> This is why applaud California's recent decision to halt standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT, as a mandatory placement criteria for entering university. All those tests measure, given the youth and maturity of traditional high school students, is extreme preparation and not performance or potential.
But that also applies for grades as well. High school is preparation for college. Shouldn't colleges select for people who are prepared over those who are not? Should we get rid of grades, extracurriculars, etc? What should colleges use then? Just legacy admissions?
> I think research generally bears this out across a variety of metrics and meaures including violent crime data. The human brain is still developing until around age 24 give or take two years.
So then let those people reapply for college when they "mature". What does that have to do with SATs?
> Preparation in that regard is a socio-economic stratifier as it takes time and money outside of the student's own initiative and state provided education.
This is hilarious. SATs and ACTs acted as an objective factor against "socio-economic" factors. High school grades are unreliable as different schools grade differently. It also prevents against wealthier students buying better grades by paying for people to do their homework for them. It guards against wealthier students being able to afford quality extracurricular activities vs poor students.
The SATs and ACTs were the only objective factor a less advantaged minority group could use to show discrimination in admission. It existed as an objective national measure and currently, it's the only ones that we have in college admissions. Frankly, it's the only test we have to measure actual discrimination in colleges. And the virtue signalers want to get rid of it?
Your entire comment is in favor of GT score and SATs. You even said that you were a "dumb 17 year old". You weren't prepared.
> Generally, everybody who entered the military as a teenager notices dramatic improvement on that test when retaking it later life even with no preparation.
No kidding. That's true for everything. It's why you can join the military later in life.
So the military and colleges should take everyone who isn't prepared? All you are arguing for is people should enter military and colleges at different ages because some people are less prepared than others at certain ages.
I don't know why you are so hung up about SATs, ASVAB, only. Why not grades? Why not extracurriculars? Your argument applies to those as well. People mature at different ages. So lets get rid of every measure and let anyone in.
Everyone is against the most fair and objective test measure. There are so many media articles and social media spam about it. Not so much about legacy admissions and the real privileges.
> Why not let all people wait and apply once they mature?
Yes that's my point. Let people keep trying.
> Why single out “those” people without an artificial unearned advantage?
Who is singling out anyone? If anything you are the one singling people out.
Your comment makes no sense. What are you arguing? That everyone should wait for everyone else? If so, then that's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Think about what you are saying. So if you get a driver's license, you think you should be forced to wait until everyone else pass their driving test before you are allowed to drive?
Just because you couldn't pass some military test, everyone else should wait to until you can pass?
Talk about being selfish and wanting an "artificial unearned advantage".
But that also applies for grades as well. High school is preparation for college. Shouldn't colleges select for people who are prepared over those who are not? Should we get rid of grades, extracurriculars, etc? What should colleges use then? Just legacy admissions?
> I think research generally bears this out across a variety of metrics and meaures including violent crime data. The human brain is still developing until around age 24 give or take two years.
So then let those people reapply for college when they "mature". What does that have to do with SATs?
> Preparation in that regard is a socio-economic stratifier as it takes time and money outside of the student's own initiative and state provided education.
This is hilarious. SATs and ACTs acted as an objective factor against "socio-economic" factors. High school grades are unreliable as different schools grade differently. It also prevents against wealthier students buying better grades by paying for people to do their homework for them. It guards against wealthier students being able to afford quality extracurricular activities vs poor students.
The SATs and ACTs were the only objective factor a less advantaged minority group could use to show discrimination in admission. It existed as an objective national measure and currently, it's the only ones that we have in college admissions. Frankly, it's the only test we have to measure actual discrimination in colleges. And the virtue signalers want to get rid of it?
Your entire comment is in favor of GT score and SATs. You even said that you were a "dumb 17 year old". You weren't prepared.
> Generally, everybody who entered the military as a teenager notices dramatic improvement on that test when retaking it later life even with no preparation.
No kidding. That's true for everything. It's why you can join the military later in life.
So the military and colleges should take everyone who isn't prepared? All you are arguing for is people should enter military and colleges at different ages because some people are less prepared than others at certain ages.
I don't know why you are so hung up about SATs, ASVAB, only. Why not grades? Why not extracurriculars? Your argument applies to those as well. People mature at different ages. So lets get rid of every measure and let anyone in.
Everyone is against the most fair and objective test measure. There are so many media articles and social media spam about it. Not so much about legacy admissions and the real privileges.