Education

[Billy Hoyle]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

Ahh....

I see we've reached the "I'm going to ignore studies and only focus on my anecdotal experience" part of the debate.

[Pakuni]

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.

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.

[Pakuni]

Ahh....

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.

[muwarrior69]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

How does testing fix anything?

[Galway Eagle]

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.

They were doing that anyways really.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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

[StillAWarrior]

In my anecdotal experience we do not

Well, I know a guy that is very active on 'Scoop, and he said that we do.

[UWW2MU]

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?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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 feel like the way you are phrasing this is that schools are choosing between two people.  The vast majority of public and private schools don't do that.  They require students to meet some minimum standard of credits and GPA, with extracurriculars and other recommendations from teachers, counselors, etc.  So the answer is that they are going to admit all of those students who meet those qualifications. 

But if you talking about students who are marginally qualified, most schools have a fair understanding of the quality of the school districts in their general footprint.  They may not admit, or they may admit under the condition they take some placement tests to see where they would fit.

Remember though that schools these days admit a TON of people who don't eventually enroll.  Back in 2019, Marquette got something like 15,000 applications, admitted 12,500, and only eventually enrolled about 2,000.

And look, no school wants to end up enrolling students who can't cut it academically.

[forgetful]

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'm not sure how you can say this. Universities need to be accredited. Maintaining your accreditation is dependent upon "Assessments" of learning outcomes. Every year these become more and more rigorous in their expectations, where essentially Universities have to ask their professors to construct "proficiency tests" to assure that they are meeting their learning outcomes.

Although it is up to the University to design these, they are essentially the equivalent of the state-wide standardized tests to assess whether students are achieve the learning outcomes dictated by the State.

Notably, the push towards these learning outcome assessments being more robust, costs more and more money every year, where you now have huge staffs in "assessment" departments, and immense expenses being doled out for 10-year plans to "enhance quality" based on requirements from these accreditation institutions.

Now towards the original post:

I see this as no different than what has occurred in many states, where they froze "assessments" of learning outcomes due to the widespread transition to online learning.

Frankly, I find all these "assessments" useless as it simply creates a cost burden on good schools, and bad schools can simply beat the system by teaching strictly to the assessment. We need a way to keep predatory schools at bay, but the current systems only increase the cost of good schools, while having no effect on predatory schools.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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.

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?

[NCMUFan]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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.

They are already outlawing the ACT and I believe some schools are going SATless as well

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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?

No different than schools like Marquette.  They just have a lot more people doing it.

And these schools have software to help as well.

[21Jumpstreet]

In the process with our rising senior, sitting in California as we speak after touring schools from UCSD to Berkeley. The admissions process is very complex, each school weighs criteria slightly differently, most highly selective schools are not requiring ACT scores, actually even less selective are moving away from it.

My son is smart, lots of APs, 36 ACT, robotics kid, LAX player, volunteer, works with his Montessori school over the summer, great kid. He is looking at highly selective schools and is finding it stressful to prove himself in a 500 word essay, to prove he is the kind of kid for a particular school. Schools like this take a holistic view of a prospective student, which is great. It seems like it’s less build a resume like we did and more deep dive into a couple areas. He is still going to submit his scores, but it is written that they are not necessary. Personally, I like the idea that schools are taking a wider view of students even if it means my son doesn’t get into MIT or Stanford. He will have plenty of options and has had a tremendous head start with Montessori education 3 yo through middle school and a well regarded private, Jesuit high school.

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.

[JWags85]

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.

[warriorchick]

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.

Which may or may not have anything to do with their attending Montessori school. 

[NCMUFan]

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.

[warriorchick]

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.

True, but having met two children who attended a particular school is not enough to draw any conclusions about that type of school.

I have a very good friend who attended a very rough inner-city high school. He is intelligent and inquisitive and is now a senior executive at a nationally recognized organization. Should I assume that it was a great school?

[dgies9156]

This discussion is fascinating and exposes many of the frontiers the education system has tried to address during the 50+ years.

That said, the proof is not whether a state or local government says you "meet the standards" for high school graduation. Rather, it is whether the student is ready for the next step, be it college, vocational training or the work force. You can get rid of the tests, admit everybody. Those whose education and commitment caused them to study, work and think, will function at the next level. Those who either were cheated or didn't make the effort won't.

In Illinois, we had a debate with teachers about one of our children. A smart ass, middle school bureaucratic nitwit who had as much business running a school as I did splitting atoms told us what the standard for graduating high school in Illinois was. And about how they made sure they didn't have to deal with "problems." I reminded her that all she was doing was pushing the problem down the road and proudly creating a ward of the state. She didn't give a damn.

The fact is, in Illinois almost anyone with a pulse can earn a high school diploma. That means you have a nicely printed piece of paper.