Harvard drops standardized test requirement through 2026

This seems like it's part of a trend.

Harvard drops standardized test requirement through 2026

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Students will be able to apply to Harvard University without submitting SAT or ACT scores for at least the next four years, the Ivy League school announced Thursday, extending a policy many colleges have adopted during the pandemic and that a growing number are keeping for years to come.

Harvard announced in 2020 that standardized tests would be optional for a year as students faced limited access to testing sites. It later extended the policy for another year, and this week said tests won’t be required through 2026 amid continued challenges.

This I find particularly interesting:

Some other colleges say they are permanently moving away from standardized tests amid criticism that the exams favor wealthy, white applicants and disadvantage minority and low-income students.

Considering that standardized tests were created for the purpose of finding highly intelligent, highly achieving students who were NOT wealthy and connected, it seems that's not the real reason.

Allow me to proffer my own theory: I think colleges don't want to be limited to simply the most intelligent students, they have other priorities:

1 Like most woke institutions, race the the single most important issue and schools want to tailor their racial demographics to their choosing.

2. Schools want donations and legacies provide it, but sometimes legacies are dummies. The schools don't want any obstacles to admitting legacies.

3 There are other factors that highlight which families are likely to become donors which ones don't and schools want to be able to prioritize those.

4. It's the ultimate victory of the Admissions office. There are no other requirements that may limit who they want to admit and who they want to keep out. It's the ultimate power trip.

 

Another view, it was strictly a business decision.

Harvard Fires ‘A Shot Across the Bow’ Of Higher Ed With Test-Optional Policy

 

The psychometric testing process used all came from one model out of Princeton, New Jersey and it made many assumptions about what "intelligence" is and so how it would be measured.

The first complaint was that it was inaccurate because people of cultures other than the psychometric testers might not understand references the same way.

Then someone noticed it did not test at all for "emotional intelligence" which meant just because you had someone score high didn't mean they could apply it.

Then you had people with learning disabilities such as dyscalculia, dyslexia, brain acquired injures, strokes,adhd, ocd, schizophrenia, panic and anxiety disorders who he testing did not understand or predict could distort the findings

Then you had people with various organic or physical disabilities who the testing may not be able to accommodate.

As you said, the test was actually designed as a supposedly neutral way to determine admissability. The problem was most universities allowed people admission going through the backdoor, i.e., donations and connections and that has always been the case. You didn't need to do more than walk upright to get into Yale or Harvard if you had the right amount of money or connection.

Now for sure, because of the pandemic all higher learning institutions are in a panic and you are damn right this is a business decision.

However having been a professor now over 20 years (part-time) I can tell you first hand, bribing your way into schools is always there and using all kinds of medical reasons was always there.

I can also tell you from working directly one on one, in groups, or in the legal system (as a lawyer, prosecutor) that some of the most idiotic and anti-social of people would score quite well on aptitude tests like the SATS, LSATS, GMATS, etc.

I can tell you as well cell phone and internet has trained people not to develop the sectors of their brain responsible for creating sufficient neurotransmission so they can develop critical, abstract and flexible thing processes, the three most crucial elements to intelligence.

If you can't be creative and see many approaches to a problem no amount of raw intelligence measured means a damn thing.

To develop these three crucial elements of intelligence believe it or not we need when we are very young before the window for such development is possible (i.e. up to about 10, maybe sometimes a bit longer) we learn more than one language, learn to believe it or not work with your hands, i.e., art, handwriting, creative writing gardening, ceramics, carpentry, sewing, exercising the body each day for a minimum of an hour, eating a proper diet, avoiding salt, sugar, msg, certain chemicals in foods, and reading and playing/engaging in team sports.

All of the necessary ingredients to develop intelligence have been removed. Art, sports, handwriting, reading, writing, physical labour and play, all erased.

We are programming children to sit in front of screens with junk food learning to salivate on cue to messages. The average student I see today will repeat back formulas you give them but have no idea how to apply them on their own not will they read anything that is not on a screen and for more than a maximum of ten seconds.

This is why commercials say on t.v. went from sixty seconds, to thirty to ten. This is why a news story on t.v. is about 10 seconds now. People only can put into their brain "bites"...tiny fragmented points which they do not transfer from their immediate short term to long term memories due to info overload.

The brave new world of technology ironically requires now extended, very lengthy, specialized education to support technology that becomes quickly outmoded which favours a very narrow segment of society constantly retraining and stressed out from that retraining.

The majority of people are finding they have been made obsolete. So we say go get a job or retrain. What jobs? Even serving coffee is replaced by automatic service dispensers now.

Many people will not adjust because either they are overwhelmed or feel under appreciated.

The very reason Trump got elected is he appealed and still appeals to a chunk of Americans who feel overwhelmed and lost by change and feel themselves powerless. He fills them with this false Hitlerian narrative that he and the government are one and the same so he will save them. The problem is Trump is a loud farting noise used as a smell distraction by the greater world of technology to pacify those unable to change while the changes continue to steam roll in.

Should we be depressed? No. We will have more and more idiots like Trudeau and Trump who are clueless technologically ignorant people serving as pacifier distractions yes. Its not an accident someone who barely got through school and whose sole career consisted of one year of supply teaching drama is Prime Minister in Canada. Idiots are elected to pacify us.

The problem is all of us will have to find ways to survive with ever increasing technology.

I say to people, you are never too old to learn something creative as an individual you can then try offer others.

I provide teaching and consulting now as an individual instead of working for others. At first I had no idea if I would get any customers. Then 1 came, then another, another, now about 8 years later I make enough to survive through this damn pandemic. No I aint rich but the choice was being an unhappy lawyer programmed to memorize scripts and rules and as quick as I did that, learn they had changed, and do it again and work in a hierarchy no different than the Borg or Communist Party of China. Thanks but no thanks.

As for universities and colleges. They are the Borg as well. However there is anarchy. I actually can teach in a very individual way. By the time they catch up with me, I have moved on to teaching somewhere else. My greatest enemy today are full time professors who have never worked, have a Ph.d in some outmoded area, and are petrified I can teach things they can not. So they will report me as being inappropriate or get involved in committees to contain part-timer lecturers as germs.

Lol. The last laugh is I will die before they can really fire me. Cancer or heart disease will get me before any system.

Cheers.

 

That's quite a bizarre rant. You of course managed to squeeze Trump and Hitler (Hitlerian narrative?) into a topic that has nothing to do with it.

Simply put, the ACT and SAT tests are not intelligence tests, they provide a common reference point for all colleges and universities to be able to compare High School graduates. You can't really do that with GPA and High School diplomas from thousands of schools with differing standards.

So I'm not sure how that impacts "other cultures." It's a test of knowledge and if a particular culture isn't up to speed on math, and reading comprehension in English, they should probably seek a more culturally appropriate higher education than a US College or University.

 

I don't think the removal of standardized testing necessarily leads to what you're suggesting. Standardized testing is only good at identifying certain types of intelligence and exceptionalism. I believe many people who test poorly could still prove to be exceptionally gifted and productive in certain advanced fields of knowledge.

But I do think you're right on in what Universities are intending to do. There are other methods that could be used to choose students objectively while also overcoming the limits of standardized testing. It appears there is not going to be any objective standards at all, and its safe to assume this is in order to facilitate subjective (read: biased) admissions policy.

 

I don't disagree that many people who test poorly can be productive in certain areas, but those areas are probably not college, which is structured around frequent testing. If you can't take tests well, there probably isn't any point in going to an institution that is dependent on, and will conduct, frequent tests.

 

These two.

1) The merit entry system was a product of the equality and egalitarianism (you remember ... that quaint old timey 20thC dream?) initiatives arising out of the 1960's revolutions. It's clear now that those who wanted it, are NOT the same people now trying to end it. Anyone who still thinks the Left is for all that good stuff has to be willingly delusional for convenience, at this point. There's no other explanation.

2) And here's the REAL reason. Retention of the selective power of the kings of industry. Cronyism and corruption, and all that medievalist horror we tried (but apparently failed) to outlaw.

 

Nope. It's starting to happen in public universities, too. That excludes any fiscal premise.

 

Bingo

 

It seems that what was "progressive" a hundred years ago is totally opposite of what's considered "progressive" today.

 

The old bait and switch.

They swapped out the working class luddites for the middle class bourgeoisie sometime in the early 21stC. The 20thC Eurocentrist intellectuals were always fond of dabbling in peasanthood (IOW, toying with the little people) to relieve the monotony of certainty, but the masses didn't join them til they realised it was time to update their street cred and style notes. "Compassion" was the new black, so the appropriate LARPing took off. The performance was all .. the effects utterly irrelevant. After all, they themselves were safe from the fallout so who cares!

Upshot .. these bourgois brought their essential drivers with them. The lust for things, power, and attention.

 

In regards to your first comment the aptitude tests you mentioned and the others measure your aptitude in various areas such as verbal, math, analytical and writing skills.

Those skill areas are standard components that make up what is defined as intelligence.So to say they are not intelligence tests is illogical.

Whether they do an accurate job in measuring such skills and whether such measurements are in turn accurate predictions for how well someone will do in college which their creators claim they can do is another question.

You appear confused as to the difference between knowledge and intelligence and the primary purpose of the tests. The primary purpose is to try screen one's ability to apply certain intelligence skills in a college setting so as to identify the most potentially successful candidates for admission. The secondary reason was to build a hierarchy from which to base a priority system of who is admitted and in what order IF there are limited admission places. If the sole reason for aptitude tests was the latter, there would be not necessarily be a need to test the former. It could be based on many other objective methods.

Next, knowledge is popularly defined as a set of skills and information a person has acquired through experience. Intelligence popularly defined as the ability to apply knowledge.

This is why the aptitude tests we speak of are said to be intelligence tests because you are being tested on your ability to APPLY the knowledge not whether you acquired it.

The assumption built into these tests is that even if someone lacks knowledge of a particular subject doesn't mean they can't apply their intelligence to help solve problems without having specific hands on knowledge.

That said in your second comment you stated in response to my having referred to others who have claimed such aptitude tests can be inaccurate due to cross cultural biases, and I quote: "I'm not sure how that impacts "other cultures.

There have been many kinds of biases people have argued make these tests inaccurate:


https://www.edweek.org/education/op...ed-in-all-standardized-aptitude-tests/1991/01

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimels...sed-heres-what-research-says/?sh=5c0b55943c42

https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9218/gender.htm

Finally of course you find my rant bizarre. You come from a world where people like Donald Trump pay their way through life and have never been tested and use finances to gain entry to places they would otherwise not be able to enter if it was based on intelligence alone.

You benefit from that world. You believe what I say is a rant because you don't agree with it. If you agreed with it you would not call it a rant.

Hey now. Its not rocket science.

 

I called your rant bizarre (post #3) because you squeezed Trump and Hitler in a post about SAT's and ACT's and then you called them intelligence tests, which they categorically are not. Now you are doubling down on being wrong on that by claiming the measure aptitude, which again, they are not. You actually have to be able to do the math on those tests, not simply have a mathematical aptitude.

The ending of standardized testing in US higher education is the end of meritocracy in the US, since standardized testing allowed poor kids in bad schools who were high achievers to be able to document that in a way that every college could compare to other students. No such path exists now.

 

How can something designed to test ability to apply intellectual skills not be categorically an intelligence test? If course it measures intelligence by measuring aptitude to likely be able to apply certain intellectual skills in a higher academic setting. So how would that not measure intelligence by measuring intrellectual skills said to be components of intelligence?

At this point you argue for the sake of arguing.

"The SAT and Bias
The notion of the SAT as a test of intelligence, as opposed to rote memorization and regurgitation of high school subject matter, would advance public perception of the test's important role as an arbiter of merit-based university admissions decisions, a key reason that the test was created in the first place."

source:https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-history/

All the tests, i.e., SATS, LSAT's GMATS, GRE's, ACTS, MCATS test these skills:

Passage Reading
Verbal Logic
Non Verbal Logic
Numerical Logic
Data Interpretation
Reasoning
Analytical Ability
Quantitative Aptitude


To pretend the above components have nothing to do with testing intelligence is unintelligent let alone absurd.

The above tests are often referred to in the academic world as group tests of intelligence

https://books.google.ca/books?id=F4... lsat, sat, who invented them and why&f=false

https://openpress.usask.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/defining-and-measuring-intelligence/


You are out of your Trump comfort zone. Stick to Trump.

As for my bizarre rant as you call it since you are a supporter of Trump I want to particularly make things salient for you because I am sensitive to your needs. Thank you.

 

There are ways other than standard aptitude tests to measure intelligence, merit, or other objective methods to determine who should get a seat in school if there are only so many seats. The point is there are now more seats that students applying that is why the tests were removed.

The reasons the tests have been removed is because Harvard and other schools are desperate to admit anyone at this point because because of low enrollment due to the pandemic.

The reality remains however that few can afford to go to school unless its by scholarship.

So all it does now is allow people with money to now get in without having to bribe there way in the back door like Trump did. They can walk in the front with their D's now.

If a student requires a scholarship, the person offering the scholarship dictates the terms of who gets it and its not necessarily based on academic marks or aptitude test scores.

The higher education arena is closely connected to and dependent on both corporate and individual financial donors who can always pay for the entry of their children.

 

So Trump is involved in a discussion of SAT's?

Since you like links:

IS THE SAT AN INTELLIGENCE TEST?

"While many students, parents, and professional “experts” mistake the importance of the SAT and ACT as proof that the tests are intelligence tests, college admissions officers know this is not true. It is simply a quick and easy way for them to quantitatively compare applicants."

PBS Is the SAT an IQ test?

"Is the SAT an IQ test?

No.

Why isn't it an IQ test?

Because it doesn't measure IQ. It is used that way. And it was developed from the army IQ test. But even the College Board will refuse to say that this is an intelligence test."

***

So if I understand your argument, standardized testing is bad because it measures intelligence, which we know doesn't work, so it doesn't measure intelligence, so it's better to do no testing at all.

Does that summarize your position?

 

OK what ways can you "...measure intelligence, merit, or other objective methods to determine who should get a seat in school if there are only so many seats?"

 

And there goes the value of a Harvard degree.

 

Value? In what? Value of universities has always been hyped bullshit. The only way to know true value of education is to see the results of the work someone has done. Most universities have a range of researchers that go from sheer incompetent to top of the line leading edge innovators and even then the value of what some may do may never translate into anything and remain theoretical.

Its a very complex question to ask to evaluate universities to determine who is better than another. It used to be people would look at who the faculty were and what research they produced. Then it meant physical facilities, types of kinds of residences, sports and recreation, equipment, on and on.

Harvard coasted on its reputation as did Yale and other Ivy League schools as did Oxford, Cambridge, but the fact is t he vast majority of people who attend these places have done nothing out of the ordinary any one else did. Its true certain universities are known for specific expertise in specific research areas or say medical schools or graduate schools but again how much of that was hype as well. Does the fact someone has a law degree from Harvard automatically make them a better lawyer than someone from University of Detroit? Really? It may, it may not, but is it the school or the individual who would have been successful whatever school they went to?

The aptitude screening device was designed to try be a fair way to admit people based on a one size fits all measurement system to treat everyone equally when rating them but it has shown oveer the last 30 years that high aptitude tests are no guarantee that the students with them go on to do anything extra-ordinary. A lot of it depends on the will, the sheer determination, desire, discipline of the student. A lot of students without necessarily high iq's or lots of intellectual skills compensate for what they do not have by trying much harder and pushing themselves. In fact students with high aptitude scores or high iq's for that matter could just as easily get bored and flunk out or lack the emotional and social skills to be able to apply their knowledge.

So its a tough question. Will it hurt schools not just Harvard if they don't use the aptitude test system. Under-graduate schools today are so politically charged, the marks mean nothing. They are not arenas of critical thought anymore. They pretty much are churning out political scripts where people are penalized for questioning things.

I advise students if you can go to a smaller under-graduate school and don't just study one subject. Open your mind to many subjects and learn skills other than just studying such as working in the school media, getting involved in student politics and charity organizations, organized sports, and something creative. Have a wide base of skills and hopefully know who the professor is and your fellow students are.

Large campuses only expose you to a sea of unknown faces and some video which defeats the purpose of a live lecture since you sit in an auditorium with 700 students staring at a screen which means you may as well stay at home on zoom.

Times have changed. Methods of study, evaluation, its all changed. It might be that the standard you think being lowered already was.

 

There never was a question about the value of degrees becoming devalued.

 

Yep. Back to the bad old days for America. Cronyism and favourtism will take off again. There's no way in the world this kind of discretional power won't be corrupted. That's WHY it was overturned in the first place.

 

No. It summarizes yours.

To start with if you are going to refer to an article cite it and do not pull it from its actual context.

I in fact stated an i.q. is one way to measure intelligence. Standardized testing is another. SO the fact that a standardized test does not measure what an i.q. test does does not mean it does not measure intelligence.

Here is the statement I made you try to twist and misrepresent and here are the full context of the words you misrepresent in bold:

The SAT was famously derived from an armed forces IQ test. Even its origin as an acronym for Scholastic Aptitude Test hints at the exam’s initial purpose as a means to rank college applicants by some form of intelligence. However, the SAT and ACT diverged from abstract aptitude testing to evaluate more of the quantitative and verbal reasoning that IQ testing tries to avoid. For example, success on the math sections of the SAT and ACT definitely requires a substantial grounding in arithmetic, geometry, and both basic and advanced algebra. Evaluating what subjects have learned in school is not generally included in IQ testing.

It can fairly be said that the SAT and ACT are not intelligence tests, at least not in the conventional sense.
|n only guess at the former.

At the same time, the fact cannot be ignored that test scores tend to correlate highly with measurements of general intelligence. The SAT may have moved away from its earliest associations with IQ testing, but that isn’t stopping College Board from exploring new forms of intelligence-based standardized exams for admission purposes. Ultimately, the ability to conclusively categorize exams as intelligence tests depends entirely on a conclusive definition of intelligence. Until we all agree on the latter question, we can only guess at the former.

The above article you failed to cite and removed from its actual context can be found at:https://www.chariotlearning.com/what-is-an-intelligence-test/

So what I stated and repeat is that it is absolutely incorrect to state a standardized test does not measure intelligence. The fact it does so differently that iq tests does not mean it does not test intelligence. Whether standardized tests are accurate or not does not mean they do not test intelligence: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/measuring-intelligence/.

There are different ways to measure intelligence.

What I have in fact stated is that ANY psychometric testing module has defficiencies including testing and cultural biases and both do not tnecessarily ake into proper account the test subject's "emotional" or "maturity" level or how possible psychiatric, psychological and organic conditions of the test subject may interefere with the person's ability to complete the test in an accurate manner.

Any psychometric test has its pros and cons depending on what you use them for and what you hope to measure out of them.

What I have said is that there are many ways to measure people's skills and potential for success and now you have asked me what they all are thinking its some simple quick test. Its not. You in fact are asking me to think for you and screen people for you. You want a screening criteria? Really? Then create one that reflects your values. You clearly are not interested in mine.

I mysewlf start with this approach:

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-11-22-how-to-measure-success-without-academic-achievement

I doubt you will even bother to read the above but its the starting point.

After starting with the above I would argue we now need to consider emotional intelligence in any testing which is not being done:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6546921/

Then tied directly to the above we need to consider what is called self efficacy which is not being tested for either:

https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/education/self-efficacy

I would state to you that there is no quick fix to measure emotional intelligence:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6546921/

What I am suggesting to you is to more accurately measure someone's intelligence and ability to succeed would require more different types of testing that would also include emotional and and self -efficacy skills and we would need to be careful to avoid testing and cultural biases.

At this time, the fact is, no psychometric tester has found any one single test or component that can accurately judge how well a person can perform mental and cognitive tasks.

I can tell you the current standardized testing or iq tests builds in the assumptions that if you have good short term memory, are quick to use and apply math, and have a large vocabulary you can use, this makes you intelligent and therefore more likely to succeed in university.

What I alsoi can tell you from first hand experience teaching people or counseling people for over 30 years is that intelligence does not necessarily come from a degree or any of the above components alone or in part but can also come from:

1-atttitude: will a person be willing to take a mistake and turn it into a lesson to learn something positive:
2-not obsessing over needing to be in control and being able to stay calm when others around them are not;
3-beingh able to see more than one solution to a problem;
4-being creative and flexible and not afraid to think outside the box and leave one's comfort zones and take risks;
5-have a good sense of humour and ability to laugh with not at others and to laugh at oneself;
6-am ability to see the connection in things others can not see;
7-maintain a healthy lifestyle and self respect without arrogance;
8-an ability to be kind, considerate, compassionate;
9-not be afraid to ask questions and look for answers.

All the above are characteristics I have seen in people who I would describe as "adjusted" as opposed to "maladjusted" who did well in school and life. Does that mean they are intelligent? Does that mean they are superior? I do not use words like that. I don't judge people other than to say what I have subjectively seen with what I call positive people.

 

There has always been an ongoing discussion about grade and mark inflation and devaluing of degrees. The fact you may not have noticed it does not mean it never existed.

Anyone who teaches in any environment knows this phenomena. We see wide spread erosion of the meaning of testing, marks. We see wide spread illiteracy and lack of creative imagination. Any of us who teach know since they removed physical activity, art, music,cognitive skills have devolved not advanced.

Those of us who teach see the next generation of internet cell phone dependent students-they do not create-they repeat and their short term memories are based on ten second sound bites. There is no problem solving-there is asking a cell phone for the answer. There is no writing-there are abbreviated initials. Creative and abstract thinking processes have been replaced by rote cue on command instructions.

Education has eroded and many parents are concerned as to the quality of education and many students know the degrees they have received are meaningless. a Master's is now a Bachelor's. Ph.d's are highly questionable in terms of what they are worth.

Students, parents. teachers, we all question the erosion. We also look to ways to fix the system and bring back value and meaning.

I argue that a proper education in addition to mathematics, language/grammar, science, history and geography as basic components, needs physical education, art, music, and some kind of work with animals, gardening or nature where students reconnect tot he environment and contribute to building and cleaning it and taking care of a life form that is vulnerable.

 

It was never overturned. It has always existed. There was no magic that occurred to prevent what you complain of. The aptitude testing created in fact a parallel entry system.

How did people get into school when they had no neutral admissions criteria? Ask a minority. How do you think blacks,Jews, Latinos, Chinese, etc. got in? Our parents had to sacrifice and work many jobs and we had to study like hell. All minorities can tell you. They had to be many times as good. They also depended on scholarships based not just on marks but what we contributed to our community in terms of social work and commitment. We had to demonstrate a commitment to helping others less fortunate than us if we got a scholarship.

Scholarships to this day often are not based simply on marks but the things a student has done so far in their life showing a commitment
to help others.

Good people will find a way to get into schools and succeed. No amount of corruption can stop the inevitable progress of good people doing good. It can get some undeserving people in but such people only get to a certain level.

No Donald Trump never went to medical school, law school, graduate school. Yah he became President. And? What did it get him? Nothing. He has a tenure of nothing-zero legacy. You can get in a door, but once you are in your true value shows itself. What Trump did and people like him do means sweet phack all. Good people never get attention but they are there. They are doing things as we speak with their education and the barriers they faced created the character they needed to succeed.

In practical reality there have always been enough schools in the US to get into even without an aptitude test. The great barrier has been money and money ultimately comes from government scholarships corporate scholarships or houses of worship and community organizations and charities when people can't pay. It also means some people must settle for something less at first and work there way to it in a longer round and about way. It is life. Its not great we need proper perspective.

I believe no matter how tough it is and looks, good people will find a way. Yah maybe its naive but I believe it.

 

enrollment is lower during the pandemic, so this is just to try and get the numbers up