Kolek planning to go pro
Yeah, I'm just not seeing this. At all.I think you're very mistaken if you believe standardized testing - which we know is a poor predictor of academic success - is the one thing keeping the elite academic institutions of America from admitting hordes of unqualified students whose need for remediation will drag down the entire student body. We agree that schools have an interest in admitting students capable of meeting their academic standards. But there's little evidence that standardized tests are the best, or even a good, way of doing that.Look, we're not talking about C- students getting into Stanford and MIT because they no longer require SAT scores. They're getting exceptional students, regardless. And if the university over 4+ years can't properly educate those students, it is indeed an indictment of that school.
The Oregon Essentiual Skills requirement began in 2008. How did they ever manage to know whether kids could add, subtract, multiply, divide and read before then?
Nobody said C students at elite schools. But, I know my professor friend at DePaul has talked about having multiple students admitted solely on GPA under a program DePaul has for CPS students barely being literate and flunking out immediately. Working in higher ed myself I've seen too many situations where students are not prepared coming out of high school and can't make it beyond the first or second year.
That's why the standards were put in place. And the whole idea that dropping the requirement is all about helping minority kids because they can't attain them further shows just what woke progressives really think of minorities.
Ahh....I see we've reached the "I'm going to ignore studies and only focus on my anecdotal experience" part of the debate.
Does everything you write have to be filled with the latest Fox News catchphrases? Think for yourself, man.Anyhow, it's been well established that standardized tests discriminate against minority and lower income students (something that often goes hand-in-hand in this country). This isn't because they are a minority or poor. It's because they often attend schools with less resources and worse teachers, are more likely to come from families with less educational attainment and focus and are exposed to fewer education activities and resources outside the classroom. The Oregon leaders recognition of this is not an insult to those students. It's a recognition of their realities.
So eliminating the proficiency exam allows those schools with less resources and worse teachers to now graduate students with less educational attainment. Not sure how that fixes anything.
I see we've reached the "I'm going to ignore studies and only focus on my anecdotal experience" part of the debate.
Also, the "I know a guy who just so happens to work in that field and he totally agrees with me" phase of the discussion.
In fairness, we often reach both of those points within the first three posts in any given thread.
In my anecdotal experience we do not
Most colleges and universities are able discern the difference between students from schools you mention without the need for standardized testing.
How do they discern this? I've often wondered, especially since more and more schools are dropping the ACT/SAT requirements. Perhaps in state schools who get mostly in-state applicants kind of know I suppose. But if that's not the case, how would they know a kid who has a similar GPA, class load, extracurriculars, etc but from a school with lower standards who might not be ready for the rigors of college classes without some sort of introductory/remedial level courses?
I think the basic issue is whether or not the state should impose some sort of statewide "proficiency" requirement other than "passing your classes." For instance, in Wisconsin, the Department of Public Instruction outlines what classes a student needs to take to graduate. When I was a kid, the public school district figured out what classes met those requirements...I took them....I passed them...I graduated. There was not, and I believe still isn't, any sort of testing requirement to prove my proficiency. It was assumed that I was proficient based on my passing of those classes. And I did well enough in those classes that I was admitted to Marquette and was well prepared for my time on campus. This has been discussed before, but we have reduced "proficiency" to testing. Which IMO isn't how colleges and universities view proficiency. And it isn't largely how the workplace views proficiency.
I meant that colleges and universities don't utilize standardized tests in admission like they used to. But yes, you are correct that learning outcome assessments have become more strongly used in accreditation, but I am not sure if that is valuable and some think it is. We will see.
Let the state do what it wants.Up to the student and parents to make sure they are learning.It will become apparent immediately to the prospective employer by giving a reading comprehension and/or math test or higher education institute via SAT or other test if the person doesn't know squat. Unless the Feds or State eliminates allow doing that.But then again, maybe the USA wants to live in blissful DipSh!tdom.
Can you shed some light on how larger universities do it? I mean a school like MU May review all the well rounded student app but a flagship state school like Madison? How do they view extracurriculars, essays, HS rank, etc?
On a tangential note, I think the entire public school system and our next generation would benefit from changing our entire learning/teaching philosophy from basic curriculum and standardized testing to a fully Montessori philosophy which promotes student driven learning and the ultimate curiosity. Let the kids learn at their own pace, with kids of their same social age (three year blocks), feeling independent and in control, learning life skills, learning how to learn, learning respect and compassion. I’m biased, of course.
One of my good friends/associates in Belgium has his pre-teen daughters in Montessori school there and I couldn't be more impressed with them. They are intelligent and inquisitive and composed in a way that doesn't seem overly precocious or quirky.
IMHO, stimulate a child's mind when they are young and probably a good chance that they will be always an above intelligent kid and adult.Even before school age.Do the opposite and well, results may be the opposite.