NABC just proposed that SAT and ACT requirements be permanently eliminated from NCAA initial-eligibility standards

[Bayside44]

So to be clear .. you are all in agreement that hiring “most women” with liberal arts degrees is bad for business.. I’m really having trouble believing this is not only believed but admitted to

No - not the women part or liberal art degree. I mostly hire women and have a liberal arts degree.

I'd say this - someone shows up from say Georgetown, sense of entitlement, parents have invested a small fortune in them. Another person shows up from a "lesser" school, worked their way through college, just wants a shot. Lots of reasons by door #2 is more appealing.

 

[tptcuse]

My two most recent hires were Lemoyne and SU grads. Lots of Clarkson grads where I work as well.

And we use all media to advertise.

I hear that school has the most brilliant graduates.

 

[OttoMets]

I’ll tell you why it’s not a fair test ... because children of the rich / elite have a huge advantage by being able to take prep courses which teach you how to take the test and artificially raise your score hundreds of points .. while a lot of kids can’t afford them

The privileged also manage to get doctors notes that say they can take the test “untimed” due to some made up fake ass medical condition ...

That might make it an unfair world, but it doesn't make the test unfair: it's not a zero-sum scoring system.

A poor kid who's smart and well-prepared can still get his 1,600.

 

[Cusefan0307]

There’s far too many people that did no work in HS that score well in the SAT’s and that decides their future. Not exactly rewarding hard work.

 

[OttoMets]

There’s far too many people that did no work in HS that score well in the SAT’s and that decides their future. Not exactly rewarding hard work.

(Me)

But, devil's advocate, why not?

I did well on the exam (1,440 - 670 math, 770 verbal, IIRC) because I'm well-read and smart. Smart enough not to worry too much about the busy-work that was most of high school, but also smart enough to average mid-high 90s in everything that wasn't a math course (calculus...yikes, that didn't go well). So from one perspective it might not seem fair to reward my laziness, on the other my SAT success seemed to demonstrate some foundational level of skill that would apply well to college and beyond.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I’ll tell you why it’s not a fair test ... because children of the rich / elite have a huge advantage by being able to take prep courses which teach you how to take the test and artificially raise your score hundreds of points .. while a lot of kids can’t afford them

The privileged also manage to get doctors notes that say they can take the test “untimed” due to some made up fake ass medical condition ...

And being an athlete gets you into schools you otherwise wouldn't get into.

 

[721Comstock]

(Me)

But, devil's advocate, why not?

I did well on the exam (1,440 - 670 math, 770 verbal, IIRC) because I'm well-read and smart. Smart enough not to worry too much about the busy-work that was most of high school, but also smart enough to average mid-high 90s in everything that wasn't a math course (calculus...yikes, that didn't go well). So from one perspective it might not seem fair to reward my laziness, on the other my SAT success seemed to demonstrate some foundational level of skill that would apply well to college and beyond.

Yup. I am "that guy" too -
Did about the least amount of work required, still got good grades, and over 1400 on SATs.

I am an excellent tester.
Particularly with multiple choice, since the answers are RIGHT THERE.

It also helped that I had a nearly photographic memory when I was young.
Now, it's more like an Etch-a-Sketch.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

And being an athlete gets you into schools you otherwise wouldn't get into.

Which is more reason why the test is stupid when determining eligibility for athletes

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Which is more reason why the test is stupid when determining eligibility for athletes

Global eligibility is different than admissions to individual colleges. Kids who should not get I to a school are given free passes if they have certain talents, like athletics (music could be one as well.)
I have no problem with the NCAA saying that we have to have a baseline of academic credibility.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Global eligibility is different than admissions to individual colleges. Kids who should not get I to a school are given free passes if they have certain talents, like athletics (music could be one as well.)
I have no problem with the NCAA saying that we have to have a baseline of academic credibility.

Neither do I .. but for athletes going to school on athletic scholarships , not sure that an SAT score should weigh much

 

[TexanMark]

There’s far too many people that did no work in HS that score well in the SAT’s and that decides their future. Not exactly rewarding hard work.

I agree in part...yes I saw plenty of that in my time. However, back in the late 70s kids who were smart but lazy or not focused would flunk out. I saw plenty of students that smoked pot and dabbled in drugs that simply never came back after 1 or 2 semesters. I have no problem with standardized testing though.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I agree in part...yes I saw plenty of that in my time. However, back in the late 70s kids who were smart but lazy or not focused would flunk out. I saw plenty of students that smoked pot and dabbled in drugs that simply never came back after 1 or 2 semesters. I have no problem with standardized testing though.

Actually, I was kind of talking about myself in a way. I did relatively well on the SAT's(1350) and relatively well in school(low 90's), but I didn't exactly work that hard and I didn't take any prep courses. I was pretty busy with soccer and basketball as well.

There were a few kids in my frat at SU who got in strictly because their parents were wealthy and some of them didn't last that long.

 

[Cusesky8214]

 

[dollarbill44]

I don't have a problem with a one time exemption for this reason. I am concerned about doing away with the test requirement in general. I remember back when there was a minimum score requirement only (before they implemented the sliding scale). I think it was 800 on SAT. There was rampant cheating by high schools to get players into college by passing them through. Heck, Dexter Manley made it through college without knowing how to read.
The sliding scale was put in as a check, iirc, to make sure this didn't happen, while at the same time allowing a lower score for kids that didn't test well but put in the class work. I fear that removing this requirement will bring back the old system.
I'm not sure why colleges are going to forego testing for all students either. There were always schools that emphasized grades over testing and vice versa. Admissions people that I talked to always said that test results were a tool they used as part of the overall picture of a student. Maybe the common app has inundated admissions offices with applications so they rely more on computer screening and this is messing with their admissions vetting. Perhaps it's time to eliminate these and revert back to the old systems.
Warning: old man mode- in my day(late 80s) only the top high school students dreamt of submitting double digit numbers of applications because it was an onerous process. Most of us completed between 3 and 6 apps, at least initially. Nowadays, with the common app, average kids are submitting 8 to 10, at least at my kids high school. I know many schools also require additional essays, but those are rehashed and slightly modified to meet specific criteria.
People are going to find ways to cheat, no matter the system. Eliminating checks and balances rather than tweaking them seems like it opens up more avenues than it closes.

 

[Brooky03]

I get that standardized testing is not the greatest and there are disadvantages some experience that others don’t. But a decently smart individual can get a decent score on standardized tests with no prep. We’re talking about athletes just qualifying for enrollment. We’re not talking about splitting hairs between a 2400 and 2380 to decide who gets into Harvard.

I could see lowering the bar to make it easier to qualify. I don’t know why standardized tests need to be thrown out altogether, though.

 

[AZOrange]

This is a perfect response, because it shows you're still not getting it.

You're interpreting it from the perspective of what's fair to the men. Not the women. And justifying it by saying that what's fair for the men is what's good for the business. And what's unfair to the women doesn't have any consequence to the business.

Come on.

This is some text book bias at work. It's 2020, fellas. We can be more self-aware these days.

first thing I do before I interview anyone is toss their resume out. I glean absolutely nothing from it and anything of import I can get in discussion. Resumes are the most misleading piece of evidence in the interview process. Sets biases before people even walk in (good or bad). After spending time getting advanced degrees I’m a big believer in whole brain thinking. So I’m looking for a more diverse group. I thought the WB stuff was flimsy but after really getting into it, it’s game changing

 

[AZOrange]

I get that standardized testing is not the greatest and there are disadvantages some experience that others don’t. But a decently smart individual can get a decent score on standardized tests with no prep. We’re talking about athletes just qualifying for enrollment. We’re not talking about splitting hairs between a 2400 and 2380 to decide who gets into Harvard.

I could see lowering the bar to make it easier to qualify. I don’t know why standardized tests need to be thrown out altogether, though.

Ultimately what’s the point? Is there really a diff between a 700 or 800 or whatever the bare minimum is? These folks are here to play sports.

 

[dan7800]

At least for us, an unwritten reason (that nobody will openly admit to) regarding why standardized testing is going away is due to the "skewing" that was recently introduced.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Wish they were when I was in HS, its a sham, not a true indicator of intelligence, some people don't test well.

It's not an intelligence test. It's a predictive text as to success in college, hence the concentration on math, vocabulary and deductive reasoning.

correlation to sat and college success - Google Search