• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

University of Chicago eliminates SAT/ACT requirement

JMaximus

JMaximus

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
604
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
University of Chicago eliminates SAT/ACT requirement

The University of Chicago will no longer require ACT or SAT scores from U.S. students, sending a jolt through elite institutions of higher education as it becomes the first top-10 research university to join the test-optional movement.
. . .

Debate over admission testing has intensified in recent years. The SAT and ACT were launched in the 20th century with the idealistic goals of rewarding academic merit, breaking social class barriers and giving all students a chance to prove they belong in college. But studies have found a strong link between scores and economic background. Privileged students, with wider access to books, museums, tutors and other forms of cultural or academic enrichment, tend to get higher marks.
. . .

Recent research suggests that test-optional policies are helping colleges lure more disadvantaged students to apply, although financial aid and other factors play a major role in recruiting.
. . .

John Boyer, dean of the undergraduate college, said the university's goal is to provide equal access to elite education - for "all citizens, not just those born in certain Zip codes."
Click to expand...

Probably for the best, really. If you ultimately and more easily want to base your admissions standards on the race of your applicants, it just makes sense to dispense with pointless formalities like measurements of their academic abilities.
 
JMaximus said:
University of Chicago eliminates SAT/ACT requirement



Probably for the best, really. If you ultimately and more easily want to base your admissions standards on the race of your applicants, it just makes sense to dispense with pointless formalities like measurements of their academic abilities.
Click to expand...

I see the point of this. But, with that being said, I'm still a little uneasy about it. Many of those "privileged students" study their tails off from age 8 with all those tutors and private lessons to ace the SAT. And they were doing it while the unprivileged kids were skateboarding and playing hoops. So now you are taking away an incentive for that kind of studying, You are playing to the lowest common denominator, rather than somehow trying to lift everyone up to that elite level.

I believe in a level playing field. But whenever possible, I would prefer to level it by lifting the lower edge up, not lowering the upper edge down.
 
I wonder if this will cause more people to lie about their families heritage, like a female senator from masaachusetts did, to receive preferential admissions?

Just what the world needs more stupid people thinking the slip of paper they "bees done got"makes them educated about the world.
 
UtahBill said:
Lack of Academics didn't stop George Bush or John McCain.....
Click to expand...

They might be the last, though. Them and Trump. Or maybe not, level playing field and all. Maybe a lack of academic achievement will be the norm in American politics. All about presentation and ratings.
After all, you can't trust intelligent people. They have their own agendas.
 
I can't imagine a better predictor of future academic success, than prior academic success.

This really is a slap to those students that excel in their studies, and demonstrate and display it via these tests. Virtually every time I've met an individual that claims, "I know the subject matter, I'm just a poor test taker", it's easily obvious to me they don't know the subject matter. I've seen it time after time.

Sorry, I see the excuse of not being able to perform well on a test as, as just that: an excuse!

Put me against this idea.
 
When the kids graduate high school and can only read at the third grade level they had to do something.
 
ataraxia said:
I see the point of this. But, with that being said, I'm still a little uneasy about it. Many of those "privileged students" study their tails off from age 8 with all those tutors and private lessons to ace the SAT. And they were doing it while the unprivileged kids were skateboarding and playing hoops. So now you are taking away an incentive for that kind of studying, You are playing to the lowest common denominator, rather than somehow trying to lift everyone up to that elite level.

I believe in a level playing field. But whenever possible, I would prefer to level it by lifting the lower edge up, not lowering the upper edge down.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And how will the university test for demonstrated knowledge? High schools vary greatly. A 3.5 GPA in a poorer performing Chicago Public School, might not even be a 2.0 in one of the city's better prep schools!

The ACT/SAT is a way to cut through the differences, and find out exactly what the hell the kid learned and mastered.
 
Chomsky said:
I can't imagine a better predictor of future academic success, than prior academic success.

This really is a slap to those students that excel in their studies, and demonstrate and display it via these tests. Virtually every time I've met an individual that claims, "I know the subject matter, I'm just a poor test taker", it's easily obvious to me they don't know the subject matter. I've seen it time after time.

Sorry, I see the excuse of not being able to perform well on a test as, as just that: an excuse!

Put me against this idea.
Click to expand...

The students accepted into UChicago will be exceptional anyway- the test scores just bias the type of exceptional student that gets in.

Remember...this is the school where ‘fun goes to die’.

This model probably can’t be generalized as well to larger, less selective schools.
 
JMaximus said:
University of Chicago eliminates SAT/ACT requirement

Probably for the best, really. If you ultimately and more easily want to base your admissions standards on the race of your applicants, it just makes sense to dispense with pointless formalities like measurements of their academic abilities.
Click to expand...

FWIW, "back in the day," top flight schools administered their own entrance examinations. (The preceding link goes to one of Harvard's entrance exams. Click here to see one of MIT's.) Indeed, in the early 1900s, the SAT was in part a "copy and paste" from the entrance exams from those schools.

For an interesting overview of the SAT see: A (Mostly) Brief History Of The SAT And ACT Tests.


Harvard now allows students to self-report their SAT/ACT scores; however, if offered admission, one must have the College Board corroborate one's attestations.


As for my own view of colleges use of the SAT/ACT and the tests themselves, well, I see standardized tests as an indicator of potential grade inflation/deflation, but I think they are useful for little else. For instance, my four kids were all basically "straight A" students and they happened to score highly on the SAT/ACT, but what did that show? Well, not much because they also scored fours on their AP exams. Among students who don't have other means of demonstrating their aptitude, or whose aptitude isn't manifest in the high school grades, the SAT/ACT may be useful. For instance, college admissions personnel seeing "so so" high school grades but having stellar SAT/ACT scores will likely want to discern what's what that gave rise to that incongruity.

At the end of the day, going to college isn't just about going to class and mastering the curriculum; there's a lot of learning that doesn't happen in class and for which one doesn't receive marks. College administrators know that and they ardently attempt to admit individuals whom they think (based on what little info they have) will be overall positive contributors to and embraces of the school, its community, its values and its culture.
 
smallvoice said:
Nor you, apparently.
Click to expand...
The GOP process of selecting viable candidates almost guarantees that the dumbest will get nominated....sadly, I voted for Bush. Please forgive me.
However, I never would have voted for McCain.
 
Threegoofs said:
The students accepted into UChicago will be exceptional anyway- the test scores just bias the type of exceptional student that gets in.

Remember...this is the school where ‘fun goes to die’.

This model probably can’t be generalized as well to larger, less selective schools.
Click to expand...
Well, yes they possibly will be exceptional at UC, though I'm not so sure. But they will not be the very best they could have been.

But interestingly, you do make an argument where this policy could be seen to have a less detrimental effect at the elite institutions that will generally definitely attract exceptional students regardless. But what about DePaul and other mid-level schools that have a wide range of applicants? I can see this being detrimental for them.

But my main concern: Without standardized testing, how do you compare the knowledge & mastery of a kid from Hirsch or Englewood High, with a kid from Loyola Academy or New Trier, based upon transcripts? I don't see how it can be done, amongst such disparate programs.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, yes they possibly will be exceptional at UC, though I'm not so sure. But they will not be the very best they could have been.

But interestingly, you do make an argument where this policy could be seen to have a less detrimental effect at the elite institutions that will generally definitely attract exceptional students regardless. But what about DePaul and other mid-level schools that have a wide range of applicants? I can see this being detrimental for them.

But my main concern: Without standardized testing, how do you compare the knowledge & mastery of a kid from Hirsch or Englewood High, with a kid from Loyola Academy or New Trier, based upon transcripts? I don't see how it can be done, amongst such disparate programs.
Click to expand...

In the electronic age we live, substantially all high schools have been scored. Most schools have a pretty good handle on this without the SAT's....

Just a couple of examples that the underlying data for this sort of thing is collected and analyzed.

https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-public-high-schools/

https://www.bestcolleges.com/features/best-high-schools-in-america/


holbritter said:
A college degree with fall in value quickly. Very bad move.
Click to expand...

Sorry, how does not requiring an SAT/ACT diminish a college degree? This is about admissions. Most great schools understand what makes a successful student in their respective schools and has determined the SAT/ACT to be substantially irrelevant to that determination. To my knowledge, no one is changing the requirements to earn a degree.

The SAT/ACT have long been accused of an affluent WASP experience bias. At the end of the day, they largely measure the student's ability to take that test. The more affluent students typically have an advantage because they come to the exam well-coached on ACT/SAT tests.

New research uncovers hidden bias in college admissions tests: IU Bloomington Newsroom: Indiana University Bloomington

https://www.brookings.edu/research/...hlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/
 
Last edited:
What's the big deal? If the kids get in and they can't cut it they'll fall by the wayside.

The OP played his hand though by going right to the "race" point.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
What's the big deal? If the kids get in and they can't cut it they'll follow by the wayside.

The OP played his hand though by going right to the "race" point.
Click to expand...

How are they going to base acceptance?
How many solid kids that should get in won't by some arbitrary standard that eliminates them?
 
ludin said:
How are they going to base acceptance?
How many solid kids that should get in won't by some arbitrary standard that eliminates them?
Click to expand...

Why do you care? Or do you?


If it drags down the college it will reflect in the credibility of the degree.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, yes they possibly will be exceptional at UC, though I'm not so sure. But they will not be the very best they could have been.

But interestingly, you do make an argument where this policy could be seen to have a less detrimental effect at the elite institutions that will generally definitely attract exceptional students regardless. But what about DePaul and other mid-level schools that have a wide range of applicants? I can see this being detrimental for them.

But my main concern: Without standardized testing, how do you compare the knowledge & mastery of a kid from Hirsch or Englewood High, with a kid from Loyola Academy or New Trier, based upon transcripts? I don't see how it can be done, amongst such disparate programs.
Click to expand...

True....I’m not sure how you can rank them.

But I bet the UChicago admissions people know.

When I was on an admissions committee, we were a top ranked professional school, and we dropped our testing requirement 25 years ago, because the test results correlated quite poorly with academic success.

We could however, rank the colleges and compare GPAs that way, which was a strikingly better measure.

I’m guessing UChicago has similar data for their students, and has found high SATs to be less predictive of success than a variety of other measures they use, in addition to constraining the diversity they want.
 
poweRob said:
Why do you care? Or do you?
If it drags down the college it will reflect in the credibility of the degree.
Click to expand...

Sure I care why wouldn't I? The dumbing down of America to play to the lowest common demominator is stupid.
We wonder why we are behind other countries? There are reason. 1. Being the constant lowering of standards.

You still didn't answer the question.
Why is that?
 
ludin said:
Sure I care why wouldn't I? The dumbing down of America to play to the lowest common demominator is stupid.
We wonder why we are behind other countries? There are reason. 1. Being the constant lowering of standards.

You still didn't answer the question.
Why is that?
Click to expand...

competition. IF it drags down the quality of their degree students will go to another university and this uni will change their policies to compete and raise their degree's quality. I doubt that will be the issue but... it will work itself out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom