User's avatar
Shri Shahapurkar's avatar

I was never good at testing, period. I got my schooling in India and studying meant memorizing text books and regurgitating in tests. I was easily distracted never could read end to end once let alone multiple times like the "smart" ones did. I'm 44, back then things were not as nuanced as they are today. There's a better recognition of different abilities. I would've thrived in an environment if someone had tried to teach me a concept, i loved to understand how things worked, instead of requiring me to memorize it.

The point I'm trying to make is we are at a point in time where we have the tools to recognize ones abilities. Instead of eliminating one type of testing why not invent ways to test ones strengths where they lie. Some squares will never fit through a circle. That, in my humble opinion, would be true equality.

Expand full comment
Laura Clarke's avatar

Respectfully, I disagree. Test-optional policies are a smokescreen: they let colleges look woke while still doing whatever they want. And what do they do? The best evidence we have on test-optional colleges indicates that they let in score-submitters at higher rates than non-score-submitters.

There are probably a number of reasons for that:

1. Non-score-submitters probably tend to have lower scores and be less smart and so stood lower chances of admissions anyway

2. Colleges probably assume point 1 about non-score-submitters, even if it isn't true

3. Colleges have less information about non-score-submitters. They don't want to make risky bets on such kids, who might wash out and pull down their four- and six-year graduation stats, which are important in the US News rankings

For more clear-eyed, empirical, and actionable takes on college admissions, read Clarke College Insight! :)

Expand full comment
184 more comments...

No posts