ADVERTISEMENT

OT: All Washington state colleges dropping SAT/ACT admissions requirement

chipdouglas

Hall Of Fame
Mar 16, 2005
5,446
1,326
113
5280
I don't see how this is a step forward. The comments are insanely hostile; people hate it - which increasingly seems to be the point with decisionmakers.

IMO UW stands to lose a lot of its prestige by RUNNING away from meritorious admissions even more than it has; WSU too. I'd have to think it helps ESU/WWU/EWU/CWU by obscuring the quantified gap in quality of education. As if the student debt crisis and degree inflation weren't enough, I think this will accelerate the decline of universities further.

 
Test scores aren't a good measure of who is ready for college. GPA and curriculum are better.

A lot of kids can add a couple hundred points to their score taking it a 2nd-3rd time, or doing one of the test prep classes. Everyone knows you can bump your score with strategic guessing. It's not hard to slack through 4 years of high school and then cram to get an 1100 SAT. The ACT is a little harder to game, but only a little.

The kids who do just enough to get by until SAT day tend to be lazy college students, and have a higher washout rate. Kids who work at high school and take a challenging curriculum are far more successful, regardless of test scores.

Standardized tests reduce the incentive for students to take tougher classes. When GPA and test scores are all that matters, it makes sense to take easier classes and pay for test prep. But that doesn't teach you how to study, or how to learn, and doesn't make anyone better prepared for college.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
Test scores aren't a good measure of who is ready for college. GPA and curriculum are better.

A lot of kids can add a couple hundred points to their score taking it a 2nd-3rd time, or doing one of the test prep classes. Everyone knows you can bump your score with strategic guessing. It's not hard to slack through 4 years of high school and then cram to get an 1100 SAT. The ACT is a little harder to game, but only a little.

The kids who do just enough to get by until SAT day tend to be lazy college students, and have a higher washout rate. Kids who work at high school and take a challenging curriculum are far more successful, regardless of test scores.

Standardized tests reduce the incentive for students to take tougher classes. When GPA and test scores are all that matters, it makes sense to take easier classes and pay for test prep. But that doesn't teach you how to study, or how to learn, and doesn't make anyone better prepared for college.

Much of this is accurate and squares with the research, although I think this may be an area where the research is, well, results-driven.

Is it really expected that we believe that the kid who "works hard at high school and takes a challenging curriculum" would not be the same kid who would prepare for the standardized test, or would be smart or industrious enough to determine that strategic guessing would help that student do well? Also, if strategic guessing is so easily implemented or impactful, wouldn't that raise the median and average points scored on the tests generally (and have done so for years), and again, if that kid was smart or motivated enough to "work hard" at high school and "take a challenging curriculum," wouldn't she be able to figure out a way to guess in an intelligent way on the SAT, or to spend 5 minutes in a Google search to figure out a guessing method, if that's such a major determinant of scoring?

I would agree that the kid who really worked hard to get good grades in high school, despite not being as intelligent (by conventional metrics) as the slacker kid who gets Cs in high school and then just shows up and bangs out an 1100 SAT, likely would do better in college than the slacker, but I don't think that's really what this is about or that there's some problem with slackers with Bs and Cs being overrepresented in college admissions. This really is about concerns about standardized tests being given too much weight or having a disparate impact on certain groups. Unclear that justifies ditching the tests entirely. I concede that it probably doesn't matter too much, since for the same reasons I gave above, the kids who are likely to do better on the standardized tests in most cases are the same kids working hard and getting good grades. It's just an optics move and should be considered as such.

To make sure it's clear, I am aware of the research showing a greater correlation with high school grades and doing well on the SAT. I've also noticed a very high correlation between someone being smart--the "smart" we all would recognize if cutting the shit--and having done at least well, if not necessarily at an elite level, on standardized tests.
 
Much of this is accurate and squares with the research, although I think this may be an area where the research is, well, results-driven.

Is it really expected that we believe that the kid who "works hard at high school and takes a challenging curriculum" would not be the same kid who would prepare for the standardized test, or would be smart or industrious enough to determine that strategic guessing would help that student do well? Also, if strategic guessing is so easily implemented or impactful, wouldn't that raise the median and average points scored on the tests generally (and have done so for years), and again, if that kid was smart or motivated enough to "work hard" at high school and "take a challenging curriculum," wouldn't she be able to figure out a way to guess in an intelligent way on the SAT, or to spend 5 minutes in a Google search to figure out a guessing method, if that's such a major determinant of scoring?

I would agree that the kid who really worked hard to get good grades in high school, despite not being as intelligent (by conventional metrics) as the slacker kid who gets Cs in high school and then just shows up and bangs out an 1100 SAT, likely would do better in college than the slacker, but I don't think that's really what this is about or that there's some problem with slackers with Bs and Cs being overrepresented in college admissions. This really is about concerns about standardized tests being given too much weight or having a disparate impact on certain groups. Unclear that justifies ditching the tests entirely. I concede that it probably doesn't matter too much, since for the same reasons I gave above, the kids who are likely to do better on the standardized tests in most cases are the same kids working hard and getting good grades. It's just an optics move and should be considered as such.

To make sure it's clear, I am aware of the research showing a greater correlation with high school grades and doing well on the SAT. I've also noticed a very high correlation between someone being smart--the "smart" we all would recognize if cutting the shit--and having done at least well, if not necessarily at an elite level, on standardized tests.

In the end, there are no absolutes. Some people can slack all the way through high school and do just fine in college. Others can be top 10% in high school and flunk out of college. But on average, the kid who is challenged and works through high school is more likely to do better in college. Test scores have never correlated well with which kids will make it.

There's also just the simple truth that some people can't take the pressure of a test like that. I had already decided I was going to WSU, so my biggest concern on test day was whether I'd wake up when the alarm went off. After that, all I had to do was spell my name right, and the pressure was off. One of the top students in my class took the SAT 3 times, and never broke 1,000. He spent 4 years getting nothing but A's, but then convinced himself that his whole future depended on that test, and when they said "go," his mind went blank.
 
I don't see how this is a step forward. The comments are insanely hostile; people hate it - which increasingly seems to be the point with decisionmakers.

IMO UW stands to lose a lot of its prestige by RUNNING away from meritorious admissions even more than it has; WSU too. I'd have to think it helps ESU/WWU/EWU/CWU by obscuring the quantified gap in quality of education. As if the student debt crisis and degree inflation weren't enough, I think this will accelerate the decline of universities further.

When you say decline , what is your metric to say it is on the decline ?

And you personally, what do you think the purpose of college is and what should be the driving force ?
 
Much of this is accurate and squares with the research, although I think this may be an area where the research is, well, results-driven.

Is it really expected that we believe that the kid who "works hard at high school and takes a challenging curriculum" would not be the same kid who would prepare for the standardized test, or would be smart or industrious enough to determine that strategic guessing would help that student do well? Also, if strategic guessing is so easily implemented or impactful, wouldn't that raise the median and average points scored on the tests generally (and have done so for years), and again, if that kid was smart or motivated enough to "work hard" at high school and "take a challenging curriculum," wouldn't she be able to figure out a way to guess in an intelligent way on the SAT, or to spend 5 minutes in a Google search to figure out a guessing method, if that's such a major determinant of scoring?

I would agree that the kid who really worked hard to get good grades in high school, despite not being as intelligent (by conventional metrics) as the slacker kid who gets Cs in high school and then just shows up and bangs out an 1100 SAT, likely would do better in college than the slacker, but I don't think that's really what this is about or that there's some problem with slackers with Bs and Cs being overrepresented in college admissions. This really is about concerns about standardized tests being given too much weight or having a disparate impact on certain groups. Unclear that justifies ditching the tests entirely. I concede that it probably doesn't matter too much, since for the same reasons I gave above, the kids who are likely to do better on the standardized tests in most cases are the same kids working hard and getting good grades. It's just an optics move and should be considered as such.

To make sure it's clear, I am aware of the research showing a greater correlation with high school grades and doing well on the SAT. I've also noticed a very high correlation between someone being smart--the "smart" we all would recognize if cutting the shit--and having done at least well, if not necessarily at an elite level, on standardized tests.
This is 1000% about perceived latent racism in the testing and admission process. End of story.
 
Much of this is accurate and squares with the research, although I think this may be an area where the research is, well, results-driven.

Is it really expected that we believe that the kid who "works hard at high school and takes a challenging curriculum" would not be the same kid who would prepare for the standardized test, or would be smart or industrious enough to determine that strategic guessing would help that student do well? Also, if strategic guessing is so easily implemented or impactful, wouldn't that raise the median and average points scored on the tests generally (and have done so for years), and again, if that kid was smart or motivated enough to "work hard" at high school and "take a challenging curriculum," wouldn't she be able to figure out a way to guess in an intelligent way on the SAT, or to spend 5 minutes in a Google search to figure out a guessing method, if that's such a major determinant of scoring?

I would agree that the kid who really worked hard to get good grades in high school, despite not being as intelligent (by conventional metrics) as the slacker kid who gets Cs in high school and then just shows up and bangs out an 1100 SAT, likely would do better in college than the slacker, but I don't think that's really what this is about or that there's some problem with slackers with Bs and Cs being overrepresented in college admissions. This really is about concerns about standardized tests being given too much weight or having a disparate impact on certain groups. Unclear that justifies ditching the tests entirely. I concede that it probably doesn't matter too much, since for the same reasons I gave above, the kids who are likely to do better on the standardized tests in most cases are the same kids working hard and getting good grades. It's just an optics move and should be considered as such.

To make sure it's clear, I am aware of the research showing a greater correlation with high school grades and doing well on the SAT. I've also noticed a very high correlation between someone being smart--the "smart" we all would recognize if cutting the shit--and having done at least well, if not necessarily at an elite level, on standardized tests.
The cynical may say that this will increase the pool of potential customers, eeerrr, students.
 
When you say decline , what is your metric to say it is on the decline ?

And you personally, what do you think the purpose of college is and what should be the driving force ?
How about trillions of dollars in aggregate student debt in exchange for diminishing marginal returns, as degrees - already devalued through softening curriculum - now become table stakes for anything from paralegal to administrative assistant?

I think with your second sentence, you’re invoking the mythology of the “higher purpose” of college. Fine if you want to believe it; I don’t. But that “higher purpose” sure is getting expensive. I am not even one of the older members on this board, and getting my same degree now will cost you 3x as much and not give you the edge it did when I was there. If we want to go back to the good ol’ days of loading up the steamer trunk onto the Pullman car and riding the rails out east to gaze at one’s navel, then let the prices return to the prices of those good ol’ days as well.
 
The cynical may say that this will increase the pool of potential customers, eeerrr, students.
I tend to agree the impetus is what Bleed says; however, cynically, I absolutely believe you’re right. Among other things, there is a fertility crisis with incoming generations; they can’t rely on Boomers’ kids anymore. This is not only good signaling for them, but a good insurance policy.
 
Test scores aren't a good measure of who is ready for college. GPA and curriculum are better.

A lot of kids can add a couple hundred points to their score taking it a 2nd-3rd time, or doing one of the test prep classes. Everyone knows you can bump your score with strategic guessing. It's not hard to slack through 4 years of high school and then cram to get an 1100 SAT. The ACT is a little harder to game, but only a little.

The kids who do just enough to get by until SAT day tend to be lazy college students, and have a higher washout rate. Kids who work at high school and take a challenging curriculum are far more successful, regardless of test scores.

Standardized tests reduce the incentive for students to take tougher classes. When GPA and test scores are all that matters, it makes sense to take easier classes and pay for test prep. But that doesn't teach you how to study, or how to learn, and doesn't make anyone better prepared for college.
But you’re making it sound like standardized tests were the ONLY factor - when in fact it was weighed against your GPA, your essay, your finances, your clubs, your sports, your community involvement, your personal story and even your race. What you are arguing for is weighing each of those things differently, NOT - as they are doing here - eliminating the standardized testing requirement altogether.

For all the qualifications about what SAT scores may or may not mean, who would deny there is a correlation between scores and intelligence? Students can improve their score at the margins, but you’re not taking a 750 moron SAT score into the 1400 stratosphere with “test prep” and “guessing.” There is also undeniably a strong positive correlation between good grades and good scores. Pointing out the exceptions proves the rule.

PS I’ve never been a buyer of the “I’m actually super smart, I just test badly” argument. I don’t understand how someone could claim to know a straightforward process like algebra or biology or accounting, but bomb the tests. This is not American Idol with subjective art performances. You either know that you flip the numerator when dividing fractions, or you don’t - it’s not like tests are “tricky” while assignments are not.

It’s also my understanding that various school districts are pushing for an end to grades. My brother teaches in Wenatchee and apparently they already get graded on a scale of 1-5? Elsewhere, they’re trying to abolish grades altogether. Around the country, we are running away from accountability, and I don’t think anybody’s going to like where we end up. Not a lot of all-star engineers and entrepreneurs are going to come out of the zero-accountability environment IMO. My .02
 
  • Like
Reactions: kayak15 and HCoug
How about trillions of dollars in aggregate student debt in exchange for diminishing marginal returns, as degrees - already devalued through softening curriculum - now become table stakes for anything from paralegal to administrative assistant?

I think with your second sentence, you’re invoking the mythology of the “higher purpose” of college. Fine if you want to believe it; I don’t. But that “higher purpose” sure is getting expensive. I am not even one of the older members on this board, and getting my same degree now will cost you 3x as much and not give you the edge it did when I was there. If we want to go back to the good ol’ days of loading up the steamer trunk onto the Pullman car and riding the rails out east to gaze at one’s navel, then let the prices return to the prices of those good ol’ days as well.
I believed I asked a straight forward question . Some people have different ideas what college should be. I am asking what is being diminished at WSU by allowing kids with lower scores in .
 
But you’re making it sound like standardized tests were the ONLY factor - when in fact it was weighed against your GPA, your essay, your finances, your clubs, your sports, your community involvement, your personal story and even your race. What you are arguing for is weighing each of those things differently, NOT - as they are doing here - eliminating the standardized testing requirement altogether.

For all the qualifications about what SAT scores may or may not mean, who would deny there is a correlation between scores and intelligence? Students can improve their score at the margins, but you’re not taking a 750 moron SAT score into the 1400 stratosphere with “test prep” and “guessing.” There is also undeniably a strong positive correlation between good grades and good scores. Pointing out the exceptions proves the rule.

PS I’ve never been a buyer of the “I’m actually super smart, I just test badly” argument. I don’t understand how someone could claim to know a straightforward process like algebra or biology or accounting, but bomb the tests. This is not American Idol with subjective art performances. You either know that you flip the numerator when dividing fractions, or you don’t - it’s not like tests are “tricky” while assignments are not.

It’s also my understanding that various school districts are pushing for an end to grades. My brother teaches in Wenatchee and apparently they already get graded on a scale of 1-5? Elsewhere, they’re trying to abolish grades altogether. Around the country, we are running away from accountability, and I don’t think anybody’s going to like where we end up. Not a lot of all-star engineers and entrepreneurs are going to come out of the zero-accountability environment IMO. My .02
I know some people who like it ... our competition.

BTW, re test anxiety, I buy that it may be real, even if much more often, it's just an excuse for someone who isn't all that smart but instead is dedicated or driven (admirable qualities in their own right, but not the same) or, if real, reflects someone cracking under pressure generally.

On that latter point, high-pressure situations are part of many adult professional and personal lives, including in situations like final exams in college or grad school, not to mention numerous aspects of most jobs. It also is hard to believe someone can do well on other tests, certainly in college--well enough to get very good grades in high school and succeed in college--yet just happen to bomb the SAT (multiple times). If that student can't test well or cracks under pressure, perhaps competing against a bunch of gunners at a highly selective university, instead of going to a university that isn't quite so elite, isn't the opportunity we should be going out of our way to accommodate.

It's worth pointing out that even if we buy that test anxiety is real and in the context of standardized tests is a worthy thing to consider, such that a kid is really smart, able to ace tests in "regular school" and handle other high-pressure situations with aplomb but can't think when sitting for a standardized test, it's not like that kid's life is ruined by having the standardized test be one component of the admissions process.

Let's take an example. Jimmie is "really smart" and has a 4.2 GPA (maybe with dumbed-down coursework and half-assed take-home exams, per your other points, but we'll leave that aside), and somehow has managed to do well on all his exams in high school, yet every time he takes the SAT, he just bombs it repeatedly due to the pressure and gets, say, 1000 instead of the Yale-worthy 1560 that would befit his genius. All right. Even in this 1-in-a-million scenario, it's not like requiring the SAT dooms Jimmie to a life of manual labor. If he really is super-smart but can't handle standardized tests, he can shine in the other parts of his application, get endorsements from teachers and so on, pointing out the aberrant nature of that standardized test score. Even if all that doesn't work, worst-case, he can go to some place like, well, a certain university many of us are quite fond of, ace all his courses (remember, he only does poorly on standardized tests, not in finals or any other situations where he's dealing with pressure), and transfer to a more elite school or, as many of us have done, just take his valuable degree from a solid research university and unleash that genius on the world, enjoying incredible success, since he doesn't otherwise crack under pressure.
 
I recall a number of people that had big problems with the SAT but had good grades and were clearly college material. As in their applications were stellar except for bombing the SAT. They seemed to have trouble with over analyzing multiple choice questions.

They had to get recommendations from their HS teachers and probably jump through other hoops too. But they were admitted to WSU.
 
This is 1000% about perceived latent racism in the testing and admission process. End of story.

There's an old saying in business - that which isn't measured, isn't managed.

Welcome to the sliding scale world of expectations....

Coming soon to a school district near you, no grades. No more A students, no more F students.
 
I wonder if those scores will still be required to apply for scholarships? That was the case for the incoming class at Montana State this fall. And certainly helped my son with scholarships at WSU when he started last fall.
 
There's an old saying in business - that which isn't measured, isn't managed.

Welcome to the sliding scale world of expectations....

Coming soon to a school district near you, no grades. No more A students, no more F students.

Equity. At last.
 
There's an old saying in business - that which isn't measured, isn't managed.

Welcome to the sliding scale world of expectations....

Coming soon to a school district near you, no grades. No more A students, no more F students.
Soon? I'm guessing that you don't have
school age children; Covid rules are: no letter grades, everyone passes to the next grade.
 
Where are you? My kids are getting grades. I think they may be grading easier and there is potentially ramped cheating going on but they are getting grades.
 
I believed I asked a straight forward question . Some people have different ideas what college should be. I am asking what is being diminished at WSU by allowing kids with lower scores in .
What's diminished is the concept of hierarchies of competence. Rewarding and promoting the best and the brightest. Do standardized test scores alone determine that? No, but we've reached this ridiculous place in our society where people who outperform others are passed over in an attempt to level the playing field.

That line of thinking is heartfelt, but it's the wrong way to govern (or parent). You're not leveling the playing field, you're worsening it.
 
Last edited:
There's an old saying in business - that which isn't measured, isn't managed.

Welcome to the sliding scale world of expectations....

Coming soon to a school district near you, no grades. No more A students, no more F students.
My daughter's went from Kindergarten thru 8th grade with no letter grades. 1-4 was the grading system. Parents chomped at the bit to get into that public school as the rate the kids went off to college was higher than other schools in the district.
 
Last edited:
I recall a number of people that had big problems with the SAT but had good grades and were clearly college material. As in their applications were stellar except for bombing the SAT. They seemed to have trouble with over analyzing multiple choice questions.

They had to get recommendations from their HS teachers and probably jump through other hoops too. But they were admitted to WSU.

Well I was one of the people who isn't a big fan of SAT scores. But I will say I am happy WSU made the exception for a student who attended our local high school. (who went further than bombing the SAT test) Maybe WSU's general university requirements aren't that hard and they grade easy, making us a "weaker" school academically. Maybe the prestige just isn't there, but while I was on vacation I was called and told the student I helped with had 4 A's and 1 A- the second semester, to go along with 3 A's and two passes (classes were offered P/F).

We should probably overhaul the curriculum so we can be more prestigious and exclusive.
 
What's diminished is the concept of hierarchies of competence. Rewarding and promoting the best and the brightest. Do standardized test scores along determine that? No, but we've reached this ridiculous place in our society where people who outperform others are passed over in an attempt to level the playing field.

That line of thinking is heartfelt, but it's the wrong way to govern (or parent). You're not leveling the playing field, you're worsening it.
Are you talking about fairness?
 
Where are you? My kids are getting grades. I think they may be grading easier and there is potentially ramped cheating going on but they are getting grades.
Ours are getting grades too, unfortunately. How the hell do you fail art?
 
How about trillions of dollars in aggregate student debt in exchange for diminishing marginal returns, as degrees - already devalued through softening curriculum - now become table stakes for anything from paralegal to administrative assistant?

I think with your second sentence, you’re invoking the mythology of the “higher purpose” of college. Fine if you want to believe it; I don’t. But that “higher purpose” sure is getting expensive. I am not even one of the older members on this board, and getting my same degree now will cost you 3x as much and not give you the edge it did when I was there. If we want to go back to the good ol’ days of loading up the steamer trunk onto the Pullman car and riding the rails out east to gaze at one’s navel, then let the prices return to the prices of those good ol’ days as well.

Chip...my world is simply different than yours, and my experiences have shown me a different way than yours has. My closest friend...he was going to be a business major back in the day. If I recall you had to have a 2.6 to declare a business major. He was a 2.5. He decided to declare an econ major. What a dumba$$, right? Serious, what a disgrace to the school and the family. The guy retired at 54, probably has a net worth of 20 million dollars. And how in the heck will WSU turn out entrepreneurs with dipsh!ts like that? And what did his two kids learn? Well because his commercial real estate portfolio is so healthy, even in this market, that the kids get 100k a year to help supplement their jobs they got with their high GPA and SAT scores.

I have another friend friend from WSU that retired at 55. He employed 200 people as the CEO of his company. His GPA...2.8.

I can go on and on. The wealthiest people in the town of Edmonds, the ones that live on the bluff are people who own large car lots, (you know, car salesman), Fisherman, and developers. Talk to a few of them and they could make the argument they have done just fine being the entrepreneurs of the past and future.

Counter that with two former assistants of mine, both UW grads, both had great grades, one had a degree in math I believe. Both have student loans, both had jobs they could have applied for and received when they were 19. So not sure their outstanding grades and exceptional test scores helped them a great deal.

The higher purpose....people learn in the classroom and outside the classroom. I will fully agree it is getting awfully expensive

All I can say is I am thrilled WSU has always taken an individual approach to their admissions. I hope that never changes.
 
Where are you? My kids are getting grades. I think they may be grading easier and there is potentially ramped cheating going on but they are getting grades.
WA

for the kids attending: they've eliminated "minus" grades, and if you pull all Fs it's on to the next. for the kids not attending: the get an I and get passed on to the next.
 
WA

for the kids attending: they've eliminated "minus" grades, and if you pull all Fs it's on to the next. for the kids not attending: the get an I and get passed on to the next.
Well, you know you can't fail kids just because they got an F. That might make them feel dumb. Same way you can't tell them they're fat, because then they might have negative feelings about their body. And how you can't tell them not to steal stuff, because they might feel bad that someone else has stuff they don't.

I mean really, they're just kids. They'll just automatically understand these things when they're adults, right?
 
What's diminished is the concept of hierarchies of competence. Rewarding and promoting the best and the brightest. Do standardized test scores along determine that? No, but we've reached this ridiculous place in our society where people who outperform others are passed over in an attempt to level the playing field.

That line of thinking is heartfelt, but it's the wrong way to govern (or parent). You're not leveling the playing field, you're worsening it.

The truly dirty of this, IMO, is going to be what happens at the Ivys. Are grades going to be parsed on the prestige of the high school attended? Are inner city high schools going to be viewed the same as the top notch prep schools? If so, why? If not, why not?

Are the state testing requirements going away too?
 
Chip...my world is simply different than yours, and my experiences have shown me a different way than yours has. My closest friend...he was going to be a business major back in the day. If I recall you had to have a 2.6 to declare a business major. He was a 2.5. He decided to declare an econ major. What a dumba$$, right? Serious, what a disgrace to the school and the family. The guy retired at 54, probably has a net worth of 20 million dollars. And how in the heck will WSU turn out entrepreneurs with dipsh!ts like that? And what did his two kids learn? Well because his commercial real estate portfolio is so healthy, even in this market, that the kids get 100k a year to help supplement their jobs they got with their high GPA and SAT scores.

I have another friend friend from WSU that retired at 55. He employed 200 people as the CEO of his company. His GPA...2.8.

I can go on and on. The wealthiest people in the town of Edmonds, the ones that live on the bluff are people who own large car lots, (you know, car salesman), Fisherman, and developers. Talk to a few of them and they could make the argument they have done just fine being the entrepreneurs of the past and future.

Counter that with two former assistants of mine, both UW grads, both had great grades, one had a degree in math I believe. Both have student loans, both had jobs they could have applied for and received when they were 19. So not sure their outstanding grades and exceptional test scores helped them a great deal.

The higher purpose....people learn in the classroom and outside the classroom. I will fully agree it is getting awfully expensive

All I can say is I am thrilled WSU has always taken an individual approach to their admissions. I hope that never changes.

Well, there's the good old "A students work for C students and B students work for the government" thing. Some legitimacy to that. Being intelligent, educated, or able to speak or write well isn't everything, and life is replete with examples.

Of course, I also could give you anecdotes about the tech entrepreneurs I work with on a daily basis, and who routinely are getting 8 or 9 figures in liquidity events. Most of those guys have doctorates from MIT, Stanford, or the like. There are a few who have backgrounds consistent with the "college dropout" story, but they're rare and are legitimate geniuses who, if dropping out, usually are dropping out from Harvard after acing the SAT but having poor grades in college. Ironically, they are the smart slackers for whom school isn't really their thing or is just an unnecessary hindrance, and who probably would have a harder time getting into a good college if standardized tests weren't considered.

In any case, none of this is all that relevant to university admissions, nor is it dispositive to the extent it's relevant. Just think for a moment about all the contradictions at play. The ostensible basis for eliminating the SAT requirement is that standardized tests are not a very good predictor of success in college, not that colleges need more people who could barely pull 2.5 GPAs in college but might go on to success owning a car lot, being a fisherman, or working in a field like sales, real estate, etc. Not only will there still be enough of those guys who get into WSU and places like that, but they probably would do just fine, if needing college at all, going to Eastern instead of WSU, UW, Berkeley, or Harvard.
 
Well, there's the good old "A students work for C students and B students work for the government" thing. Some legitimacy to that. Being intelligent, educated, or able to speak or write well isn't everything, and life is replete with examples.

Of course, I also could give you anecdotes about the tech entrepreneurs I work with on a daily basis, and who routinely are getting 8 or 9 figures in liquidity events. Most of those guys have doctorates from MIT, Stanford, or the like. There are a few who have backgrounds consistent with the "college dropout" story, but they're rare and are legitimate geniuses who, if dropping out, usually are dropping out from Harvard after acing the SAT but having poor grades in college. Ironically, they are the smart slackers for whom school isn't really their thing or is just an unnecessary hindrance, and who probably would have a harder time getting into a good college if standardized tests weren't considered.

In any case, none of this is all that relevant to university admissions, nor is it dispositive to the extent it's relevant. Just think for a moment about all the contradictions at play. The ostensible basis for eliminating the SAT requirement is that standardized tests are not a very good predictor of success in college, not that colleges need more people who could barely pull 2.5 GPAs in college but might go on to success owning a car lot, being a fisherman, or working in a field like sales, real estate, etc. Not only will there still be enough of those guys who get into WSU and places like that, but they probably would do just fine, if needing college at all, going to Eastern instead of WSU, UW, Berkeley, or Harvard.
Still don't understand in any of examples I have given why Eastern is a better place than WSU? Why not compare WSU to WVU, Miss State, Oregon State and a host of schools and not two elite universities and a wanna-be. But like I said fortunately WSU has taken some risks including the likes on the football team in Leon Bender, Eaton, Pointer, and several others. And I can say they have also made special exceptions for non student athletes as well.

It is only one story, but I know a CEO for a top Biotech. After undergrad work, he applied probably at 10 schools (maybe more) for post grad work. Because of his crappy grades his freshman year, 9 said no, no questions asked. The 10th, said come in and talk to the professor heading the program. The doc came out and said, what happened your freshman year? The applicant said his father was diagnosed with cancer at the beginning of his school year and it took a toll on his grades.

He was accepted as the school made the exception. That person has one drug that is frontline for a particular cancer, and he has two outstanding drugs going through phase three. I am glad this professor took the time to ask why his cumulative GPA was lower than the other candidates that were being considered. It would have been a shame if his dedication to manage/cure cancer was stymied because of one bad semester or year and the evaluators had a limited scope.
 
Ours are getting grades too, unfortunately. How the hell do you fail art?
That one I can answer....Art 101...a friend of mine was very good at chasing women back at WSU. Never studied, copied on the final. Bingo...sort of failed. The prof gave him a second chance as he denied cheating. Studied his backside off.
 
Are you talking about fairness?

Fairness is subjective. I’m a 4th generation Italian immigrant. Great Grandpa walked off the boat and scrambled to get whatever job he could. My Grandpa did marginally better. My Dad was the first to graduate from college. Boston University- Aeronautical Engineering. I was the first on my Moms side to graduate from college.

Our family tree started at the bottom. We ascended because of our cultural/family values. There wasn’t a fast forward button or a political / social movement to advance the “WOPS and Dago’s” of our society. I love and believe in pure capitalism. The strongest individuals and cultures that place a value on family typically succeed more than those that don’t.

Fairness? It starts in the family home. If you’re born to parents who give a shit, you’re exponentially more likely to succeed. I’m not a fan of policies that attempt to reward underachievement. It might help some individuals succeed who otherwise wouldn’t, but it doesn’t address the root cultural problems that have created the underclass. Asian students are graded to a higher standard than everyone else because they’re out working everyone else. Fairness?
 
Still don't understand in any of examples I have given why Eastern is a better place than WSU? Why not compare WSU to WVU, Miss State, Oregon State and a host of schools and not two elite universities and a wanna-be. But like I said fortunately WSU has taken some risks including the likes on the football team in Leon Bender, Eaton, Pointer, and several others. And I can say they have also made special exceptions for non student athletes as well.

It is only one story, but I know a CEO for a top Biotech. After undergrad work, he applied probably at 10 schools (maybe more) for post grad work. Because of his crappy grades his freshman year, 9 said no, no questions asked. The 10th, said come in and talk to the professor heading the program. The doc came out and said, what happened your freshman year? The applicant said his father was diagnosed with cancer at the beginning of his school year and it took a toll on his grades.

He was accepted as the school made the exception. That person has one drug that is frontline for a particular cancer, and he has two outstanding drugs going through phase three. I am glad this professor took the time to ask why his cumulative GPA was lower than the other candidates that were being considered. It would have been a shame if his dedication to manage/cure cancer was stymied because of one bad semester or year and the evaluators had a limited scope.

Okay ... well, I'm trying here. Really, I am. But you are laying out these rambling, desultory streams of random anecdotes without apparent thought given to any particular line of argument. and coming up with these really weird takes regarding what I'm writing -- I certainly didn't say Eastern was better than WSU, and that litany of colleges was in order of increasing prestige (with a big jump) to emphasize implicitly that it wasn't necessary for the fisherman or car lot owner to have attended any of them, with it intentionally getting more ridiculous as one went down the list -- and pretending not to understand, or maybe really not understanding, any of the points I made about the irrelevance of your prior set of anecdotes.

This latest anecdote of a guy who is a CEO of a biotech company is interesting (and a nice story), but it's not clear what it demonstrates. Have you considered any of these?

- For every anecdote you can come up with of a person who was admitted to something despite bad grades, or who went to WSU and wasn't an abject failure despite a bad college GPA, one could come up with myriad examples of failures and misallocated resources. They just aren't spoken of or noteworthy because they are numerous and comport with common sense and experience. That's why the standards exist in the first place. E.g., my roommate freshman year had mediocre credentials, made it in at WSU, and then flunked out. Lots of people in my high school had shitty grades and have done nothing with their lives. So what? What if one of them had turned it around, went to a community college, transferred to WSU, graduated with 2.5 GPA, then parlayed a car sales job into owning multiple car lots and retiring at 50? Does that mean colleges need more people with subpar grades or that WSU needs to prioritize kids from community colleges who can scrape by in college? Does Harvard? What about the kids with good grades who do, in fact, do very well in life? I deal with dozens of them each day. What are you trying to argue?

- What if the biotech CEO, ironically, had a good GRE score offset the poor grades?

- What if the person who wasn't admitted to the grad program, with that guy who now is the biotech CEO taking her spot, would have cured cancer?

- What if this biotech CEO we're talking about wouldn't have had a drug candidate work out and nobody would have heard of him? What does that show?

- Should Harvard just swap classes with WSU because some people at WSU will do OK in life, even as fishermen or something? I mean, seriously, WTF?

I could list about 10,000 other things here ranging from global competition to predictors of success in college, or give you a million anecdotes about people I've dealt with.

Most importantly, and really, this is all you really need to respond to .... what exactly are you arguing for? That the SAT shouldn't be part of an application, even if all this other stuff you are advocating for would still be considered? What is your proposition you're advocating?
 
Okay ... well, I'm trying here. Really, I am. But you are laying out these rambling, desultory streams of random anecdotes without apparent thought given to any particular line of argument. and coming up with these really weird takes regarding what I'm writing -- I certainly didn't say Eastern was better than WSU, and that litany of colleges was in order of increasing prestige (with a big jump) to emphasize implicitly that it wasn't necessary for the fisherman or car lot owner to have attended any of them, with it intentionally getting more ridiculous as one went down the list -- and pretending not to understand, or maybe really not understanding, any of the points I made about the irrelevance of your prior set of anecdotes.

This latest anecdote of a guy who is a CEO of a biotech company is interesting (and a nice story), but it's not clear what it demonstrates. Have you considered any of these?

- For every anecdote you can come up with of a person who was admitted to something despite bad grades, or who went to WSU and wasn't an abject failure despite a bad college GPA, one could come up with myriad examples of failures and misallocated resources. They just aren't spoken of or noteworthy because they are numerous and comport with common sense and experience. That's why the standards exist in the first place. E.g., my roommate freshman year had mediocre credentials, made it in at WSU, and then flunked out. Lots of people in my high school had shitty grades and have done nothing with their lives. So what? What if one of them had turned it around, went to a community college, transferred to WSU, graduated with 2.5 GPA, then parlayed a car sales job into owning multiple car lots and retiring at 50? Does that mean colleges need more people with subpar grades or that WSU needs to prioritize kids from community colleges who can scrape by in college? Does Harvard? What about the kids with good grades who do, in fact, do very well in life? I deal with dozens of them each day. What are you trying to argue?

- What if the biotech CEO, ironically, had a good GRE score offset the poor grades?

- What if the person who wasn't admitted to the grad program, with that guy who now is the biotech CEO taking her spot, would have cured cancer?

- What if this biotech CEO we're talking about wouldn't have had a drug candidate work out and nobody would have heard of him? What does that show?

- Should Harvard just swap classes with WSU because some people at WSU will do OK in life, even as fishermen or something? I mean, seriously, WTF?

I could list about 10,000 other things here ranging from global competition to predictors of success in college, or give you a million anecdotes about people I've dealt with.

Most importantly, and really, this is all you really need to respond to .... what exactly are you arguing for? That the SAT shouldn't be part of an application, even if all this other stuff you are advocating for would still be considered? What is your proposition you're advocating?

I’m hopeful that I can retire and become a fishing guide for awhile before I enter the assisted care facility. Your references to fisherman made me want to post that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 425cougfan
That one I can answer....Art 101...a friend of mine was very good at chasing women back at WSU. Never studied, copied on the final. Bingo...sort of failed. The prof gave him a second chance as he denied cheating. Studied his backside off.

Art was the only class I got an A in in college. The professor told me I had a future in it. Should have listened 25 years ago.
 
I’m hopeful that I can retire and become a fishing guide for awhile before I enter the assisted care facility. Your references to fisherman made me want to post that.

Hope you get to. I just want the emails to stop for a few years, at least.
 
I’m hopeful that I can retire and become a fishing guide for awhile before I enter the assisted care facility. Your references to fisherman made me want to post that.
Send me a message if you ever want to come out and float the Bitterroot and West Fork to chase cutthroat. It’s damn near in my backyard.
 
Sadly, the group that is going to be hurt most by this trend, in California, are the first generation Asian kids. Living in the San Gabriel Valley, I'm utterly amazed what they have been able to accomplish through commitment and hard work. The UC, the most selective public university system in the country is 35% Asian, the largest demographic by a wide margin, even though Asians make up less than 14% of the state population. Lazy arse white kids, the richest demo, with zero excuses, making up 37% of the population, represent only 21% of the UC demo. I guess they won't have to flee to Eugene and Tempe to attend school anymore. The old system wasn't racist, it was pro hard work. Unfortunately, facts tend to be ignored in current narrative. The private schools like Stanford and the Ivy should be the focus of this misguided ire, where meritorious Asian kids are grossly underrepresented, for no good reason other than they don't fit in these schools ideal demographic model.
 
ADVERTISEMENT