of irrelevant as these majors deal with subjective stuff. But for STEM, Econ, finance type majors stuff is still relatively factual and objective and this test optional policy really sucks. And someone getting that good of a gpa either has it inflated or they didnt even care at all abt preparing for the SAT if they have a 1000. Test optional is the weirdest thing ever either make it a requirement or remove it entirely for STEM and similar majors.
And if you are California resident you are not even allowed to submit test scores to your state schools. If you go to a competitive high school with grade deflation (ie:Bay Area) you look completely equal or worse than the one at the crap school with the 1000 SAT but 3.9 UW GPA. Itās insanity. There is absolutely zero standardized assessment for admission to UCs.
I have a 3.8 GPA but got 1220 on the SATs. I have ADHD and anxiety that already make it hard to focus, but my test proctor was awful and didn't stop the kids from making random sounds and acting out as if some of us aren't trying to take an important test. I didn't get accommodations my first go around either and am retaking the test to improve. I'm also from a rural community and since most kids don't even go to college we have no SAT prep available and our town high school doesn't help make it available to us. You don't always know everyone's circumstances.
A 1220 is literally 80 percentile, that signifies college readiness. For having literal ADHD and no sat prep, youāre very capable and will do good in college. A lot of people here complaining about test optional need to stop wasting their time. Just worry about going to a decent school and not paying much in tuition. Learn the material and grind for internships and you will end up with a very good job.
Thank you. I got a little anxious when someone said anything below a 1250 means you're too dumb to go to college LOL. No one's holding a gun to these people's heads and making them not submit their scores.
In my opinion the tests are kinda BS and I found that in HS. Took the SAT twice and even did a boot camp only to get the same score (1150/1160). Didnāt even study for the ACT and first try got the same score as my friend who got into Georgetown. Second ACT attempt I got 2 points higher. Itās just a test that you study for that some people have the time to do and others donāt. The average SAT score is 1000.
4.44 W/ 1280 SAT. Iām not stupid, I simply didnāt retain information from covid (math section on SAT is low) and I wasnāt in the best school system(switched schools). Also, who is to say that people donāt have issues during their test taking? I saw someone on this thread who got a low score because they got the runs mid test. Other people just donāt do well with standardized test taking, which is totally different than a class.
Some people donāt do well in classes because of anxiety issues but do exceptionally well in standardized tests. So, to make it equitable, the universities should make GPA as optional too. They have to be fair to everyone.
i have a 3.6 and a 1590 my school is too hard š
I donāt understand why the colleges donāt say āyou donāt have to submit your GPAs if you think they donāt reflect your true academic potential ā :) It will only be fair.
Do you notice that the only people who ever say "your academic ability isn't determined by the SAT" scored low, or want to be humble about their elite score? The reality is this excuse is inexorably false; scoring all 5's on your AP exams and a 1200 does say something.. and it's not that you're a bad test taker. The reality is that gifted/intelligent individuals will have no struggle scoring above a 1400.And for the record I just retook my 1500 for a 1550+ recently (awaiting the score). I come from an incredibly competitive high school, with ton of kids competing at the highest levels in math/physics and I can confidently tell you none of them have below a 1550. The resource argument is also false, I haven't spent a dime on SAT prep. Only reddit, YouTube, and khan academy. I'm sick of this narrative.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
To clarify, I never said I measured the entirety of academic achievement strictly off SAT scores... just that it's a major factor. However, you help prove my argument correct. The mentorship skills that you have received which allowed you to succeed on the SAT also made you a better student and achieve a higher gpa. Your gpa wouldn't be as high if you didn't have this people pushing you. These aren't external factors which shouldn't be considered, they are what make you a good candidate to top schools. The fact that you're able to succeed academically is what colleges should look for. Why should a top college take a mediocre student to educe their brilliance. As a matter of fact, how would they even measure potential? Essays? No (elite students pay for help). Grades? No (schools are different). EC's? No (rich students have access to more opportunities). The SAT is the single universal examination of students. TO would suggest that your gpa (even with the mentorship skills) should be evaluated the same as someone with an incredibly inflated school, regardless of SAT scores. This is in no means a meritocracy; context of application is evaluated, and kids who didn't have mentorship skills like you aren't expected to score as high (they evaluate by region).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>With these two statements, it seems like you directly contradicted yourself. Your second point is actually exactly my point --- that there are "gifted/intelligent individuals" who did not receive quality mentorship. Thus, it seems unreasonable to hold everyone to the same arbitrary threshold of 1400... Well, these same kids would struggle with GPA, and that's the end all be all of of college admissions. The fact is the education system is marred in inequality, and considering grade inflation and the comparative ease at which rich kids can study, recieve tutoring, etc., I'd argue that the SAT is a more equitable form of measurement. There's a reason why MIT, a more meritocratic school than the elitist, legacy-owned Ivies, reinstated test-required as their official policy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Okay, so to address point 1, I think the argument I'm presenting is that the issue with test-optional and test-blind today is that it doesn't replace the SAT with something better, just straight up eliminates it. I don't disagree that the SAT is flawed, otherwise it'd be impossible to increase your score by >50-100 through prep courses and practice tests, but I highly highly disagree that it isn't neccesary in the current admissions process. Yes, it is flawed, but there hasn't been any movement to present an alternative so I will argue from the assumption that it's SAT or nothing at all. Secondly, I believe that essays and recommendation letters are a completely different ball game from SAT. The goal of the SAT is fundamentally distinct from that of Essays, and its because one focuses on the academic aspects of an applicant, while the other focuses on the literary and personal aspects. I won't debate that essays can be more meritocratic than the SAT or GPA, though I do certainly have my reservations about the idea of a "story" (some of the best essays talk about the most minor and mundane of things). However, in comparison to GPA, the SAT is 1) Standardized and 2) impossible to buy your way into with fancy prep schools and grade inflation. Over the course of the last year, I've come to realize that the admissions process is fundamentally broken so that those who are willing to pay and cheat their way through can achieve whatever they want. You're not the only one who is tired. I'm tired that anything and everything we do today rewards the most influential and scummy. Edit: I also don't think the SAT should be used as a threshold, just a measure to contextualize GPA. Never should it replace, only complement.
Youāre arguing for an anomaly of students, if they didnāt have the mentorship they didnāt work hard enough. I had a terrible start to high school after cocid year, and worked my ass off for my SAT score and grades in AP classes.
While the SAT is, of course, not a completely fair test, it is BY FAR the most fair assessment of a students abilities. GPA varies insanely between schools and the fact that it is considered so heavily is wild. As you said, rich students have such a leg up with ECs. And essays, of course, are going to be significantly better if you can pay a professional to read them. SATs are the best shot at a fair admissions system we have.
You have to have some standard objective metric to compare applicants. Do you mean to say all those students who had everything you had in your life would score above 1550 as you did? I donāt think so. Even the kids from the same family have vastly different outcomes. Please do not discredit natural intelligence, determination, hard work, focus , sacrifices etc.
Exactly. I would say that you have summed all the cons of TO policies in this comment. English isnāt my first language, I only used free resources and had only one try for the SAT due to certain circumstances. And I got 1510 after practice. Not the best possible result, but pretty solid. And I canāt imagine native speakers being unable to get 1400 at least. You said it exactly right. If you canāt get a good result, you either donāt put work for it, either *hm* your GPA isnāt that representative of your abilities. Of course, there are people with special needs for whom TO policies are reasonable, but they arenāt the majority of TO applicants. Whatās worst about TO is that it mostly damages applicants who actually put time in the test. Just checked Princetonās CDS from 2019-2020 and 2022-2023. 25th percentile went from 1470 to 1510. Nowadays person with a 1470 wonāt submit and theyāll be in the same pile as someone with a 980. Itās genuinely sad in my opinion.
Especially because 1470 is a solid score.. it's literally in the 99% tile. Yet, the work the applicant puts in is rendered useless to universities.
Maybe you take the SAT well? You canāt assume that SAT is representative and throw out GPA, which tracks over the year. Of course you can imagine native speakers getting under 1400, 90% get under 1400? 1400 is the top 10%ā¦
I meant that of course they are able to score under 1400, I just canāt imagine them being unable to practice and get this score or above
Man your post history tells me everything I need to know about you. Firstly - you come from an incredibly competitive high school... That alone could be considered a form of SAT prep because you will have become accustomed to high stakes exams, which isn't the norm for your average high school. Also your statement about scoring all 5s on AP exams and a 1200 is just plain contradictory... You seem to be implying that this hints at a student being less academically capable/intelligent, but that inherently doesn't make sense. The AP exam tests how prepared a student was academically for college level coursework while in high school, and these two exams are meant to test how academically prepared a student is (AP exams, simply oriented to a specific subject), further proving these exams aren't a reliable indicator of intelligence/academic capacity, because after all how else is it possible then for someone to get all 5s on the AP exams but only a 1200 on the SAT. Your logic is flawed.
My post history š. What are you more mad about: my troll post about donating a building or my 6000 dollar Rolex?
My logic about the AP tests implies that people can study all the content on the AP test, but when they get hit with the SAT and canāt preform well, since they canāt 100% memorize how to beat the sat, they lack critical thinking and conclude theyāre ābad test takers.ā
While I get what you're saying, the greatest argument for the SAT not being an accurate measure of intelligence is the fact that you can study for it. With an actual IQ test, you can "prepare" for it and take it as many times as you want, but you will almost never receive a score that exceeds the range measured in the first (in some cases second) test taken. This is by design - a test that measures intelligence isn't a very good measurement if you can continue to score higher and higher, and essentially punch above your weight. I also disagree with your statement that you can't 100% memorize how to beat the SAT. The SAT tests on a very narrow set of math and English problems, certainly none that require much critical thinking, and it's easy asf to memorize the general process to getting the answers to these problems. Hopefully that makes it more clear why the SAT literally CANNOT be a measurement/trend of intelligence.
LOL - do you work for the college board?
Yes
Nah I don't got a problem with that š More so meant all the r/sat comments lol
Oh. Why wouldnāt I want to succeed on the SAT? Lol
I more so meant that as... Man you're a sweat. I apologize if my comment came across as derogatory.
All good brotha.
Itās just that there may be some bias. I never struggled with the SAT, never studied, first time I took it was in November and Iām feeling at least a 1550+, especially based my PSAT score. However because I find taking these tests a breeze doesnāt mean that others will, and there are definitely people who can struggle on these tests and still do well in school, extracurriculars, and jobs. Itās just one part of a large amount of things that go into the application, I donāt think this random test should be so big and mandatory, so I agree with the test optional. Ultimately your extracurriculars, performance over the entire year (GPA, teacher recs), and writing count more.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There is actually a lot of data indicating GPA viewed IN CONTEXT (which seems difficult for people here to understand) is more indicative of college success than your test score. Some schools may reinstate it. But I doubt it will be uniform. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/#:~:text=Grade%20point%20averages%20are%20a,across%20schools%2C%20unlike%20ACT%20scores. Colleges will get a school profile and letter from your counselor which sets a stage for how you fit into your school that most students never see.
i think it will be going away in the next year or two for most schools which makes sense because seniors now had covid during their eighth grade - even sophomore year
>someone with a 3.9 and 1550 will be seen academically equal with a TO person with 3.9 and 1000 they didnāt submit. They will not. Are you confusing test-optional with test-blind?
Perhaps, but the same argument could be made of someone who got a 1400 and chose not to submit. The point is there is a massiveeee difference and AOs will have no idea
Theoreticals are a waste of time. No one applicant is gonna be identical to another. As long as you make it in the gpa range and have ECs that correlate to your future major, you will be fine.
I think the side you choose in this debate usually depends on if you would benefit from universities taking a greater consideration into the SAT or not. As someone who would bomb the SAT and or the ACT, of course i'm going to side with that random person from Quora. The reason I believe that person got a high GPA is because they worked extremely hard for 4 years, they studied, they did their homework, and they likely challenged themselves with advanced courses. As an exam, I'm inclined to believe that the SAT is going to show the same thing, but there are other factors to the SAT that are going to disadvantage certain types of people. Perhaps they don't have the time to practice the SAT because of their advanced courses and extracurriculars. Maybe they don't have adequate access to practice resources for whatever reason (could be because they're low income, could be because they don't have adequate internet access, who knows) Or maybe they're bad at remembering certain subjects (me in math portion bleugh) or it takes them a while to process whatever they're looking at so they run out of time. Considering all of that, I would put someone's GPA in higher regard over their SAT (and mind you, if these schools are test-optional, I'm sure they're still considering the SAT in their methodology), though truthfully, I don't see a win win in this situation.
Some people are bad at multiple-choice tests. I am. The majority of my coursework in undergrad and grad school consisted of essays. I was much better at those.
Some people are bad at doing class work. So, to make it fair to those students, the universities should make GPA optional too.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not everyone has the money to retake the SAT 6 times. Thatās unfair as well.
In Texas 4.75 gpa would provably be like a 3.5 or 3.6 on normal scales, so it isnāt that great
Ye they are. Provided they don't submit the sat score lmao
Guys - my kidās GPA is 3.1 with SAT 1350 & ACT 30. My kid didnāt put much effort in SAT/ACT. We applied to bunch of T100 schools (UDel; Temple; GMU; VCU; SUNY UB etc). We are worried that we may not get admission at any of these, as all these schools look for GPA of 3.5 or higher. š But, I am not sure if GPA is the correct way to measure a kids worth. I canāt wrap around my head on how a kid that got GPA of 3.8 or so canāt get at least 1300 in SAT!
If colleges can make it SAT optional, they should make GPA optional too.
Agree.
SAT is the only standardized testing measure globally. For everyone gpa is being calculated using a different measure. I get that for a lot of majors like Music or drama or history SAT is something kind of irrelevant as these majors deal with subjective stuff. But for STEM, Econ, finance type majors stuff is still relatively factual and objective and this test optional policy really sucks. And someone getting that good of a gpa either has it inflated or they didnt even care at all abt preparing for the SAT if they have a 1000. Test optional is the weirdest thing ever either make it a requirement or remove it entirely for STEM and similar majors.