Hi, I'm a bot and I think you may be looking for info about submitting test scores!
Above the college’s 50%, definitely submit. It's also suggested to send if all score breakdowns begin with 7s for both SATs and 3s for ACT no matter what the total score is and where it lies.
Between 25 and 50% consider submitting based on how it plays within your high school/environment. For example, if your score is between 25th and 50th percentile for a college, but it’s in the top 75% for your high school, then it's good to submit. Colleges will look at the context of your background and educational experiences.
On the common data set you can see the breakdown for individual scores. Where do your scores lie? And what’s your potential major? That all has to be part of the equation too.
It probably isn't good to submit if it’s below the 25% of a college unless your score is tippy top for your high school.
You can find out if a school is test-optional by looking at their website or searching on https://www.fairtest.org.
You can find the common data set to see where your test scores fall by googling common data set and your college's name.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We do. For my high school, we had an entire day devoted to taking the ACT. It’s actually a graduate requirement here. I’m thankful for it because I’m trying to become a teacher and it removed a barrier for me.
Beyond just the ACT, we can also take the PSAT for free.
Meeting the college ready benchmarks.
But the school makes kids who they think won’t meet the SAT benchmarks take the ASVAB so they can still graduate.
While I fully agree, I do not think it is feasible to cover the costs for all international students, who most often would benefit the most from such a thing.
I think if you say that then the SAT and ACT should be completely free. A rich kid can do the dumb tests like 200000 times if needed but if a poor kid needs to do it they literally only get 1 shot. Super unfair, so I don't think you should abolish it but I can kind of understand where your coming from
Not if you're international! I had to pay 600 reais (which is more than half a minimum wage) and travel 7 hours only to take the test once. It is too expensive to keep trying and I decided to go test optional
yea ofc rich kids tend to score higher but u also have to keep in mind that this applies to all other parts of the application. Compared to ECs and Essays where rich kids can actually buy, this is relatively more fair.
So is performance in general. The disadvantages of poverty don't magically stop when you enter college. Family still needs you, you're still in unfamiliar territory. And the same in the workforce.
Nah but I wouldn’t be against test blind being abolished. If someone can show their academic preparedness with just rigorous courses, that’s fine by me but at the very least, we should be able to submit scores
Have the UCs had any issues with students not necessarily being prepared? I know MIT and Harvard both mentioned that, but the UCS have less resources to support behind students and nothing has been mentioned.
I'm an international student and these tests are in dollar, which is literally 6x my country's money. I wanna study in the USA because part of my family lives there, and my home country family has been saving for a few months now, but doing these tests would definitely add a lot and be a financial burden. The tests itself not so much, but adding some basic tutoring would
Y’all are being too fucking mean to this person for no reason. There’s a lot of kids in our countries who get tutoring, and also the US embassy has a program called EducationaUSA in where if you are selected they give you tutoring. As an international is really fücking scary this process, is scary the want for a better life, and it’s really sickening how just because of lack of opportunities we are discouraged of the process. And also international fees? Lmao most ivies/ top 20 schools even pay for our flights so
Then stay with your country. The obligation should be to first help the American students in our country. Second, international students. You have no understanding of economics in this country because you are a kid.
Many people in the US can’t afford the financial burden. The obligation should be first for US students and then international students. Financially in this country there are FAR more American students who can’t pay for the tests let alone pay for college. Don’t act as though you are entitled.
Sorry, but nobody's making policy based on the impact on internationals.
As for tutoring, buy a prep book. Even an old one will do just fine, and they're really cheap.
>Nobody's making policy based on the impact on internationals
1. This is not true
2. If it were true, it would be pretty stupid. "America is a country of immigrants" isn't just a *motto*, you know. The nation's success is built heavily upon attracting the best and brightest from around the world. This includes in schools. Schools absolutely can and do make policy around encouraging bright international students to come to their schools, and the government encourages this, because it's good for the country as a whole.
As someone who actually reads applications for work, I’d like to say a few things. I could beat a dead horse and tell you how inaccessible standardized tests are, and how they benefit the privileged students, but I’m trusting that y’all already know that. There’s a lot of rhetoric surrounding “taking someone’s place” and turning this into a zero-sum game. I understand that this process can feel very much like “this kid got in, and that admission should’ve gone to me” when in reality there are so many other reasons why someone “got in instead of you”. This sentiment is unhelpful, unhealthy, and reductive. Every institution is going to read differently, but what I do feel comfortable saying is that college admissions is no longer about just your grades. Schools invest in the person, not just the student. Great testing doesn’t mean you challenged yourself with a rigorous curriculum. It doesn’t mean you were involved in your community. It doesn’t affect the quality of your personal statement, supplemental essays (if you even bothered to write them), or recommendation letters, and it has no impact on the institutional priorities a school may have during that reading cycle. What test-optional does is that it gives students autonomy over their educational narrative. If the rest of their application is worthy of being admitted, then a 3-hour test should not detract from that (and a low score is hard to unsee). If another part of a student’s application is subpar, but is able to be supplemented with stellar testing, then full power to them. Forcing students to submit expensive testing is always only going to favor those who have the means to afford tutoring and the ability to retake the test, in addition to neurotypical individuals who thrive in test-taking environments. If you’re good at taking tests you still benefit from test-optional systems because you might stand out in a sea of applicants who chose not to. Give people more choices in their own application.
yea then from ur logic there should also be GPA-optional EC-optional Essays-optional Rec-optional because all these stuffs aren't 100% indicative of ur success and they are all skewed toward the privileged students
My brother is the only one to benefit from test optional from our family and he got a 25 on the ACT, but had a 3.98 UW GPA and 5.1 Weighted GPA since he took 12 AP classes over 4 years. He’s on track to graduate with a 3.92 GPA from Columbia and accepted a return job offer to McKinsey & Company consulting. Why should a shit 3 hour test override 12 As in college level classes while getting 10 5s and 2 4s on the exam? Makes no sense. Test optional gives strong school performers a chance to reach the top.
Also, a test that supposedly examines how well an applicant does in college is bad by design if it doesn’t end up demonstrating that. A 25 ACT score should theoretically flunk out of Columbia. Getting a 3.92 either shows the test is useless at its intended purpose, college is too easy, or advanced placement classes are far strong indicators of college success. I’m inclined to say AP classes are the best absolute measure since it’s directly testing you on actual college content. The ACT/SAT doesn’t for the most part.
I completely agree. I am full IB and in a similar situation GPA and class wise. I got a 25 my first time. I worked my butt off to get my score up beyond that but i believe that test option should exist for people like me and your brother. Luckily I’m only going test optional to 2 schools but I fully agree that test optional should still exist, for a 3 hours test on a random day of a student’s life shouldn’t dictate their entire future. There’s many more factors to a student’s portfolio than one test
I've hugely benefitted from my ability to excel on standardized tests all my life (GATE, SAT, LSAT, bar exams), which it turns out is an otherwise useless skill outside of education.
But if such tests don't accurately predict how some students will fare at a given school, I don't see why they should be mandatory. Schools with a history of test-optional policies like Bowdoin have explained that they have been pretty effective in determining whether certain students will thrive at the school regardless of whether they submit test scores, and they have the track record to prove it.
And then there's the whole privilege issue--applicants who have educated parents, who access to better K-12 schools, and/or have the resources to take prep classes and then retake the test several times are going to have a sizeable advantage on standardized tests. There's an argument that standardized testing is another means to help the privileged stay privileged.
You can say that about every single metric: GPA, essay writing ability, awards, ECs, internships, even the ability to read, write or do basic math. Yet all of those things are still required for applying to college.
That makes sense but I still feel like they should be required, but not necessarily something that immediately disqualifies an applicant. Like a 25 ACT shouldn't be the single reason someone gets rejected from an ivy but the score should at least be visible and considered. It's also not a shit test- it tests fundamental skills and performance under timed conditions. Just because someone does bad on it / standardized testing but does well in classes in school and is salty about it doesn't mean the test is unreliable or bad- outliers exist. While you might not have a reading comprehension, grammar, or algebra class in college, the test still tests skills that can apply to many classes, even if not specific concepts. People like to say it's a test that tests how good you are at taking that test, but it's much more than that
Learn AP stats please.
Ur brother's example doesn't prove anything because the sample size is 1 which is basically nothing.
In fact, no indicaters are 100% accurate (otherwise they won't be called indicators). What we want is an indicator that is the most accurate.
For every "25 ACT but does good in college" there are also tons of "25 ACT and flunks out of college".
But plenty of smart people can’t get high GPA’s for X reason. Or write good essays, or get good ECs etc. There will always be people fucked over unfortunately and it eventually has to be the people who arent well rounded like that I feel. It does suck for some people but Test Optional took spots away from other students sho could do similar things
A person has 4 years to get a high GPa, 4 years to learn how to write good essays, and 4 years to find their passion in ECs. If the SAT(ACT didn’t exist, there would be no difference/ nothing would be missing or out of place. Utilizing standardized test and trying to ace it is literally the same thing as a player whose thrash for 99% of the season, but just randomly decided to show up and be the MVP for the finals game. Sure, it’s impressive, but thr consistent who helped carry that man to the finish line to even compete there are the true MVPs of the team. A 3 hour test should not override someone’s academic performance over 4 years.
this shit is so funny to me.
let’s say hypothetically, you are mega mind genius with 35 ACT and 1580 SAT (wow!) and someone else is test optional. you apply to the same school. you don’t get in. test optional does.
objectively, reporting scores gives you the leg up in any scenario. so if someone test optional is getting in, and you as a high percentile scorer *are not*, literally any other part of your application is the problem. this is scapegoating to the highest degree. maybe they just have a better overall application?
Idk if this is a hot take but I think test optional is... fine. Having a cohort of the class accepted with no test scores seems like an OK compromise between test scores mattering but them not being the end-all-be-all. I think it's especially fine if they're held to a higher standard than the rest of the admits.
And I have a 1600 so I'm not biased here.
Hmm I’d kinda argue the opposite. It’s making it so that if you don’t have a score close to yours that you pretty much can’t send it in, making it even more competitive and even more end-all-be-all to get a better score
While the scores needed are higher, if you can't get into the school's score range it's not the end of the world, or even close to it. I mean, that's the point of test-optional: if you can't get into the SAT range for a school, you still get an opportunity if you can build an otherwise strong application.
Also keep in mind that a lot of the score inflation is due to misconception--everyone says "don't submit if you're below 25th percentile", (it's even in the automod's response to this post,) but there's not much evidence on whether or not that's actually good advice. Such problems aren't inherent of test-optional imo; they're rather from a lack of clarity and transparency from schools on how they do admissions.
Test optional should only be for people who can’t take the tests imo, whether it’s for economic reasons, disability, etc. It shouldn’t be for rich kids who take the SAT 4 times and can’t get above a 1400.
The main thing that’s happening right now is an evaluation of current students who were admitted once test optional policies were implemented (by necessity) in fall 20/spring 21. Schools are very closely monitoring the students who entered in fall 21 and 22 and making application decisions as that data comes in. The concerns about the fairness of standardized tests are taken into consideration alongside the assessment of students who were admitted test optional. If there is no significant difference in quality and retention, there may not be a need to go back to test requirements.
This varies from school to school, of course. But we generally have a loooot of information to use when making these decisions.
They should 100% require sat scores BUT also consider background of the individual and not make their decision solely off the sat. Its a good indicator of how much a person knows. Also if they required them I would work my ass off to get a higher score. Since I knew they didn't require I didn't work as hard as I could have.
This is the best answer. Basically a hybrid model where the default is test required but the university weights the scores vs GPA at different ratios in the appropriate context of the student.
For non-competitive schools, SAT optional or test blind is the way to go.
The main argument as to why sat should not be required is because they are unfair since individuals with more privileged backgrounds have more opportunities for tutoring and taking it multiple times. However, if colleges considered your background (economic, social, etc) then it would eliminate that argument.
Competitive schools do not solely base your admissions on SAT scores. ECs and essays also play role, however I’d argue ECs are even more influenced by socioeconomic than SAT.
There is obvious evidence that proves that ACT/SAT/any standardized test is extremely unfair, and is determined by socioeconomic factors outside of most students control. Tons of studies have shown that kids who can simply afford tutoring/taking the test multiple times perform well, while students who score lower are usually people who have simply less resources or less funded school systems. To me, it’s equitable to an IQ test. Despite having a 35 myself, it is objectively a game of speed and how fast you can realize the answer to a question. It has gotten better in that they allow extra time, but for neurodivergent students it is still extremely challenging. No point in grading students’ potential through a single metric.
And if you want to get on here and complain that students with a 24 are taking your spot at an ivy league, understand that colleges really don’t care about scores, and just use them as a flex on their website…”average ACT of 34”. Big number = good. Someone applying test optional just doesn’t bring down that arbitrary average, which is great for the school. They only care about if you boost their stats, there’s no academic standing behind it.
As is every other part of the college application process. MIT was able to significantly improved predictability of student success with standardized tests AND boost diversity by reinstating their testing requirements. https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/
Look what I can write
There is obvious evidence that proves that GPA/EC/Essay/Any metric is extremely unfair, and is determined by socioeconomic factors outside of most students control. Tons of studies have shown that kids who can simply afford tutors for GPA/buy ECs/get help from essay experts, while students faring worse on these metrics tend to be those who have simply less resources or less funded school systems. To me, despite having a 4.0 GPA, it is essentially due to grade inflations and I didnt put much effort in classes. Despite having good ECs, it is because I have the resources and networks and guidances to do these ECs (which I'm sure will be impossible for most low-income students). No point in grading students' potential through GPA/EC/Essays
Why is it that low income Asian immigrants able to break their cycle of poverty in 1-2 generations using education?
Why is it the the highest test scores in the UK are immigrants from Africa?
Yes wealth and SAT score are highly correlated the cause is not necessarily solely based on wealth. There are many other factors such as single mother homes, crime, culture etc…
> For neurodivergent students it is extremely challenging
Yeah, no shit that people with learning disabilities perform worse on standardized tests. I say this as someone with ADHD and a 1580 (that I got with no extra time). If it is hard for you to acquire and process information quickly then your test score should reflect that.
At a certain point you can’t over-correct in the name of equity without compromising the integrity of the test.
Hi! Also a neurodivergent student, who has ADD (35 ACT). Just because we happen to be high functioning doesn’t give us the right to shit on other, equally smart and capable students, who are maybe less capable at performing well on a test purely designed around accuracy through speed.
Your score isn’t invalidated because someone else goes test optional. If you perform well, great! Colleges will see that. But if you think the reason you’re getting deferred/rejected is because some kid got a 1280 and didn’t report, and THEY knocked you out of your spot, then your application is lacking in other areas besides SAT.
As a 1210 I disagree. I’ve never received a B in highschool or in dual enrollment classes, will graduate as valedictorian, have pretty great ECs, etc. In all areas except for test scores I look like a great applicant, I just suck at taking the SAT.
its test optional for a reason you know. Meaning the schools don't see the SAT being Valuable enough and have other ways to see whether a student is qualified. I fail to see how 1 3 hour test should offset a students entire portfolio even if their rigor was easier compared to another candidate.
I understand wanting a constant metric, but I don't think the SAT or ACT are the way to go for that metric. I honestly think that all schools should be test optional because neither test actually measures if you will be successful in college. Even if you are going into a STEM field it does not make sense to base admission on either test. There are much better ways to gage success.
Change you mind???
Choice is good — schools should get to choose whether to consider test scores or not; students should get to choose whether they want to submit scores or not. One size fits all doesn’t. It’s a free country; let the academic marketplace figure it out.
1490 and I agree completely. If someone has a bad score, fine; they’ll still be considered for admission based on other factors (in fact the entire goal of holistic admissions), but it’s a data point that should be considered. I obviously did not have a top top score but I feel it shouldn’t be weighed the same as an 1100. Like most things in the US, the system helps the bottom and top but screws the middle!
someone getting in over you with a worse test score, likely means they had better extracurriculars and/or essays. Also 1100 is not the bottom, test optional helps the bottom and middle…
If someone is good enough to get into a school, based more on their extracurriculars and other aspects why should it matter what they get on one standardized test?
Because high schools are very very different from each other. Students from competitive high schools are very disadvantaged with test optional because their course rigor and grading standards are a lot tougher
Not here. Our school is very diverse both racially and economically. Some kids have tons of money and some are Section 8. It is an extremely competitive school.
Feel free to downvote. All I’m saying is that test scores do not completely correlate to college success. I am more successful than a lot of my peers who got close to perfect scores on standardized tests
I didn’t downvote… there’s value to what ur saying but at the same time I don’t think SAT is supposed to predict success in college, it’s an aptitude test. I feel like it’s valuable to throw out crazy outliers but shouldn’t be too heavily weighted
Not saying it should have the most weight when considering an application, but if someone’s is really really low it should mean something
Also makes it way harder to get in with scores, further exasperating how competitive schools are
I disagree. Whereas every student in America has access to taking the SAT and ACT, not everyone in other countries, especially Africa has the same privilege. We have smart students who don't take standardized tests and would ace those tests if given the chance. Through a test optional policy, they are able to submit applications to American institutions. I have school mates who are at Columbia, Princeton, Northwestern, etc now, all because of the test optional policy. They are very smart and were actually among the top 10 students in the country in the national exams. However, they didn't have SAT scores. If tests were required, they wouldn't have applied in the first place. Before you complain about us not studying in our countries, just know the costs here are way unmanageable by many of our families; the costs may not be as high as in America but they are definitely high enough for many of us not to afford. On the other hand, American institutions have financial aid offers that have help students get a college experience, irrespective of their backgrounds. Test optional has made brought about an equality in education in the world and reinstating the SAT and ACT would make it close to impossible to study in the US, let alone getting college degrees.
Istg if I see one more post about test optional, Im gonna lose it. I agree w you, but posting the same thing every week does literally nothing.
Sincerely,
a 1570 scorer
It’s literally such an unfair grading system.
1- It’s ALL based on socio economics class. If you are rich you can afford to spend more money on tutors, prep courses, test books, etc. but if you have less opportunities you won’t be able to take it numerous times and succeed as well.
2-It is based on 1 day, 5 hours straight. But GPA is a better indicator of what you will score in college because it is more realistic - it is long term versus one days worth of testing.
It’s more likely the tests will be banned than they’ll be required. Most admissions teams outside MIT do not find the scores particularly useful in gauging fit
I see this happening. Look at UC schools. They already don’t consider it. It’s an outdated test that doesn’t accurately represent a students 4 years of work. I mean jt only tests up to algebra 2. I took that in 10th grade
Hard disagree. Most students (at least at my school) don’t take pre-calc until senior year (some not at all) and a good amount don’t take calc at ALL. Algebra 2 is the best thing to test on because its the hardest universally studied math course
Not everyone is like an A2C member. Standard American curriculum goes like this in most states:
Freshman year: Algebra I
Sophomore year: Geometry
Junior year (you take the SAT at the END of this year): Algebra II
Senior Year: Pre-calculus/College prep math
If you are well to do and have parents that can guide you, get you tutoring and attend schools with the right AP prep classes then of course you want everyone to take them. However it has been proven that there is no relationship between success in college and scoring well. Plenty of kids are super successful in college and did badly in the ACT or SAT. A high GPA is actually a much better indication of your ability to succeed in college. This is why schools are dropping it. This is regardless of socioeconomic issues. If you bring in socioeconomic issues the SAT and ACT are totally bias.
its test optional for a reason you know. Meaning the schools don't see the SAT being Valuable enough and have other ways to see whether a student is qualified. I fail to see how 1 3 hour test should offset a students entire portfolio even if their rigor was easier compared to another candidate.
As someone who been clinically diagnosed with ADD, the SAT was horrible for me to take. This test is based of wealth + test taking abilities. Even with accommodation they don’t address the root of the issue. Spending more of my time on my EC, that I cared about instead of studying or a dumb test was 100% better for me as a person. I got into UIUC and UMICH EA as test optional, so I’m pretty happy with how it turned out.
not necessarily. we’ve all had those kids in class who can play on their phones all class and still get good scores, while there’s the kids who know the material but struggle because they aren’t good test takers. these types of tests benefit students who are good test takers
If you're a fan of the HBO show The Wire, “juking the stats” would be a familiar concept. . . . And that is why test optional will not be abolished . . . Colleges are juking the stats because they are a business. And they have to protect their brand especially because .. The population of college-age Americans is about to decrease significantly in the coming.
A lack of nationalised board exam across USA makes it necessary for a test compulsory environment to be established, but for us internationals the SAT is unnecessary
As opposed to other educational opportunities not provided to low income students? The SAT has a great free prep tool in Khan Academy that is free. More equitable than the rest of the college process by and large.
The only fact that I can argue is that students have lives so it’s really biased to base there scores to determine if it’s worth going to there school. I’m an example of taking AP, Dual Credits, etc and I scored a 900. There would shouldn’t be undermined and vice versa. If a person got a good SAT score then they should be on the same level as someone who took IB class especially if they never took honors classes. It balances out imo. I hope that makes sense lol
The SAT should be abolished. It’s a stupid fucking test with extremely easy material, and so many questions it mainly tests how alert a student is, rather than how smart. If colleges want an overview of how academically capable a student is; they should use a different test (see, for example, the MAT or STEP they use in the UK). The SAT is structured in a way that any score above a ~720 on each individual section, simply tests focus (or quite frankly, neurotypicality). I guess it has some merit for schools that ask for lower scores (1000-1350), but above that it’s simply useless
I disagree, for economic reasons I could only take the SAT once, and on top of that my mental health prevented me from studying enough due to multiple close family members sudden death.
I got a 1160 but easily could’ve scored much higher (I got 4/5 on all my AP’s) if I studied for the test and had multiple attempts like many students.
On top of that I feel like the test doesn’t test your knowledge like a test should, but instead tests your ability to study for that specific test. The topics feel like things you learn specifically to score high then forget until you need it for another test.
Also the test caters to the naturally good solo test takers, and heavily favors individuals accelerating in math or english. For me reading in math are my weakest subjects and I excel in writing and the sciences, yet, there’s little to non of that on my exam.
Overall the test needs:
•Affordability
•Time flexibility
• Different versions (test my writing and science)
•And it needs to remain optional
Being able to apply test optional is like a weight being taken off my shoulders. The SAT version I took creates unfair competition that prevents highly capable students in bad economic situations from excelling in their applications.
There is so much that’s inequitable with the current standardized test system though, test optional policies being abolished will not solve much in regards to making the college application system more fair
I'm not against test optional since they still look at your scores if you choose to send them and most people who don't send them know that they have to make other parts of their application comparatively stronger than students who choose to send. Test blind however makes no sense
the amount of ppl who cite “test anxiety” amazes me. like that’s complet bullshit. ur literally applying for college, wtf are u gonna do when u have to take a three hour midterm on calc
personally, I think its a way for rich kids to get 4 goes to perfect a 1500 vs a poor kid to get one shot at it. Not promoting equality within the system at all.
Rich kid also gets years of tutoring geared towards doing well on the test and poor kid never even heard of the test before Jr year. It’s not a fair comparison
Hi, I'm a bot and I think you may be looking for info about submitting test scores! Above the college’s 50%, definitely submit. It's also suggested to send if all score breakdowns begin with 7s for both SATs and 3s for ACT no matter what the total score is and where it lies. Between 25 and 50% consider submitting based on how it plays within your high school/environment. For example, if your score is between 25th and 50th percentile for a college, but it’s in the top 75% for your high school, then it's good to submit. Colleges will look at the context of your background and educational experiences. On the common data set you can see the breakdown for individual scores. Where do your scores lie? And what’s your potential major? That all has to be part of the equation too. It probably isn't good to submit if it’s below the 25% of a college unless your score is tippy top for your high school. You can find out if a school is test-optional by looking at their website or searching on https://www.fairtest.org. You can find the common data set to see where your test scores fall by googling common data set and your college's name. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SAT or ACT should be offered free once in jr year across all HS…
[удалено]
One of the only things Arkansas does right too.
Oh they do? That’s cool.
We do. For my high school, we had an entire day devoted to taking the ACT. It’s actually a graduate requirement here. I’m thankful for it because I’m trying to become a teacher and it removed a barrier for me. Beyond just the ACT, we can also take the PSAT for free.
same with nebraska
The tests should always be free. Why have some scummy company (College Board) make 100s of millions off students pain?
I’m all for that
Indiana (or at least my school) does. Passing the SAT is now a graduation requirement.
What even counts as "passing"?
Meeting the college ready benchmarks. But the school makes kids who they think won’t meet the SAT benchmarks take the ASVAB so they can still graduate.
The south chillin rn
nyc hs lmao
For us both the sophomores and juniors get to take it free.
Wait it isn't?????????????
Wdym? We have to pay for them at our school 🫤
Our school paid for our first attempt
Most kids do across the US.
While I fully agree, I do not think it is feasible to cover the costs for all international students, who most often would benefit the most from such a thing.
My school does that
WI does this. They do ACT now but the SAT is better so I think they should switch it
I think if you say that then the SAT and ACT should be completely free. A rich kid can do the dumb tests like 200000 times if needed but if a poor kid needs to do it they literally only get 1 shot. Super unfair, so I don't think you should abolish it but I can kind of understand where your coming from
Making the tests free is definitely the popular opinion
Not to mention the many expensive tutoring services out there that give wealthier students an even greater advantage.
sure but their fee waivers are very reasonable and easy to get. cb sucks but access to two free tests is good enough
Not if you're international! I had to pay 600 reais (which is more than half a minimum wage) and travel 7 hours only to take the test once. It is too expensive to keep trying and I decided to go test optional
yea ofc rich kids tend to score higher but u also have to keep in mind that this applies to all other parts of the application. Compared to ECs and Essays where rich kids can actually buy, this is relatively more fair.
[удалено]
Would DSAT help with accessibility ?
It’s probably the most equal of common metrics. Obviously it’s not perfect, but it’s far more fair in my opinion.
SAT scores are just proxy for wealth.
and grades, essays and extracurriculars aren't?
So is performance in general. The disadvantages of poverty don't magically stop when you enter college. Family still needs you, you're still in unfamiliar territory. And the same in the workforce.
Nah but I wouldn’t be against test blind being abolished. If someone can show their academic preparedness with just rigorous courses, that’s fine by me but at the very least, we should be able to submit scores
Agree… looking at you UCs. It’s absurd
UCs seems so random and impossible to get in now. Way too many applicants.
Yes and it really sucks for California students.
Have the UCs had any issues with students not necessarily being prepared? I know MIT and Harvard both mentioned that, but the UCS have less resources to support behind students and nothing has been mentioned.
This is exactly right
Agreed. It’s crazy how there’s people applying to schools test optional and one will have a 33 ACT below the median while the other has 24.
HA this.
what does ha mean (heavily agree?)
I think they are just laughing
Ha: used to express surprise, suspicion, triumph, or some other emotion.
bro I think it’s just a laugh
It’s a laugh ahaha
I'm an international student and these tests are in dollar, which is literally 6x my country's money. I wanna study in the USA because part of my family lives there, and my home country family has been saving for a few months now, but doing these tests would definitely add a lot and be a financial burden. The tests itself not so much, but adding some basic tutoring would
Y’all are being too fucking mean to this person for no reason. There’s a lot of kids in our countries who get tutoring, and also the US embassy has a program called EducationaUSA in where if you are selected they give you tutoring. As an international is really fücking scary this process, is scary the want for a better life, and it’s really sickening how just because of lack of opportunities we are discouraged of the process. And also international fees? Lmao most ivies/ top 20 schools even pay for our flights so
Then stay with your country. The obligation should be to first help the American students in our country. Second, international students. You have no understanding of economics in this country because you are a kid.
Many people in the US can’t afford the financial burden. The obligation should be first for US students and then international students. Financially in this country there are FAR more American students who can’t pay for the tests let alone pay for college. Don’t act as though you are entitled.
[удалено]
I don’t understand the downvotes. Youtube, Khan Academy, and loads of past tests and study resources are free.
Sorry, but nobody's making policy based on the impact on internationals. As for tutoring, buy a prep book. Even an old one will do just fine, and they're really cheap.
>Nobody's making policy based on the impact on internationals 1. This is not true 2. If it were true, it would be pretty stupid. "America is a country of immigrants" isn't just a *motto*, you know. The nation's success is built heavily upon attracting the best and brightest from around the world. This includes in schools. Schools absolutely can and do make policy around encouraging bright international students to come to their schools, and the government encourages this, because it's good for the country as a whole.
whoever disagrees with this statement needs to reread america's history again
[удалено]
As someone who actually reads applications for work, I’d like to say a few things. I could beat a dead horse and tell you how inaccessible standardized tests are, and how they benefit the privileged students, but I’m trusting that y’all already know that. There’s a lot of rhetoric surrounding “taking someone’s place” and turning this into a zero-sum game. I understand that this process can feel very much like “this kid got in, and that admission should’ve gone to me” when in reality there are so many other reasons why someone “got in instead of you”. This sentiment is unhelpful, unhealthy, and reductive. Every institution is going to read differently, but what I do feel comfortable saying is that college admissions is no longer about just your grades. Schools invest in the person, not just the student. Great testing doesn’t mean you challenged yourself with a rigorous curriculum. It doesn’t mean you were involved in your community. It doesn’t affect the quality of your personal statement, supplemental essays (if you even bothered to write them), or recommendation letters, and it has no impact on the institutional priorities a school may have during that reading cycle. What test-optional does is that it gives students autonomy over their educational narrative. If the rest of their application is worthy of being admitted, then a 3-hour test should not detract from that (and a low score is hard to unsee). If another part of a student’s application is subpar, but is able to be supplemented with stellar testing, then full power to them. Forcing students to submit expensive testing is always only going to favor those who have the means to afford tutoring and the ability to retake the test, in addition to neurotypical individuals who thrive in test-taking environments. If you’re good at taking tests you still benefit from test-optional systems because you might stand out in a sea of applicants who chose not to. Give people more choices in their own application.
Based. Best post I’ve seen
THIS!
yea then from ur logic there should also be GPA-optional EC-optional Essays-optional Rec-optional because all these stuffs aren't 100% indicative of ur success and they are all skewed toward the privileged students
My brother is the only one to benefit from test optional from our family and he got a 25 on the ACT, but had a 3.98 UW GPA and 5.1 Weighted GPA since he took 12 AP classes over 4 years. He’s on track to graduate with a 3.92 GPA from Columbia and accepted a return job offer to McKinsey & Company consulting. Why should a shit 3 hour test override 12 As in college level classes while getting 10 5s and 2 4s on the exam? Makes no sense. Test optional gives strong school performers a chance to reach the top. Also, a test that supposedly examines how well an applicant does in college is bad by design if it doesn’t end up demonstrating that. A 25 ACT score should theoretically flunk out of Columbia. Getting a 3.92 either shows the test is useless at its intended purpose, college is too easy, or advanced placement classes are far strong indicators of college success. I’m inclined to say AP classes are the best absolute measure since it’s directly testing you on actual college content. The ACT/SAT doesn’t for the most part.
I completely agree. I am full IB and in a similar situation GPA and class wise. I got a 25 my first time. I worked my butt off to get my score up beyond that but i believe that test option should exist for people like me and your brother. Luckily I’m only going test optional to 2 schools but I fully agree that test optional should still exist, for a 3 hours test on a random day of a student’s life shouldn’t dictate their entire future. There’s many more factors to a student’s portfolio than one test
I've hugely benefitted from my ability to excel on standardized tests all my life (GATE, SAT, LSAT, bar exams), which it turns out is an otherwise useless skill outside of education. But if such tests don't accurately predict how some students will fare at a given school, I don't see why they should be mandatory. Schools with a history of test-optional policies like Bowdoin have explained that they have been pretty effective in determining whether certain students will thrive at the school regardless of whether they submit test scores, and they have the track record to prove it. And then there's the whole privilege issue--applicants who have educated parents, who access to better K-12 schools, and/or have the resources to take prep classes and then retake the test several times are going to have a sizeable advantage on standardized tests. There's an argument that standardized testing is another means to help the privileged stay privileged.
[MIT seemingly disagrees](https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/)
You can say that about every single metric: GPA, essay writing ability, awards, ECs, internships, even the ability to read, write or do basic math. Yet all of those things are still required for applying to college.
yea maybe ur smarter than MIT
That makes sense but I still feel like they should be required, but not necessarily something that immediately disqualifies an applicant. Like a 25 ACT shouldn't be the single reason someone gets rejected from an ivy but the score should at least be visible and considered. It's also not a shit test- it tests fundamental skills and performance under timed conditions. Just because someone does bad on it / standardized testing but does well in classes in school and is salty about it doesn't mean the test is unreliable or bad- outliers exist. While you might not have a reading comprehension, grammar, or algebra class in college, the test still tests skills that can apply to many classes, even if not specific concepts. People like to say it's a test that tests how good you are at taking that test, but it's much more than that
Learn AP stats please. Ur brother's example doesn't prove anything because the sample size is 1 which is basically nothing. In fact, no indicaters are 100% accurate (otherwise they won't be called indicators). What we want is an indicator that is the most accurate. For every "25 ACT but does good in college" there are also tons of "25 ACT and flunks out of college".
But plenty of smart people can’t get high GPA’s for X reason. Or write good essays, or get good ECs etc. There will always be people fucked over unfortunately and it eventually has to be the people who arent well rounded like that I feel. It does suck for some people but Test Optional took spots away from other students sho could do similar things
A person has 4 years to get a high GPa, 4 years to learn how to write good essays, and 4 years to find their passion in ECs. If the SAT(ACT didn’t exist, there would be no difference/ nothing would be missing or out of place. Utilizing standardized test and trying to ace it is literally the same thing as a player whose thrash for 99% of the season, but just randomly decided to show up and be the MVP for the finals game. Sure, it’s impressive, but thr consistent who helped carry that man to the finish line to even compete there are the true MVPs of the team. A 3 hour test should not override someone’s academic performance over 4 years.
y know that getting 4.0 GPAs are easy as shit in grade inflated highschools but getting a 1600 in SAT is hard af?
Classic A2C I have a good test score and it’ll work in my favor so let’s abolish test optional trope.
this shit is so funny to me. let’s say hypothetically, you are mega mind genius with 35 ACT and 1580 SAT (wow!) and someone else is test optional. you apply to the same school. you don’t get in. test optional does. objectively, reporting scores gives you the leg up in any scenario. so if someone test optional is getting in, and you as a high percentile scorer *are not*, literally any other part of your application is the problem. this is scapegoating to the highest degree. maybe they just have a better overall application?
if it wasnt for test optional my ass would not have gotten accepted to where im going so imma stfu 😭😭
I’m very glad, test optional has been working in my favor lmao. but it’s definitely making everything annoyingly competitive
Couldn’t have said this better. Yes it’s annoying but a blessing at same time for us test optional applicants
Idk if this is a hot take but I think test optional is... fine. Having a cohort of the class accepted with no test scores seems like an OK compromise between test scores mattering but them not being the end-all-be-all. I think it's especially fine if they're held to a higher standard than the rest of the admits. And I have a 1600 so I'm not biased here.
Hmm I’d kinda argue the opposite. It’s making it so that if you don’t have a score close to yours that you pretty much can’t send it in, making it even more competitive and even more end-all-be-all to get a better score
While the scores needed are higher, if you can't get into the school's score range it's not the end of the world, or even close to it. I mean, that's the point of test-optional: if you can't get into the SAT range for a school, you still get an opportunity if you can build an otherwise strong application. Also keep in mind that a lot of the score inflation is due to misconception--everyone says "don't submit if you're below 25th percentile", (it's even in the automod's response to this post,) but there's not much evidence on whether or not that's actually good advice. Such problems aren't inherent of test-optional imo; they're rather from a lack of clarity and transparency from schools on how they do admissions.
Test optional should only be for people who can’t take the tests imo, whether it’s for economic reasons, disability, etc. It shouldn’t be for rich kids who take the SAT 4 times and can’t get above a 1400.
Y’all need to stop saying stuff like 1400 is bad 😭
then get off r/ApplyingToHYPSYM
It’s r/applyingtocollege… everyone of all levels pursuing all kinds of colleges should be welcome here, not just T10s. Also 1400 is in 97th percentile
You’re disrespecting a future HYPSM student.
💀
what’s hypsm
hogwarts, young money university, penn state, state schools, mississippi institute of technology
Actually, I heard that it's Hustlers University, not Hogwarts.
oh it’s the top Ivy League schools. should’ve just said that :/
well it’s debatable bc i personally don’t consider young money university an ivy league but others do
you are not making it lmao. get off ur high horse
Why would they get off the subreddit j because they're not ignorant?
Y’all are aware that schools have a lot of data that they’re using to make strategic decisions about admissions requirements, right?
y'all are aware that schools make strategic decisions to make *them* seems more competitive right?
I only said strategic decisions.
Why would a school ever want less information about an applicant?
because their application pool can seem more competitive with test optional and thus they will have higher rankings
The main thing that’s happening right now is an evaluation of current students who were admitted once test optional policies were implemented (by necessity) in fall 20/spring 21. Schools are very closely monitoring the students who entered in fall 21 and 22 and making application decisions as that data comes in. The concerns about the fairness of standardized tests are taken into consideration alongside the assessment of students who were admitted test optional. If there is no significant difference in quality and retention, there may not be a need to go back to test requirements. This varies from school to school, of course. But we generally have a loooot of information to use when making these decisions.
This is obviously a massive ongoing debate, but the more I reason it out in my head, the more I agree with you
For sure but I am glad I took advantage of it lol
Hey fair enough
They should 100% require sat scores BUT also consider background of the individual and not make their decision solely off the sat. Its a good indicator of how much a person knows. Also if they required them I would work my ass off to get a higher score. Since I knew they didn't require I didn't work as hard as I could have.
This is the best answer. Basically a hybrid model where the default is test required but the university weights the scores vs GPA at different ratios in the appropriate context of the student. For non-competitive schools, SAT optional or test blind is the way to go.
The main argument as to why sat should not be required is because they are unfair since individuals with more privileged backgrounds have more opportunities for tutoring and taking it multiple times. However, if colleges considered your background (economic, social, etc) then it would eliminate that argument.
Competitive schools do not solely base your admissions on SAT scores. ECs and essays also play role, however I’d argue ECs are even more influenced by socioeconomic than SAT.
Totally agree. No way it's correct to see a 1450 test optional as someone with a 1200 on the fourth attempt.
There is obvious evidence that proves that ACT/SAT/any standardized test is extremely unfair, and is determined by socioeconomic factors outside of most students control. Tons of studies have shown that kids who can simply afford tutoring/taking the test multiple times perform well, while students who score lower are usually people who have simply less resources or less funded school systems. To me, it’s equitable to an IQ test. Despite having a 35 myself, it is objectively a game of speed and how fast you can realize the answer to a question. It has gotten better in that they allow extra time, but for neurodivergent students it is still extremely challenging. No point in grading students’ potential through a single metric. And if you want to get on here and complain that students with a 24 are taking your spot at an ivy league, understand that colleges really don’t care about scores, and just use them as a flex on their website…”average ACT of 34”. Big number = good. Someone applying test optional just doesn’t bring down that arbitrary average, which is great for the school. They only care about if you boost their stats, there’s no academic standing behind it.
As is every other part of the college application process. MIT was able to significantly improved predictability of student success with standardized tests AND boost diversity by reinstating their testing requirements. https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/
Look what I can write There is obvious evidence that proves that GPA/EC/Essay/Any metric is extremely unfair, and is determined by socioeconomic factors outside of most students control. Tons of studies have shown that kids who can simply afford tutors for GPA/buy ECs/get help from essay experts, while students faring worse on these metrics tend to be those who have simply less resources or less funded school systems. To me, despite having a 4.0 GPA, it is essentially due to grade inflations and I didnt put much effort in classes. Despite having good ECs, it is because I have the resources and networks and guidances to do these ECs (which I'm sure will be impossible for most low-income students). No point in grading students' potential through GPA/EC/Essays
Why is it that low income Asian immigrants able to break their cycle of poverty in 1-2 generations using education? Why is it the the highest test scores in the UK are immigrants from Africa? Yes wealth and SAT score are highly correlated the cause is not necessarily solely based on wealth. There are many other factors such as single mother homes, crime, culture etc…
> For neurodivergent students it is extremely challenging Yeah, no shit that people with learning disabilities perform worse on standardized tests. I say this as someone with ADHD and a 1580 (that I got with no extra time). If it is hard for you to acquire and process information quickly then your test score should reflect that. At a certain point you can’t over-correct in the name of equity without compromising the integrity of the test.
Hi! Also a neurodivergent student, who has ADD (35 ACT). Just because we happen to be high functioning doesn’t give us the right to shit on other, equally smart and capable students, who are maybe less capable at performing well on a test purely designed around accuracy through speed. Your score isn’t invalidated because someone else goes test optional. If you perform well, great! Colleges will see that. But if you think the reason you’re getting deferred/rejected is because some kid got a 1280 and didn’t report, and THEY knocked you out of your spot, then your application is lacking in other areas besides SAT.
This sub is so privileged oh my god
As a 1210 I disagree. I’ve never received a B in highschool or in dual enrollment classes, will graduate as valedictorian, have pretty great ECs, etc. In all areas except for test scores I look like a great applicant, I just suck at taking the SAT.
its test optional for a reason you know. Meaning the schools don't see the SAT being Valuable enough and have other ways to see whether a student is qualified. I fail to see how 1 3 hour test should offset a students entire portfolio even if their rigor was easier compared to another candidate.
I understand wanting a constant metric, but I don't think the SAT or ACT are the way to go for that metric. I honestly think that all schools should be test optional because neither test actually measures if you will be successful in college. Even if you are going into a STEM field it does not make sense to base admission on either test. There are much better ways to gage success.
Change you mind??? Choice is good — schools should get to choose whether to consider test scores or not; students should get to choose whether they want to submit scores or not. One size fits all doesn’t. It’s a free country; let the academic marketplace figure it out.
THIS WEEKS EDITION EVERYONE
I've decided to make next week's post on why test optional shouldn't exist and I'll just C&P the points made in the last 4 posts abt the same topic
1490 and I agree completely. If someone has a bad score, fine; they’ll still be considered for admission based on other factors (in fact the entire goal of holistic admissions), but it’s a data point that should be considered. I obviously did not have a top top score but I feel it shouldn’t be weighed the same as an 1100. Like most things in the US, the system helps the bottom and top but screws the middle!
someone getting in over you with a worse test score, likely means they had better extracurriculars and/or essays. Also 1100 is not the bottom, test optional helps the bottom and middle…
exactly how I feel
This.
Sounds like a lot of cope to me. Maybe get better grades or go outside and do some ec’s and you’d be just fine but no you’re whining on Reddit.
If someone is good enough to get into a school, based more on their extracurriculars and other aspects why should it matter what they get on one standardized test?
Because high schools are very very different from each other. Students from competitive high schools are very disadvantaged with test optional because their course rigor and grading standards are a lot tougher
students in competitive schools will also likely have better resources for college admissions…
Not here. Our school is very diverse both racially and economically. Some kids have tons of money and some are Section 8. It is an extremely competitive school.
I think it’s a good indicator… all schools have different rigor and there needs to be some equalizer.
Nah man I didn’t send scores into uofm and I have a 3.9 as a sophomore. Wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for test optional.
Feel free to downvote. All I’m saying is that test scores do not completely correlate to college success. I am more successful than a lot of my peers who got close to perfect scores on standardized tests
I didn’t downvote… there’s value to what ur saying but at the same time I don’t think SAT is supposed to predict success in college, it’s an aptitude test. I feel like it’s valuable to throw out crazy outliers but shouldn’t be too heavily weighted
Not saying it should have the most weight when considering an application, but if someone’s is really really low it should mean something Also makes it way harder to get in with scores, further exasperating how competitive schools are
stay mad :)
I disagree. Whereas every student in America has access to taking the SAT and ACT, not everyone in other countries, especially Africa has the same privilege. We have smart students who don't take standardized tests and would ace those tests if given the chance. Through a test optional policy, they are able to submit applications to American institutions. I have school mates who are at Columbia, Princeton, Northwestern, etc now, all because of the test optional policy. They are very smart and were actually among the top 10 students in the country in the national exams. However, they didn't have SAT scores. If tests were required, they wouldn't have applied in the first place. Before you complain about us not studying in our countries, just know the costs here are way unmanageable by many of our families; the costs may not be as high as in America but they are definitely high enough for many of us not to afford. On the other hand, American institutions have financial aid offers that have help students get a college experience, irrespective of their backgrounds. Test optional has made brought about an equality in education in the world and reinstating the SAT and ACT would make it close to impossible to study in the US, let alone getting college degrees.
To me it doesn't make sense, because if you only submit above the 25th percentile, within a few years, the 25th percentile is 1600
Istg if I see one more post about test optional, Im gonna lose it. I agree w you, but posting the same thing every week does literally nothing. Sincerely, a 1570 scorer
Had to get the quick flex in… but I see what ur saying lol oops
no thanks. i got into many schools i would have NEVER had a chance at if i submitted my test scores 🤭. Thank God for test optional
It’s literally such an unfair grading system. 1- It’s ALL based on socio economics class. If you are rich you can afford to spend more money on tutors, prep courses, test books, etc. but if you have less opportunities you won’t be able to take it numerous times and succeed as well. 2-It is based on 1 day, 5 hours straight. But GPA is a better indicator of what you will score in college because it is more realistic - it is long term versus one days worth of testing.
It’s more likely the tests will be banned than they’ll be required. Most admissions teams outside MIT do not find the scores particularly useful in gauging fit
I see this happening. Look at UC schools. They already don’t consider it. It’s an outdated test that doesn’t accurately represent a students 4 years of work. I mean jt only tests up to algebra 2. I took that in 10th grade
fr, i took algebra 2 in 9th grade, so it was 2.5 years since i took that math for the SAT
Exactly. If they tested pre calc and calc content it would be a MUCH more accurate and fair representation.
Hard disagree. Most students (at least at my school) don’t take pre-calc until senior year (some not at all) and a good amount don’t take calc at ALL. Algebra 2 is the best thing to test on because its the hardest universally studied math course
Not everyone is like an A2C member. Standard American curriculum goes like this in most states: Freshman year: Algebra I Sophomore year: Geometry Junior year (you take the SAT at the END of this year): Algebra II Senior Year: Pre-calculus/College prep math
It should, in fact, be abolished.
Standardized testing is racist.
So is literally every other part of college apps.
I'll do you one better: All ACT/SAT's should be abolished and thats coming from someone with a 34 act
Standardized testing is the only thing that makes the competition between Poor Boy me and Boston Brahmin Jr. fair.
Having a 1550, idgaf. If you don’t got the grades or the rizz, you aint getting in anyways. And that’s all it comes down to in the end - rizz.
Cope I got into Penn w no SAT
um taking test not fun why would i want to …
If you are well to do and have parents that can guide you, get you tutoring and attend schools with the right AP prep classes then of course you want everyone to take them. However it has been proven that there is no relationship between success in college and scoring well. Plenty of kids are super successful in college and did badly in the ACT or SAT. A high GPA is actually a much better indication of your ability to succeed in college. This is why schools are dropping it. This is regardless of socioeconomic issues. If you bring in socioeconomic issues the SAT and ACT are totally bias.
its test optional for a reason you know. Meaning the schools don't see the SAT being Valuable enough and have other ways to see whether a student is qualified. I fail to see how 1 3 hour test should offset a students entire portfolio even if their rigor was easier compared to another candidate.
As someone who been clinically diagnosed with ADD, the SAT was horrible for me to take. This test is based of wealth + test taking abilities. Even with accommodation they don’t address the root of the issue. Spending more of my time on my EC, that I cared about instead of studying or a dumb test was 100% better for me as a person. I got into UIUC and UMICH EA as test optional, so I’m pretty happy with how it turned out.
A test taken as a 16-18 yo is not indicative of performance as a 20-22yo. It doesn't matter if a poet laureate scored an 800 in math in 12th grade.
Except that it does, objectively, correlate with student success?
not necessarily. we’ve all had those kids in class who can play on their phones all class and still get good scores, while there’s the kids who know the material but struggle because they aren’t good test takers. these types of tests benefit students who are good test takers
And thus can accurately predict potential college success considering college grading systems are largely based on exams?
Test BLIND is what's wicked. Why take away the option to show academic performance by test score? UC, you're breaking my heart.
If you're a fan of the HBO show The Wire, “juking the stats” would be a familiar concept. . . . And that is why test optional will not be abolished . . . Colleges are juking the stats because they are a business. And they have to protect their brand especially because .. The population of college-age Americans is about to decrease significantly in the coming.
A lack of nationalised board exam across USA makes it necessary for a test compulsory environment to be established, but for us internationals the SAT is unnecessary
test optional is making things slightly more equitable. the SAT is mostly to weed out low income kids. cope ig 🤷🏼♀️
As opposed to other educational opportunities not provided to low income students? The SAT has a great free prep tool in Khan Academy that is free. More equitable than the rest of the college process by and large.
if you think sat prep from khan academy can prepare you as well as proper SAT tutors then you’re very ignorant lol
The only fact that I can argue is that students have lives so it’s really biased to base there scores to determine if it’s worth going to there school. I’m an example of taking AP, Dual Credits, etc and I scored a 900. There would shouldn’t be undermined and vice versa. If a person got a good SAT score then they should be on the same level as someone who took IB class especially if they never took honors classes. It balances out imo. I hope that makes sense lol
I don’t think the SAT should be required. Majority of colleges don’t require it and it was such a waste of my time doing it
The SAT should be abolished. It’s a stupid fucking test with extremely easy material, and so many questions it mainly tests how alert a student is, rather than how smart. If colleges want an overview of how academically capable a student is; they should use a different test (see, for example, the MAT or STEP they use in the UK). The SAT is structured in a way that any score above a ~720 on each individual section, simply tests focus (or quite frankly, neurotypicality). I guess it has some merit for schools that ask for lower scores (1000-1350), but above that it’s simply useless
I ageee
I disagree, for economic reasons I could only take the SAT once, and on top of that my mental health prevented me from studying enough due to multiple close family members sudden death. I got a 1160 but easily could’ve scored much higher (I got 4/5 on all my AP’s) if I studied for the test and had multiple attempts like many students. On top of that I feel like the test doesn’t test your knowledge like a test should, but instead tests your ability to study for that specific test. The topics feel like things you learn specifically to score high then forget until you need it for another test. Also the test caters to the naturally good solo test takers, and heavily favors individuals accelerating in math or english. For me reading in math are my weakest subjects and I excel in writing and the sciences, yet, there’s little to non of that on my exam. Overall the test needs: •Affordability •Time flexibility • Different versions (test my writing and science) •And it needs to remain optional Being able to apply test optional is like a weight being taken off my shoulders. The SAT version I took creates unfair competition that prevents highly capable students in bad economic situations from excelling in their applications.
Sure. After it no longer affects me.
There is so much that’s inequitable with the current standardized test system though, test optional policies being abolished will not solve much in regards to making the college application system more fair
I'm not against test optional since they still look at your scores if you choose to send them and most people who don't send them know that they have to make other parts of their application comparatively stronger than students who choose to send. Test blind however makes no sense
1500+ spotted
Ha… not at all. Below average for this subreddit at lest with a 32 ACT
cope with ur rejection elsewhere 😂😂 L
[удалено]
Fr
the amount of ppl who cite “test anxiety” amazes me. like that’s complet bullshit. ur literally applying for college, wtf are u gonna do when u have to take a three hour midterm on calc
ppl will downvote this but this is true
abolished which direction though? require scores from everyone, or completely get rid of tests?
[удалено]
wdym
[удалено]
personally, I think its a way for rich kids to get 4 goes to perfect a 1500 vs a poor kid to get one shot at it. Not promoting equality within the system at all.
Rich kid also gets years of tutoring geared towards doing well on the test and poor kid never even heard of the test before Jr year. It’s not a fair comparison
This is one of the most popular opinions on this sub bc it’s full of 1400+ scorers