How do you think the new TOPS requirements will affect SUBR

volod;dr

quote:

---

However,not everyone is "poor-enough" to go to school purely off grants. So do you think this could possibly hurt SUBR numbers. Just curious.

---

They will have to increase grants or SUBR will go even further into debt. Everyone knows those damn ACT/SAT are racist as hell and if they increase the ACT minimum to the 24-26 range the number of blacks that qualify will plummet. Them damn whites with their test taking privilege well be effected too but not as bad.

quote:

---

I understand that the current budget crisis needs a solution. And even though I think the real problem is the state constitution (ie protected expenditures), it is safe to say that some education expenses need to be reduced.

---

This.
We've had more constitutions in this state, and they never get it right.

quote:

---

Everyone knows those damn ACT/SAT are racist

---

I know your joking. To be clear, I understand that standardized test are inherently designed not to be discriminatory.

I also feel that other qualifications should be considered for scholarships other than purely test scores.

quote:

---

recieve

---

quote:

---

I know your joking

---

Guessing you wouldn't qualify for the 24-26 range either

quote:

---

I also feel that other qualifications should be considered for scholarships other than purely test scores.

---

I think the ACT score is the best way to judge how a student will do in college. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. However, it's a better judge than a GPA at a random school. There are huge differences in schools and grading. A standardized test, even with all its faults, is a much better litmus test than a GPA.

quote:

---

I also feel that other qualifications should be considered for scholarships other than purely test scores.

---

Like what? Is an unbiased test score not the best way of awarding scholarships? Any other method promotes some form of bias.

Go by GPA and you'll figure out some schools are more rigorous than others, and those students are put at a disadvantage. Go by a complete resume evaluation and you get into all sorts of ridiculous bias that would cost a fortune to evaluate on a per student basis. Go by need and it becomes a need based scholarship, and we already have government grants for those, and those students would not merit the investment that the state would be making into them

Unbiased test scores on a test given the same way every time is by far the best method. I understand some people will use a counter argument that people with more money can take the test more times and use prep classes, etc, and I will say to them "find a better, less biased, cost effective system". And when I ask that no one will have a better solution

quote:

---

I understand some people will use a counter argument that people with more money can take the test more times and use prep classes

---

Well the same could be said for attaining a higher GPA (parents can pay for more tutoring). If you're a senior in high school you have pretty much learned what you're going to learn for college. Either you're ready for college or you're not. A standardized test that makes you apply that knowledge is the best way to judge this.

I made a 24 on the ACT.

And for the record, I know plenty of people who scored less than me and most of them went to PWI schools (that is the sad part)

College has shown me that diligence and skill trumps scores. If you only knew how many 26+ ACT people dont make it in STEM or pre-med programs...

quote:

---

Well the same could be said for attaining a higher GPA (parents can pay for more tutoring). If you're a senior in high school you have pretty much learned what you're going to learn for college. Either you're ready for college or you're not. A standardized test that makes you apply that knowledge is the best way to judge this.

---

Absolutely. Life isn't fair and unbiased, but the ACT may be the closest thing to an unbiased, fair assessment of a student's abilities