[LOCKED] OT: NCAA task force recommends removing minimum standardized test scores

Submitted by m83econ on October 15th, 2021 at 12:57 PM

NOTE: I think we are better off locking this one. The OP certainly had no ill intent, but a few people here are full of ill intent in their denials of systemic and institutional racism, so we will simply keep this from devolving and sidetracking further. - LSA

An NCAA task force recommended on Friday that incoming freshmen in Division I and II sports should no longer be required to meet minimum scores on standardized tests for initial eligibility.

The recommendation was made by the NCAA Standardized Test Score Task Force, which was formed as part of the NCAA's eight-point plan to advance racial equity. The Division I Committee on Academics and Division II Academic Requirements Committee will consider the recommendation at their next scheduled meetings in February. Changes to initial-eligibility requirements would also have to be reviewed and made through each division's legislative process.

Here's the link:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/32405869/ncaa-task-force-recommends-removing-minimum-standardized-test-scores-effort-advance-racial-equity

Key paragraph in motivation for change:

In July 2020, the National Association of Basketball Coaches called for the NCAA to permanently eliminate standardized test scores from eligibility requirements.

"The days of colleges requiring the SAT or ACT are passing rapidly: more than half of all four-year colleges and universities will not require these tests for admissions in 2021, and more are dropping the requirement every week," the NABC said in a statement at the time. "These tests should no longer be required in the initial-eligibility standards. The tests are again being recognized as forces of institutional racism, which is consistent with their history, and they should be jettisoned for that reason alone; moreover, pragmatics also support this change."

Basketball

crg

October 15th, 2021 at 12:59 PM ^

So a lower academic standard simply because they play sports?  And what if the rest of the student body in a school does need to submit the test result(s)?

Joined: 04/30/2015

MGoPoints: 75054

NotADuck

October 15th, 2021 at 1:09 PM ^

At first I thought to myself, "They're lowering expectations for racial equity?  Isn't that a subtle form of racism itself?"  Then I read your comment and that makes a lot more sense.  I don't keep up with college admission standards since I haven't been to college in over a decade.

Joined: 12/20/2013

MGoPoints: 18268

Rickett88

October 15th, 2021 at 2:06 PM ^

Not everyone has an equal shot, but we’ve lost idea of the value of working our way up through the ranks. When my Grandparents came here from Germany, they struggled to get by, but did so for the betterment of their children, and my parents the same, and I the same for my daughter. We are all too often looking for what’s best for ME, instead of how do I work hard so my family tree can be better, and there is no shame in that. 

Eventually that does lead to different economic classes after a few generations, but to say that can’t be replaced is false, and to say that everyone should start or be on the same footing when they first move to somewhere new is a straw house argument and a way for the current system to break immediately for everyone. Being able to choose how hard you work, how much vacation you want, and what you do is a choice, that has different values, and are paid accordingly. 

Joined: 08/21/2012

MGoPoints: 10566

jhayes1189

October 15th, 2021 at 3:56 PM ^

Social engineering, urban development, community organizing, a one size fits all education system, general one size fits all standardization of people’s abilities, and certain groups of people being told “you can’t make it without our help” from a certain sector of social class is, in my opinion, what causes different socio-economic classes.

my opinion, may not be a popular one here, but this is what I’ve observed throughout my life. 

Joined: 10/04/2021

MGoPoints: 6552

NittanyFan

October 15th, 2021 at 4:13 PM ^

Conversely, sometimes I wonder if the ghost of Karl Marx has an MGoBlog account.

The following is true:

  1. In any world where there is freedom,
  2. there are going to be people who take more (starting a business) or less (playing video games all day) risk,
  3. which leads to a degree of economic inequality.

I've said it before.  If you want absolute economic equality, the only way to get there is by completely getting rid of freedom.  And if one wants any degree of freedom, one needs to accept that a degree of economic inequality will result.

Joined: 12/04/2012

MGoPoints: 43109

Brianj25

October 15th, 2021 at 5:40 PM ^

Literally nobody is asking for these absurd extremes. They would just prefer a society where quality of life is not determined almost exclusively by what socioeconomic class you were born into, and where opportunities to take risks and earn rewards are distributed at least somewhat equitably. 

Joined: 08/21/2014

MGoPoints: -584

Hail Harbo

October 15th, 2021 at 7:33 PM ^

I don't think you know the meaning of "literally."  And by the way, what do you suppose is meant by the current WH administration that it advocating a fundamental change to our economic system?

As for making risk/reward more equitable.  If taking a risk has no more reward than not taking a risk, who will be left to take risks?

Joined: 06/18/2015

MGoPoints: 13428

Brianj25

October 15th, 2021 at 3:25 PM ^

Probably because established interests have made it all but impossible to "work[] our way up through the ranks," and all but impossible to fall down in the "ranks" if you are born at the top.

Inequality would be easier to stomach if socioeconomic mobility existed. The reality of modern day America is that people born to poor families will almost always end up poor no matter how hard they work, and people born to wealthy families will almost always end up wealthy no matter how little they work. 

Joined: 08/21/2014

MGoPoints: -584

BlueinKyiv

October 15th, 2021 at 2:03 PM ^

This is a false premise that the SAT/ACT are becoming a thing of the past (at least for those not attending a college in the top 2% of our nation's 2,500 institutions). 

Yes, it is true that Michigan, Harvard, or say a Kenyon College does not need to bother getting your ACT/SAT and likely will not be returning to that model after the pandemic. This is the 2020s, they already have a better replacement ..AP courses/exams (or IB/AICE depending on your school). Yes, the exams that are the most correlated with wealth and test-prep on positive results.
 

Given that none of these schools are going to take a student that didn't take at least a half dozen AP courses (and most of the rest honors level or dual enrollment at a college), they already know how most of their applicants will perform in college. The ACT/SAT is redundant for top performers.As for the world that most of America lives in, an Eastern Michigan does not have a budget or incoming student body that allows them to sift through thousands of applications and figure out whose grades and seriousness of coursework was better than others to rank their acceptances.  They have no choice but to use a standardized college test for admission. 

 

Joined: 04/05/2017

MGoPoints: 4226

BlueinKyiv

October 15th, 2021 at 6:00 PM ^

Fair point but also an exception.  Unlike nearly all its peers, Michigan as a state university still has a quota for rural kids (I was once a beneficiary of the same as a young man) ..... that said, the dozen kids from my Miami high school that were accepted at Michigan last year (Cypress Bay regularly provides 5 or 6 kids to Michigan) were told by the Michigan recruiter that even a 1500 on the SAT would not substitute for a solid set of AP courses to get out-of-state admission to UofM. 

Joined: 04/05/2017

MGoPoints: 4226

MarcusBrooks

October 15th, 2021 at 2:43 PM ^

if the test is racist isn't the answer to the problem to make the test NOT RACIST? 

minorities can't pass the tests, is it the TEST that is the issue? 

OR the students who chose not to work hard to study for the tests? 

not sure how minorities who have ANY pride in their work ethic are OK with this from so called Leaders. 

Joined: 07/25/2013

MGoPoints: 3035

victors2000

October 15th, 2021 at 5:41 PM ^

It's less about minorities and more about socio-economic status. Families in poor socio-economic status are there for reasons apart from their ethnicity. They are poor because of their 'lot'. By 'lot' I mean the family condition, the neighborhood, the quality of schools. Many kids in that situation are not going to be prepared for life after high school because of their lot. Conversely, in families with high socio-economic status, the parents have had success; they probably graduated college, live in good to great neighborhoods, and have above average quality schools to send their kids to. A kid in this lot is going to be much better prepared to succeed at life let alone college. 

Joined: 03/21/2009

MGoPoints: 12912

RoughRider

October 15th, 2021 at 7:57 PM ^

While there were a few schools that previously dropped the SAT/ACT requirement for admission, many dropped them TEMPORARILY the past 2 years due to the problems associated with COVID. Grades at so many high schools are extremely subjective and even manipulated to allow students of various races to gain admission to sports programs. Now, no standards to get admitted to a school, easy courses with tutors and possible test-takers after admission (North Carolina?), fail courses/do not attend classes 1st semester and get put on probation, fail second semester and get booted out of school after second semester, get drafted by the pros.

The standards that are in place are not that stringent. Most schools have scholarship players of all races that have made the grade. What it boils down to is are we here to educate or just to be farm systems for pro sports?  As a retort, the poster who asked 'What about schools who do not require exam scores from non-athletes" has a valid point.

Finally, many med schools are no longer requiring MCATs for admission under reasoning similar to this, along with them being "too stressful". Good luck when Mom requires emergency surgery for her brain bleed.

Joined: 07/06/2021

MGoPoints: 197

enlightenedbum

October 15th, 2021 at 1:04 PM ^

No. Lots of member institutions are dropping the SAT for all admissions because it doesn't mean much of anything for your future success.  As no single day test could accurately measure your academic potential.  Because there are a billion factors that go into a kid's performance on any particular day, only some of which are academic.

The SAT and ACT are garbage tests that don't do what they say they should do and we should stop making kids take them, period.

Joined: 06/06/2009

MGoPoints: 64438

WolvinLA2

October 15th, 2021 at 1:09 PM ^

I'm in favor of de-emphasizing them, and I'm very in favor of outlawing "test prep" that absolutely favors the wealthy. But I think you're taking a bit too far. An ACT or SAT score in a vacuum certainly doesn't tell the whole story but in terms of determining aptitude it is definitely one measurable way to do it. We have to evaluate students somehow, and GPA tends to show effort AT LEAST as much as ability.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

ex dx dy

October 15th, 2021 at 1:14 PM ^

I seem to remember reading a while ago that Google did a big analysis to try to figure out which quantifiable factors best predicted future success within their company (things like GPA, test scores, extracurriculars, past jobs, etc) and they found the only item that had any predictive value was ACT score. But I may be misremembering that

Joined: 10/30/2018

MGoPoints: 4410

crg

October 15th, 2021 at 1:15 PM ^

GPA can be "gamed" and is highly variant by high school and curricula.  The point of having a standardized test is to offer a true fair comparison using a common metric.  This is not to say the SAT and ACT are without flaws (although none of the arguments I've heard to date, which are mostly socio-political, truly justify abandoning them), but they should not be discarded without having a suitable replacement in effect.  Individual schools can use additional and/or alternative methods to screen candidates if they wish (none were forced to use these tests - it was somethingthey chose), but shouldn't the objective be to identify the academically capable candidates - especially for highly competitive schools?

Joined: 04/30/2015

MGoPoints: 75054

blomeup2day

October 15th, 2021 at 1:59 PM ^

Standardized tests are still used at the state level for proficiency at each grade level in varying subjects. The need for an additional test seems unnecessary and universities have no problem weeding out students that perform poorly.  Each college inside a university tend to evaluate prospective students based on a myriad of factors that aren’t based on a test score. 
 

Students that perform well in a classroom setting should not be held back because of a test.  If that means universities have to invest more in some remedial courses, because less affluent schools were deficient in providing adequate learning opportunities then so be it.  Location of where you attend school should not dictate your entire life and the opportunities you are afforded. 

Joined: 05/12/2016

MGoPoints: 317

crg

October 15th, 2021 at 2:15 PM ^

universities have no problem weeding out students that perform poorly

This is true (to an extent) once the students are *admitted* to the university, but the main point of these tests is to provide additional information about the students prior to coming to university - information that cannot be manipulated by parties with a vested interest in promoting those students.

You are correct in that a person's starting location in life shouldn't dictate their outcome - and it does not ever completely do so (there are always numerous examples of people overcoming their early life challenges... as well as those from privilege failing).  The starting location will always *influence* the outcome though and this can never be truly overcome... but it can be ameliorated.

To your point, the problem is *not* the test itself (algebra, geometry, vocabulary, reading comprehension... these are not concepts that should be unknown to an incoming college student); the problem is simply providing appropriate context.  Abandoning all standardized testing will not necessarily help that issue.

Joined: 04/30/2015

MGoPoints: 75054

blomeup2day

October 15th, 2021 at 2:29 PM ^

Texas proves otherwise. Top 10 percent of students are guaranteed admission from every high school in the state to public universities except UT where it is 6% regardless of test scores. There’s even been documentaries about the success and some failures of the system. Students that perform well in the classroom but didn’t attend a high performance school were at a disadvantage compared to their peers but if they were provided resources to supplement their learning the first two years their outcomes were near the top of their peers. 

Joined: 05/12/2016

MGoPoints: 317

enlightenedbum

October 15th, 2021 at 2:10 PM ^

"Academically capable" is a fascinating concept.  Because yes, it definitely exists and some kids are way more prepared than others.

However, there was a crazy story out of I think Louisiana a couple years ago.  Where a school was just fabricating transcripts for kids to try to get them into Ivies so they could advertise that to parents (school of choice kind of situation).  So the kids got in and for the most part, despite the fraud, they did fine in college.  So what exactly that means and whether anything measures anything really is completely up in the air.

It's sometimes important to realize that formal mass education is a pretty new concept (~150 years) and we really have NO IDEA what works best.

Joined: 06/06/2009

MGoPoints: 64438

Blue Vet

October 15th, 2021 at 2:48 PM ^

Formal mass education is newer than that.

Into the 1930s, fewer than 50% of youngster attended high school, so obviously many fewer attended college. The big boom in higher education arrived with the Baby Boomers, so it's only 70-80 years old.

https://attendengageinvest.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/high-school-attendance-and-completion-in-the-u-s-a-brief-historical-overview/

And tests for admission—ACT, SAT—made it easier sorting through that glut. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it was less about academic standards than standardized convenience.

Joined: 05/08/2012

MGoPoints: 71143

njvictor

October 15th, 2021 at 1:40 PM ^

GPA tends to show effort AT LEAST as much as ability.

GPA is even more flawed than standardized tests imo. GPA is weighted differently at every school, is helped and hurt by availability of AP/IB classes, gives more benefits to kids with more time, etc. I had a better GPA than some of my friends who had slightly better test scores, but that doesn't mean I'm smarter or they're smarter

Joined: 07/20/2017

MGoPoints: 65074

BlueinKyiv

October 15th, 2021 at 2:13 PM ^

WolvinLA2, I am no fan of the South Korean approach to education where our high schoolers are spending their evenings taking prep tests for getting in the right college.  But do you really think some piece of legislation would prevent a determined, studious kid from preparing for a test (AP or any decisive in your college admission).

Let's face it.  How is test prep any more inequitable as homework in general. When my daughter was struggling at AP Physics I got her an online tutor and she never had to work the nightshift at McDonald's before getting into her dream college back in the US.  Should we attempt to even out the time spent doing homework or prepping for normal classes as well?  Will this impact the racial distribution of college admission? I know your intent is to make life more just but like the anti-vaxxers, all of us have to reflect on whether how we feel is dictating too much of how we interpret facts. 

Joined: 04/05/2017

MGoPoints: 4226

Noleverine

October 15th, 2021 at 6:58 PM ^

Test prep != preparing for a test.
 

What (I think) WolvinLA2 is discussing are the programs that cost thousands of dollars in exchange for guaranteed higher grades because they teach you, effectively, ways to leverage the test structure into a higher grade. You pay money to learn how to “game” the test  

Let’s say you have Timmy at School A in a  wealthy part of town that either his parents pay for the class or is offered at the school (like I was lucky to have in my rural town for free). Timmy is taught things like it being better for your score to skip certain questions if it takes you more than 30 seconds to answer, or the logarithm used for the computer-adapted tests that puts more weight on the first X questions so you’re better off spending time on those and not getting to all of the later questions, perhaps. 
 

Tommy at School B that doesn’t have the funds to offer that class, or doesn’t have the same test prep materials in the library because the test has changed their approach recently and their materials are outdated. He doesn’t learn those tips and tricks, which will undoubtedly cost him points on the test. 
 

The fact that Timmy is automatically determined to be better equipped for college is an absolute indictment on the tests and the inherent bias in them.
 

Maybe once Tommy gets to school and has those resources available to him, he would thrive. But he missed the opportunity for a certain level of education because of where he was raised and the resources available. THATS how the standardized tests (and test prep, more specifically) play in to the generational poverty/wealth.
 

Can people escape it? Absolutely. Do they have to work infinitely harder to do so? I would argue between this, things like having to care for siblings due to lack of money for childcare, having to work jobs after school to help provide for the family— absolutely, undoubtedly, in many cases, yes. 

Joined: 10/06/2010

MGoPoints: 3828

bluebyyou

October 15th, 2021 at 2:18 PM ^

You need a common denominator because of the variances in high schools.  One way or the other, be it a standardized test, AP success, or even a high school's reputation based on performance of prior students' academic success, most colleges are going to have some type of benchmark beyond GPA that measures the likelihood doing well in the classroom.

 

 

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 18566

NittanyFan

October 15th, 2021 at 1:48 PM ^

Yes, the SAT/ACT is a "single day test" but when we think about life as a whole, many things are that way:

  • Person has a job interview.  They have up to a few hours to make an impression and a statement.
  • U-M football game against Ohio State.  Despite all the months of preparation and the other 11 games in a regular season, much of this team's reputation comes down to those 3.5 hours.
  • First date with someone.  You don't necessarily get a second chance to "make a statement" here either.

Et cetera, et cetera.

The SAT/ACT isn't perfect but I do think "high stakes assessments" should be part of the college admissions process.  High stakes assessments are a part of life - I'm not opposed to 17-year-olds being exposed to that.

Joined: 12/04/2012

MGoPoints: 43109

enlightenedbum

October 15th, 2021 at 2:16 PM ^

The job interview process is also stupid and biased towards extroverts.  In particular the worst boss I ever had was a guy who was extremely charismatic and I'm sure kicked ass in the interview process.  But he was also a complete incompetent who didn't know what he was doing (if we can just get kids to stop wearing flip flops to school, this will solve the problem we have with fights in the hallways - a real thought this moron had) and didn't show up 60% of the time.

We need to figure out better ways of doing things rather than continuing to do stupid things because they're the status quo.

Joined: 06/06/2009

MGoPoints: 64438

NittanyFan

October 15th, 2021 at 2:26 PM ^

I hired a couple people onto my team earlier this summer.

Sure ...... if I had an infinite amount of time, I'd LOVE to spend a full afternoon, over up to a dozen different days, with each of my candidates, to find out everything about them and judge how they are across 2,374 different attributes and make a decision that way.

In reality, I don't have an infinite amount of time.  Nobody does.  The 2 people I hired, I spent 2 60 minute periods with each of them, then met one of the 2 for a lunch too.

The reality is that very often, we get a limited amount of time to prove our worth.  That's life.

Joined: 12/04/2012

MGoPoints: 43109

trustBlue

October 15th, 2021 at 1:49 PM ^

No, its completely the opposite. They didn't lower the standard for people who play sports. The NCAA rule doesn't create any special exemption for athletes at any schoos where standadized tests are required. Instead they got ride of a requirement that only applied to people who play sports.

The issue was that many schools have moved away from requiring SAT/ACT scores for admission for all students. That means that athletes at those schools would have to take the SAT/ACT even if other students did not have to, simply in order to meet the NCAA's requirements.

This won't eliminate the SAT/ACT at schools that still require it for admission. Any athlete who attends a schools that requires standarized tests for admission will still need to take them as required by the school.

 

Joined: 04/14/2014

MGoPoints: 8169

Blue Vet

October 15th, 2021 at 2:35 PM ^

I'm a big fan of standardized tests because I do well on them.

However, the SAT and ACT were never about academic standards but about standardizing academics.

Numbers on a general info test don't necessarily make admissions decisions better, just easier.

Joined: 05/08/2012

MGoPoints: 71143