NO SATs or ACTs????

[TheChamps990411]

They're a better test of privilege than intelligence. Now it's accelerated.

How so?

 

[Dove]

Just heard that those seeking undergrad admissions to UConn won't have to be required to take the SATs or ACTs over next 3 years. Those damn SATs stopped me from getting into 2 or 3 schools (I'm a math idiot) in the early 70s. Confused as to why can't students take these tests under some type of controlled environment. Wish I had this opportunity.
Just wondering how that will impact overall enrollment in terms of numbers and quality.

I needed a 1000 to apply. Got a 970 and then a 980. Booo. SCSU it was.

 

[Chief00]

That's a good thing. SATs and ACTs were already dying. They're a better test of privilege than intelligence. Now it's accelerated.

If these tests inherently favored the privileged, why did privilege kids parents pay huge sums of cash for others to take these tests for them?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Same boat as you. I have a HS Junior who hasn’t taken the SAT yet. I think it would help her as she has solid grades but kinda lacking in extracurriculars. And she is generally good at standardized tests. They added a test date for September and if you had a class cancelled you get first dibs. But I’m not holding my breath.

I work for UConn so she gets the tuition waiver. So UConn is option A (Storrs) and B (Hartford). I’m quite anxious to see how it plays out for the class of 2021. I hope schools don’t go overboard on allowing deferred admissions. But in the end the schools are going to do all they can to stay fully enrolled given the uncertainty of college right now.

My biggest worry is UConn specific. Like after the Great Recession i think you will see a far greater demand for good old State U. Both as a better financial option and because parents will be more hesitant to send kids far away

I am in Mass, so no dice. Kid visited UConn and wasn’t a fan. Too big too rural.

The good and the bad I suppose is that with admissions possibly changing she will get into Tufts, which she loved. The bad would be I’d then need to pay for it.

 

[navery12]

If these tests inherently favored the privileged, why did privilege kids parents pay huge sums of cash for others to take these tests for them?

That's the exact reason they favor the privileged, because their parents could pay to get them a higher score

 

[XLCenterFan]

The school I attended made those test scores optional in their applications. Test scores are mainly an indicator of class - that’s it. They don’t measure the things that matter - resilience, grit, determination, willingness, and the overall body of work/experience.

 

[XLCenterFan]

So every priveleged kid does well on std tests? Didn’t know that. Figured there would be a range of scores. Is the correlation linear between level of privilege and scores? So the top 1% $$ Are all in the top 1% of test scores?

Not all of them. But it’s more likely as household income increases. I would be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant correlation between household income and performance on standardized tests. I would also be willing to bet that if you set up a regression model with “performance on standardized tests” as the dependant variable, and controlled for household income, educational attainment of parents, and zip code, that you would account for a majority of the variance in scores on standardized tests.

 

[Chief00]

That's the exact reason they favor the privileged, because their parents could pay to get them a higher score

Not legally.

 

[Chief00]

Not all of them. But it’s more likely as household income increases. I would be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant correlation between household income and performance on standardized tests. I would also be willing to bet that if you set up a regression model with “performance on standardized tests” as the dependant variable, and controlled for household income, educational attainment of parents, and zip code, that you would account for a majority of the variance in scores on standardized tests.

So what does that mean? I think I know you are dustinquishing correlation from cause?

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Not legally.

Okay, but it still happened. And those that wanted to go about it legally could afford to pay large sums of money for SAT tutors and other prep to get their children a leg up.

 

[NJHusky]

Not all of them. But it’s more likely as household income increases. I would be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant correlation between household income and performance on standardized tests. I would also be willing to bet that if you set up a regression model with “performance on standardized tests” as the dependant variable, and controlled for household income, educational attainment of parents, and zip code, that you would account for a majority of the variance in scores on standardized tests.

Do you think it’s possible that those with good incomes have $$ because they are smart and work hard?? You know, the American dream?! And they instill that in their kids?? Why are u stating a premise without proof? Is the reverse true too? If u score well u r rich?

 

[Chief00]

Okay, but it still happened. And those that wanted to go about it legally could afford to pay large sums of money for SAT tutors and other prep to get their children a leg up.

I was poor, had no prep and did ok. Today any measurement tool is viewed as cruel, mean or unfair. I don’t think it should be the key factor but it’s good to have a test that measures everyone’s using the same standard, as one of the legs in the stool. It also captures well the really smart top 10% kids you really want to target too. For kids from deprived backgrounds less weight should be given to it.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Okay, but it still happened. And those that wanted to go about it legally could afford to pay large sums of money for SAT tutors and other prep to get their children a leg up.

Sure you can buy prep courses. I did. Wasted money now. But the Asian kids with Tiger moms still tend to dominate the test scores as far as I understand. There are loads of free practice exams. So really it’s about putting in the time and effort along with being bright.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I was poor, had no prep and did ok. Today any measurement tool is viewed as cruel, mean or unfair. I don’t think it should be the key factor but it’s good to have a test that measures everyone’s using the same standard, as one of the legs in the stool. It also captures well the really smart top 10% kids you really want to target too. For kids from deprived backgrounds less weight should be given to it.

Congrats. That doesn’t impact wealthier kids, especially in this day and age, having an advantage. That’s the whole point of this trial, to get a sense of what impacts this has on success once the kids get to college. I don’t understand why this would be controversial to run this as a trial program, given other schools have seen positive benefits from adopting similar policies.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Sure you can buy prep courses. I did. Wasted money now. But the Asian kids with Tiger moms still tend to dominate the test scores as far as I understand. There are loads of free practice exams. So really it’s about putting in the time and effort along with being bright.

So your argument AGAINST this policy is that there’s a subset of kids that dominate test scores currently?

 

[XLCenterFan]

Do you think it’s possible that those with good incomes have $$ because they are smart and work hard?? You know, the American dream?! And they instill that in their kids?? Why are u stating a premise without proof? Is the reverse true too? If u score well u r rich?

It is possible. It's also possible that they (kids who grew up well-off) grew up in a system or a structure that benefited them more than others. I had this benefit, and others I know did not, and I ended up doing better than them on those tests. I recognize this and see that is it pervasive and wrong. My parents both had Masters degrees and stable jobs. I never went to bed hungry or had to walk through tough areas on my way to school. My parents could afford SAT prep. All of these things matter.

I'm not saying that poor kids can't score well or that well-off kids can't score bad. I'm saying that on average, standardized test scores rise with household income. This is just common sense...I didn't think I needed "proof."

 

[Travelman6]

Count me in the "SATs are biased towards richer demographic" crowd.

People with more money can afford more tutoring, prep books and other resources for their kids to take the test, first of all. Plus the content of the test itself is skewed towards a world viewpoint more often seen by wealthier people. Plus the aforementioned loopholes rich people can find, such as cheating, and being able to afford to take the test more often and thus, having a greater pool of results to choose from. Plus rich kids are more likely to be able to attend the best public schools or highly regarded private schools that will better prepare them for the test.

SATs/ACT results absolutely should be diminished in their importance, a great deal.

 

[XLCenterFan]

Even the wording on these tests can be skewed towards the wealthy, as noted by @Travelman32.

Plus the content of the test itself is skewed towards a world viewpoint more often seen by wealthier people.

For example: I come from the suburbs and I have worked with people who grew up in the city. There were instances where both of us were ignorant to what the other was saying, or words that we were using. The kids from the city didn't know what pine sap was, because they had no trees around. They called it "sticky tree juice." They didn't know what poison ivy was - they had never had it. One of them had never heard the word jacuzzi. Conversely, there were many words and terms that they used that I didn't know. It doesn't make either of us less smart, it just means we know different things, and tests really need to account for that. Is this an intelligence/ability test, or just a contest to see how many words and math formulas one can remember?

 

[XLCenterFan]

So what does that mean? I think I know you are dustinquishing correlation from cause?

It means that if you made a scatterplot with "household income" on the x-axis (bottom) and "standardized test scores" on the y-axis (left side), the direction of association would be positive. You would see that above average values along the x-axis would tend to accompany above average values along the y-axis. The association would be strong, close to linear, and positive. And outliers will always exist - these are the kids who over or under perform, in relation to their household income.

I just completed a degree program and had to take 2 stats-based classes. My professors would be so proud of this post.

 

[XLCenterFan]

I'm shocked (and a bit confused) that this is actually being debated. This is just common sense to me. If your parents can afford music lessons, dance lessons, sports teams, and gymnastics, they can also afford good schools, plenty of books for the house, computers/internet and SAT prep. The kids with advantages, on average, will score higher on tests than those without. I'm talking averages and likelihoods, not general, blanket statements.

If a school is choosing kids based solely on test scores - or even if they factor them in too much - they're not getting the best kids possible.

 

[NJHusky]

They're a better test of privilege than intelligence.

You should tell that to the thousands of kids (especially immigrants) studying their asses off that they can’t improve their score until their parents make more money.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I'm shocked (and a bit confused) that this is actually being debated. This is just common sense to me. If your parents can afford music lessons, dance lessons, sports teams, and gymnastics, they can also afford good schools, plenty of books for the house, computers/internet and SAT prep. The kids with advantages, on average, will score higher on tests than those without. I'm talking averages and likelihoods, not general, blanket statements.

If a school is choosing kids based solely on test scores - or even if they factor them in too much - they're not getting the best kids possible.

Especially since this is a 3-year trial to evaluate impacts. Other schools’ success with this suggests it will be a good move but if for some reason it doesn’t lead to favorable outcomes, it can be changed.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

You should tell that to the thousands of kids (especially immigrants) studying their asses off that they can’t improve their score until their parents make more money.

This is a meaningless post. Find some data to suggest that there is not a strong correlation between the two. Outliers can occur, but on a whole, wealthier kids will perform better.

 

[NJHusky]

That's the exact reason they favor the privileged, because their parents could pay to get them a higher score

Not really. Those parents cheated because their priveleged kid couldn’t test well. What about that same parent having someone write papers for their kid? Does that mean grades don’t count either?

 

[HuskyHawk]

So your argument AGAINST this policy is that there’s a subset of kids that dominate test scores currently?

I'm not arguing against the policy at all. The schools are doing it because this class can't take the tests, the College Board doesn't plan to offer the SAT until August at the earliest. My only complaint is that kids are going to need to apply to a wider group of schools from safety to reach, because nobody knows who is getting in where.

Whether the SAT or ACT gives the schools any information of value is up to the schools. I don't care who the test favors if it actually measures anything that relates to performance in college. Merit based discriminatory results don't bother me.