NABC wants SAT and ACT eliminated as an eligibility requirement for college players

#26
Chicago, IL
Grades, class ranks, classes taken, recommendations from teachers and others, activities outside of school, essays... It’s going to be a more wholistic approach.

This. It's always been about a holistic approach. The difference is that we're finding that standardized test scores aren't a good measure and shouldn't be part of a holistic process.

Those of us who did take the test may roll their eyes, but it is what it is. When you find out something isn't working, you change it and work to make the system better.
 
#27
OSKEE WOW WOW
Rochester, IL
This. It's always been about a holistic approach. The difference is that we're finding that standardized test scores aren't a good measure and shouldn't be part of a holistic process.

Those of us who did take the test may roll their eyes, but it is what it is. When you find out something isn't working, you change it and work to make the system better.
I agree that tests scores should not be the sole decision maker, but to throw it out completely without a replacement seems ridiculous.

If this is being done just for athletic admittance reasons, then shame on the leaders pushing for this.
 
#28
OSKEE WOW WOW
Rochester, IL
Did you get that 30 on your ACT in Detroit??
So, you're saying you cant get a 30 in Detroit? I get what you are saying, but that is a much deeper issue than eliminating test scores as a remedy.
 
#29
Chicago, IL
I agree that tests scores should not be the sole decision maker, but to throw it out completely without a replacement seems ridiculous.

If this is being done just for athletic admittance reasons, then shame on the leaders pushing for this.
It's not. It's being discussed re: athletes here, but this is for all incoming college students.

The reason it isn't ridiculous is that it requires admissions to really consider a student's entire experience - classes taken, hardships, how they've met those challenges - and translate them to potential success in college. My 3 ACT sittings didn't do spit to prep me for Illinois; my heavy course load, working part time, and being involved in activities did a lot more to teach me the time management, study, and interpersonal skills needed to be successful in college.

That's what they're looking for and that's why more and more schools are moving away from that requirement.

That being said, we're not done with standardized testing and colleges. They'll still be used to determine institutional aid (scholarships and grants coming from the school, not the government) for non-athletes and will still be considered if submitted. They're just not the end-all, be-all they we were made to believe they were.

It's a good thing for education overall since it'll mean students with actual skills and not just the ability to test well will get in where they deserve to be, and students who don't test well but busted their butts to prepare for university will be given fair consideration.
 
#30
Rockford, Illinois
As a r
It's not. It's being discussed re: athletes here, but this is for all incoming college students.

The reason it isn't ridiculous is that it requires admissions to really consider a student's entire experience - classes taken, hardships, how they've met those challenges - and translate them to potential success in college. My 3 ACT sittings didn't do spit to prep me for Illinois; my heavy course load, working part time, and being involved in activities did a lot more to teach me the time management, study, and interpersonal skills needed to be successful in college.

That's what they're looking for and that's why more and more schools are moving away from that requirement.

That being said, we're not done with standardized testing and colleges. They'll still be used to determine institutional aid (scholarships and grants coming from the school, not the government) for non-athletes and will still be considered if submitted. They're just not the end-all, be-all they we were made to believe they were.

It's a good thing for education overall since it'll mean students with actual skills and not just the ability to test well will get in where they deserve to be, and students who don't test well but busted their butts to prepare for university will be given fair consideration.
Well said, Kat. As a retired teacher who taught in a large public high school for 35 years, I totally agree with you.
 
#31
First of all, it's "holistic."

Anyway, I'd like to point out that graduate programs have been deemphasizing test scores for years (not counting medical and law and other professional degrees). The GRE specifically has been less and less of a factor in admissions with no ill effects.
 
Last edited:
#32
First of all, it's "holistic."

Anyway, I'd like to point out that graduate programs have been deemphasizing test scores for years (not counting medical and law and other professional degrees). The GRE specifically has been less and less of a factor in admissions with no ill effects.
And for good reason. The GRE has very poor prediction validity for success in graduate school.

Probably the most consistent correlation one can infer from one's results on tests like the ACT, SAT, and GRE is that the person had the financial means to adequately prepare for the test (e.g., workshops, study materials, tutors, etc...).
 
#33
Chicago, IL
And for good reason. The GRE has very poor prediction validity for success in graduate school.

Probably the most consistent correlation one can infer from one's results on tests like the ACT, SAT, and GRE is that the person had the financial means to adequately prepare for the test (e.g., workshops, study materials, tutors, etc...).
Also a reason why schools are moving away from them. The economically disadvantaged can't hope to compete.
 
#35
North Bethesda, Maryland
Why can't the exam prep just be a part of high school curriculum?
While I understand the sentiment behind "if it's deemed necessary, let it be part of their curriculum," that is the "teaching to the test" aspect that is damaging public education. What it creates is a "download and dump" culture, where students learn what they need for a test, and don't really absorb that information into their general body of knowledge, but forget it after it's served its purpose. I've been teaching high school for 20 years and I have seen the change.

Given the monopoly that exists in the world of testing, I would be on the side of abolishing it as a requirement. It can be used successfully to demonstrate that a student has the smarts to succeed but just doesn't apply themselves, and that may be sussed out in an interview process where there is such a discrepancy. It is also a separate problem indicative of our "one size fits all" approach to public education, which simply does not work for everyone.

Sorry, rant over.
 
#36
While I understand the sentiment behind "if it's deemed necessary, let it be part of their curriculum," that is the "teaching to the test" aspect that is damaging public education. What it creates is a "download and dump" culture, where students learn what they need for a test, and don't really absorb that information into their general body of knowledge, but forget it after it's served its purpose. I've been teaching high school for 20 years and I have seen the change.

Given the monopoly that exists in the world of testing, I would be on the side of abolishing it as a requirement. It can be used successfully to demonstrate that a student has the smarts to succeed but just doesn't apply themselves, and that may be sussed out in an interview process where there is such a discrepancy. It is also a separate problem indicative of our "one size fits all" approach to public education, which simply does not work for everyone.

Sorry, rant over.
I teach math in a heavily tested subject in a crazy test heavy state. I can take somebody who doesn’t know math and get them to pass the test by teaching them 3 tricks for the calculator based on about 5 key words. I happily do it because the testing amount is stupid and I don’t want it hanging over them for their entire high school career. The problem is I have to rush through the actual math curriculum to teach it all so even the kids who learn don’t learn it deeply enough. It’s awful


And for good reason. The GRE has very poor prediction validity for success in graduate school.

Probably the most consistent correlation one can infer from one's results on tests like the ACT, SAT, and GRE is that the person had the financial means to adequately prepare for the test (e.g., workshops, study materials, tutors, etc...).
imo once you get in college is a measure of how hard your willing to work and graduate degrees are a matter of how much more work you’re willing to do. I know plenty of people with masters degrees (in the education field no less!) who are not smart people.
 
#37
Chicago, IL
Why can't the exam prep just be a part of high school curriculum?
Really? Public schools are so underfunded and can't find enough qualified teachers, not to mention all the classes students are already required to take. Teachers fit in what they can, but they also need to teach the course content, not just the test. Teaching to the test also drains teachers and students like crazy.

Why do you feel the test is so central to the college entrance process, other than we all took it so others should have to as well? I'm honestly asking, and I'll put that to anyone on this board who feels that way.
 
Likes: sacraig
#38
OSKEE WOW WOW
Rochester, IL
Really? Public schools are so underfunded and can't find enough qualified teachers, not to mention all the classes students are already required to take. Teachers fit in what they can, but they also need to teach the course content, not just the test. Teaching to the test also drains teachers and students like crazy.

Why do you feel the test is so central to the college entrance process, other than we all took it so others should have to as well? I'm honestly asking, and I'll put that to anyone on this board who feels that way.
I dont know if anyone is saying it should be THE central focus for admissions, but it just feels like this is a discussion that is falling into the area that a LOT of things are these days. If it's not fair for EVERYONE, or, if someone feels others are at a disadvantage....let's just get rid of it, that will make it go away and be all better.

Guess what, changing testing doesn't change the root causes of poor test scores.
 
#39
And for good reason. The GRE has very poor prediction validity for success in graduate school.

Probably the most consistent correlation one can infer from one's results on tests like the ACT, SAT, and GRE is that the person had the financial means to adequately prepare for the test (e.g., workshops, study materials, tutors, etc...).
Absolutely. When I recruit graduate students, GRE scores are a tiny factor. No one is getting in on GRE scores. If they're abysmal, they could hurt since, at least in my field, there is a certain baseline you ought to be able to meet with zero prep.
 
#40
Chicago, IL
I dont know if anyone is saying it should be THE central focus for admissions, but it just feels like this is a discussion that is falling into the area that a LOT of things are these days. If it's not fair for EVERYONE, or, if someone feels others are at a disadvantage....let's just get rid of it, that will make it go away and be all better.

Guess what, changing testing doesn't change the root causes of poor test scores.
True. But it also doesn't let an unfair admissions standard unfairly prevent someone from getting into college.

Eliminating the ACT/SAT from the process doesn't address the systematic ills, but if it allows someone who grew up in the face of adversity the opportunity to access better job opportunities and prevent those systematic ills from impacting their children, where's the harm? The majority of us got degrees because we wanted to maintain or improve upon the socio-economic status we grew up in. Why shouldn't that be available to more people? If they can hack it, great. If they can't, they'll drop out or fail out and it'll be on their own merit instead of the fault of some BS gatekeeping test. (Realistically it'll be because the cost of tuition is outlandish thanks to skyrocketing administrative costs, but that's another thread.)

So, I guess this is a way to address the root cause of those poor test scores. It's just being addressed after the fact in the next generation that has access to a better-funded suburban public school instead of a poorly-funded urban or rural one.

The fact of the matter is that the ACT and SAT are money grabs by ACT, Inc. and College Board. They're not the first criteria any admissions team looks at, and from what I've learned going to counselor workshops like Illinois, they're not even a tiebreaker criteria any more. They're just the first thing they use to weed out potentially underachieving students and a transcript does that just as well.
 
Last edited:
#41
South Carolina
It's just being addressed after the fact in the next generation that has access to a better-funded suburban public school instead of a poorly-funded urban or rural one.
What is so inherently bad about a poorly-funded school? Are the teachers less competent?
 
#42
Chicago, IL
What is so inherently bad about a poorly-funded school? Are the teachers less competent?
I can't tell if this is a rhetorical question, so I'll answer as though it isn't.

They don't have access to newer books, technology, updated lab equipment, or experienced teachers. Newer teachers just aren't as good at first (no one is great at their job right away) and the experienced ones go where the money is like any professional would. They also tend to have more first generation college students, meaning those families likely don't have the necessary experience to help students navigate the process.

That's just a fraction of what's wrong in underfunded schools, and I would put money down that you wouldn't live in a district that would force yourself, your children, or potentially your grandchildren, into that situation.

There's a reason why there are "good" and "bad" high schools in every major urban area in this country and it all comes down to funding.
 
#43
South Carolina
I can't tell if this is a rhetorical question, so I'll answer as though it isn't.

They don't have access to newer books, technology, updated lab equipment, or experienced teachers. Newer teachers just aren't as good at first (no one is great at their job right away) and the experienced ones go where the money is like any professional would. They also tend to have more first generation college students, meaning those families likely don't have the necessary experience to help students navigate the process.

That's just a fraction of what's wrong in underfunded schools, and I would put money down that you wouldn't live in a district that would force yourself, your children, or potentially your grandchildren, into that situation.

There's a reason why there are "good" and "bad" high schools in every major urban area in this country and it all comes down to funding.
It wasn't rhetorical, thanks for answering. Of the reasons given, I see teacher experience as having a big impact on the kids learning. The other's seem to be "nice to have" imo. I don't think you need a robotics lab to prepare for college. The whole thing is very complicated obviously. I don't really buy that eliminated standardized testing is going to fix anything. People with low test scores can still go the community college route. If they are in that situation because of coming from a low-income household, then it would probably be the best for them in the long run anyway. That being said, if people really believe that eliminating the ACT will help people, go for it. I've got no skin in the game.

The main reason I asked about the quality of urban/rural schools because I do live in a poorly rated school district and have an almost 1 year old boy. I like the neighborhood and I'm trying to plan what I'm going to do by the time he is old enough for school so this topic has been on my mind lately.
 
Likes: drsmitty74
#44
OSKEE WOW WOW
Rochester, IL
There's a reason why there are "good" and "bad" high schools in every major urban area in this country and it all comes down to funding.
You forgot about something that has NOTHING to do with funding. Parents today, are NOT the parents of yesteryear. I think we attribute poor test scores to everything under the sun, except that a lot of kids today, have parents with a mindset much different than just a generation ago.

Test scores have gone down, and not just in "poor areas". It's not just underfunded schools spitting out kids unable to function in the real world.

They can't function, because they have not been made to interact with society. They have been taught from an early age, that the system is rigged against them, and it's always someone else's fault.

I'm going to go ahead and not comment on this thread anymore. I appreciate all of the opinions.

GO ILLINI!
 
#45
Chicago, IL
It wasn't rhetorical, thanks for answering. Of the reasons given, I see teacher experience as having a big impact on the kids learning. The other's seem to be "nice to have" imo. I don't think you need a robotics lab to prepare for college. The whole thing is very complicated obviously. I don't really buy that eliminated standardized testing is going to fix anything. People with low test scores can still go the community college route. If they are in that situation because of coming from a low-income household, then it would probably be the best for them in the long run anyway. That being said, if people really believe that eliminating the ACT will help people, go for it. I've got no skin in the game.

The main reason I asked about the quality of urban/rural schools because I do live in a poorly rated school district and have an almost 1 year old boy. I like the neighborhood and I'm trying to plan what I'm going to do by the time he is old enough for school so this topic has been on my mind lately.
You don't need a robotics lab, but you do need one that has updated, safe lab equipment. Underfunded schools don't even have that at times.

As for the community college route, it's not a bad one. I encourage a lot of students to do that to save money. However, you can miss out on some majors depending on the school and program you want to go into.

A good teacher can overcome some of the challenges presented by poor funding, but it's difficult to do. That's why they have higher teacher turn over. More people burn out more quickly and leave, or the jump ship for one of the better funded districts.
 
#46
Chicago, IL
You forgot about something that has NOTHING to do with funding. Parents today, are NOT the parents of yesteryear. I think we attribute poor test scores to everything under the sun, except that a lot of kids today, have parents with a mindset much different than just a generation ago.

Test scores have gone down, and not just in "poor areas". It's not just underfunded schools spitting out kids unable to function in the real world.

They can't function, because they have not been made to interact with society. They have been taught from an early age, that the system is rigged against them, and it's always someone else's fault.

I'm going to go ahead and not comment on this thread anymore. I appreciate all of the opinions.

GO ILLINI!
I wasn't asked about parenting, so I didn't touch on it. My well-funded public high school and Illinois education taught me to keep my argument on track to better prove my point.

I disagree with your premise. My parents were educators and I spent many years talking to them about schools and changes. It's anecdotal evidence, but parenting hasn't changed all that radically. There have always been parents who blame teachers and the system and those who don't. I don't think your statement is a fair one to make, particularly if you haven't worked in education.

I have worked in under-funded schools most of my career. It's a calling, honestly. I'd love to make more, but I'm happy with my students and their families. When I speak to my colleagues in wealthier schools, the entitlement that you speak of is mostly found there. I'm talking suburban, north shore type places in and around Chicago. Not the ones that are under-funded.

The issue I've run into more often is that my students want to work to help their families. The work ethic is definitely there. I've never had a student blame the system the way you've implied here and I really find your argument disingenuous.
 
#47
What is so inherently bad about a poorly-funded school? Are the teachers less competent?
I'll use an anecdote to illustrate this. A family member of mine was a fresh graduate looking to yeah history in high school. That's a tough field to break into because a lot of people want to teach history, so he ended up at a small rural school. However, once my family member had a few years experience and was owed more salary and reaponsibility, the relationship between him and the administration changed. They became more antagonistic and, in effect, forced his hand in looking for a new school. He ended up in a wealthier district.

This was not limited to just him at this school. It was a pattern of pushing out teachers that were young enough to be influenced but old enough to start commanding more money. It was an effort to keep payroll down. With so much faculty turnover and so many young teachers, that tends to lower education quality.

Ultimately you (usually) get what you pay for.
 
Likes: IlliniKat91
#48
You forgot about something that has NOTHING to do with funding. Parents today, are NOT the parents of yesteryear. I think we attribute poor test scores to everything under the sun, except that a lot of kids today, have parents with a mindset much different than just a generation ago.

Test scores have gone down, and not just in "poor areas". It's not just underfunded schools spitting out kids unable to function in the real world.

They can't function, because they have not been made to interact with society. They have been taught from an early age, that the system is rigged against them, and it's always someone else's fault.

I'm going to go ahead and not comment on this thread anymore. I appreciate all of the opinions.

GO ILLINI!
Are you a current young parent? I am. I work my tail off along with my wife to make sure my kids are learning and (hopefully) excelling. So do basically all of the fellow parents I know.

Parenting as a whole changes with every single generation and has for millennia. I have no doubt every generation complains about the changes their kids or grandkids have made in their approach to parenting, yet none of the gloom and doom ever comes to pass.

Change is inevitable and it's (usually) for the better.
 
Likes: IlliniKat91
#49
Given the monopoly that exists in the world of testing, I would be on the side of abolishing it as a requirement.
...
Sorry, rant over.
Pushing back on a monopoly is no small feat. They're usually quite well armed for political battles and require a protracted battle to reign in.

From what I understand, schools want cheap ways of selecting students --effective is nice if it's still cheap. A test that they don't pay for, plus a quick glance at GPA, is a very simple and inexpensive way to sort applicants, and as a bonus, the liability is minimal. Think it's unfair? Not our problem say the colleges; talk to the test makers and high schools....

A part of me wonders why admission isn't simply left up to the institution. Why start a clearinghouse for athletes in the first place when the institution has the most skin in the game for selecting applicants? I'll go ahead and try to answer that --there's a ton of money to be had, and colleges will go great lengths to get it. IMO that ship has already sailed --there's no way a clearinghouse is going to stop the endless scandals and sleaziness that go on within the elite level of collegiate, revenue sports. Seems like more of a CYA to pretend they have standards, in much the same way executives hire consultants so they have someone to point at if things don't go well.

IMO conferences that split revenue evenly get rid of many "race to the bottom" issues, e.g. balancing the selection of athletes non-academic skills with the potential for harm to the institutions non-athletes. And in this era, doesn't everyone know that athletes are brought in at least in part, if not primarily, to further that pursuit? Football and basketball players make a huge commitment to their sport. Why not let the conferences figure that out? They're generally peers that have a lot in common, and a willingness to give up some power for an overall improvement on an issue. If you minimize or equalize the monetary incentives, then I think it follows that you have a much better shot at resolving issues of fairness.

The NCAA is far from that --a dinosaur really. I have zero faith that they'll improve anything --actually the opposite. Given the NCAAs long history of putting their own interests above the athletes, I'm skeptical of them wading into something like this. I'm more inclined to believe they fundamentally misunderstand or deny the problems and incentives that they themselves bring in, and have little interest in remedying those problems.

Now we've both ranted :p
Apologies
 
Likes: IlliniKat91
#50
OSKEE WOW WOW
Rochester, IL
Are you a current young parent? I am. I work my tail off along with my wife to make sure my kids are learning and (hopefully) excelling. So do basically all of the fellow parents I know.

Parenting as a whole changes with every single generation and has for millennia. I have no doubt every generation complains about the changes their kids or grandkids have made in their approach to parenting, yet none of the gloom and doom ever comes to pass.

Change is inevitable and it's (usually) for the better.
I commend you for working with your kids. It's not easy and it takes a lot of time and effort.

I am a parent of two young kids. I too, along with my wife, make sure our kids are learning, EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. One of my two kids (daughter) is a special needs child.

When I get home at night, my wife and I take turns helping each child. I take certain subjects to help our 12 year old son and my wife takes others. We find the best teaching methods for my son and we implement that. We are taking it upon ourselves to do what schools can't, or refuse to do. I don't need anyone lecturing me on the subject of parenting.

Teachers are not paid enough and I'll be the first to agree with that, but parents shoulder responsibility as well.

My point in all this, is that a lot of parents, do not take the time to do what we do with our kids, and just continue to blame the schools/teachers for their kids' poor performance, and, subsequent poor test scores.

So, back to the point of this thread, now that we have poor test scores, it seems we need to get rid of the tests to make it go away.



I was GOING to be done talking about this, but ya got me! ;)