cgeldmacher

Maybe he's taking notes from Ford and his staff.

I thought that Bonner was the last one to play four seasons and get drafted. That will need to change if we want Ford to be able to start consistently getting 4 and 5 star local guys to stay here. Doesn't need to be a four year guy, just a guy that commits to SLU out of high school and goes straight from SLU to the NBA.

Question: I Bonner the last player to play four years at SLU and then get drafted by the NBA?

There's an idea for the whiteout game this year, masks instead of t-shirts. Maybe the older folks will be more likely to actually put them on.

The Missouri legislature is debating immunity from lawsuits on the state level as well. Any lawsuit over contracting COVID-19 would be a state claim, not a federal claim anyway.

Got it. When you are in the You Tube Billiken Vault "Home" it only shows five videos. When you move over to the "Videos" tab, three more show up.

Are the tournament games in Columbus on the list to get put in the vault?

Good for him. I hope he's happy there and plays well. A good VCU is good for the A-10 and good for SLU.

Okay. Good. Always appreciate your insight, Coach. I really do think that Jordan's skill set will give him a chance at the NBA. I just don't think he's shown his full potential yet.

I think that post was very well stated. Anything said below should not take away from my appreciation of your post. I agree with it. I'm just in favor of having more information rather than less. Make sure that admissions folks know that there are biases in testing, AND biases in other areas that are used as considerations. There's not a single metric used by colleges that doesn't have some sort of bias attached to it. So, the idea that focusing on other criteria, besides testing, is better for kids who have less advantages just isn't accurate. There will now be more focus on things like volunteer hours (which is beneficial to affluent kids who have more of an opportunity to get them). There will be more focus on extracurriculars (which is beneficial to affluent kids whose schools offer more opportunity for extracurriculars and whose kids can more easily take advantage of them). There will be more focus on GPA, which due to grade inflation which is more prevalent at affluent schools will benefit affluent kids more. My point is that we should make sure admissions people are good at identifying kids that will be good students regardless of those biases. Don't take away the benefit that a kid gets from a good test score and put more focus on other criteria which is equally or more biased. Just consider it all and do a good job of seeing through the bias. They idea that picking out one factor that appears biased and diminishing its importance doesn't make the situation better. It just results in less information to be considered.

You might be right, and my example of a kid that missed time from school wasn't the best. I have seen examples of kids who get very good ACT score who are coming out of what would be considered disadvantaged areas or poor performing schools. When we see that, it's an indication of a kid who worked very hard and made his or herself a good student. I don't like the idea of that kid having less of an advantage over a bunch of kids from affluent schools who jacked around and end up with lower ACT scores now being able to better compete against the kid who had to bust his ass to get his score because their mommies and daddies now have one more means of gaming the system.

If affluent parents are going to do what they can to take advantage of the system, then more information is better than less information. If there is a bias in the selection process, fix that. Make sure schools and their admissions officers consider all aspects of an application and decide based upon an overall view and not a limited view. What you don't do is start eliminating factors to be considered. That will always work against fairness and inclusion. I know the popular opinion out there, that people feel compelled to have because its the popular opinion, is that testing is biased. My point is that GPAs are also biased. Extracurriculars are also biased. Essay applications are also biased. Time spent volunteering is also biased. Interviews are also biased. Affluent kids have advantages in all of those areas. Narrowing the field of consideration works against what you are arguing for.

Totally agree. That's what I've been saying. They're not robots. They consider all of the factors and do a good job of it. Which is why you shouldn't allow kids to arbitrarily eliminate one factor from consideration. Again, affluent kids and their parents will figure out a way to use this to their advantage more than less affluent kids will.

I agree to a certain extent. I think a student's four year performance is more important than a test score. I just don't think the test score should be tossed aside as a consideration. Just as I don't think other factors should.

I disagree with your idea that a kid from a disadvantaged area or poorer performing school who gets a good ACT score is a unicorn. I think it happens much more than you would like to believe.

Also, what if there is a kid from a lower income area who gets a 35 on the ACT, because he's really, really smart. His GPA is lower than others, because he had to miss time from school for reasons that were not his fault and related to his home environment. He's not athletic enough to make sports teams and can't participate in extra-curriculars. The best thing he has to offer is his ACT score. Now, he has to compete against a kids from some affluent school district who hands out 4.0s left and right and whose parents get to look at their kids ACT scores and decide whether turning them in gives their son or daughter the best competitive advantage. The grade inflation problems is most prevalent at affluent schools. You can't just assume that this only benefits more affluent kids. The parents of the more affluent kids will always find the way to turn things to their advantage. The fewer means of differentiating kids the more it will work in the favor of those who know how to work the system.

I also hope I'm not coming off as a jerk. I don't think we should ignore socio-economic issues with the test. Those exist. It's no different than the kid who can't afford to do extra-curricular, because he has to have an after school job. It's also no different than the kid who's not as good of a writer as someone from a more privileged school and, therefore, doesn't do as well on an essay. It's no different than a kid who hasn't been afforded the social skills to do well in an interview. Colleges should, and do, take those things into consideration and put kids in that haven't had the advantages of others. I also believe that this is the correct thing to do. I just don't think making one of the many measurements fixes those problems.

Dude, don't do that. You're a poster that I respect a lot. That's not what this debate was about. I'm saying that the kid with the 28 ACT should be given consideration if his other attributes show that he's going to be a good college student. That is happening. It has been happening before discussion of eliminating the ACT requirement. I'm just saying eliminating one measurement tool doesn't make sense. Colleges and admissions folks are pretty good at identifying kids that will be successful despite lower testing scores. I have spoken with them about that exact topic. Putting those kids in college is the right choice. However, making one measurement tool optional, like the ACT, makes as much sense as making other measurement tools like GPA, essays, extracurriculars, etc. optional.

So, then schools should be okay with a kid having the option of turning in their GPA or not. Or turning in their extracurriculars or not. Or doing the interview or not. Or turning in an essay or not. Also, before this development, I don't think there were any schools that had a floor for test scores they would accept. Most, if not all, accepted kids with lower scores if other factors showed that they would be a good applicant.

We're not talking about being great. We're talking about getting into a particular college. I agree that some people are destined for greatness. Bill Gates doesn't have a college diploma if I recall. However, if getting into the college you want now has much more to do with having a 4.0 than other factors, then kids are going to do what they need to do to make that happen.

So, why eliminate one way to differentiate. Still give spots to kids with lower scores who impress in other ways, but don't eliminate testing as a consideration. Schools that do interviews don't eliminate them, because some kids are better BSers than others. Schools still consider extracurriculars even though some kids aren't built for them (or have to work after school to help the family make ends meet). Schools still consider, heavily, GPA even though that is just as flawed, if not more so, than testing. Just require kids to turn in their GPAs, turn in their test scores, do their interviews, report on their extracurriculars, and then develop a system that fairly decides who the best kids are. Choosing one imperfect measuring tool to single out makes no sense.

What you call "less motivation to challenge yourself" I call "dumbing down." We could split hairs about whether they are the same thing, but the result will be the same. If smarter kids are given incentive to be less motivated to challenge themselves, then the result will be things getting dumbed down.

I agree with that, but they may not be able to take it this year. The tests are being canceled.

For those that are giving examples of people who are bad test takers proving the system wrong, I agree with what you are saying also. There should be consideration given to a kid who is an outstanding candidate, but tests poorly. However, if you take away the ACT as a consideration, you are taking away the consideration for kids who show their intelligence on these tests. My point is that ACT has never been the only variable considered by colleges. There have always been kids getting in despite poor ACT scores. If you eliminate the ACT completely from consideration, though, you take away a big tool that can be used. Here's an example of what I mean. Suppose that you have a very smart, very great kid who just happens to not be very athletic. He also is not the most socially engaging kid. He doesn't do well in interviews, but is very smart and would do exceedingly well in college. In the past, that kid's high ACT score would be an indication to colleges that even though he wasn't on any sports teams and even though he didn't write the best essay or do well in the interview, he was still a great candidate. Now, this kids doesn't have that metric to show school. Instead, another kid that wouldn't be nearly as good of a college student shows colleges his 4.0 (not really earned) and that he lettered in 3 sports. Also, he's a good bullshitter, so he did well in an interview that the school requires. Now, this kid is looked at more highly since all colleges have to look at now are GPAs and extra-curriculars. The ACT is valuable as a, just one, consideration for colleges. The fact that it is now not being considered is just not a good thing.

First, schools get thousands of submissions and often have less than ten people sifting through the applications. So, yes, it is difficult. I have spoken with people that have been in the college admissions process. There simply isn't enough time in the day to formulate an accurate idea of which kids' 4.0 GPAs are legit and which kids' 3.6 are better than the 4.0s. As far as the easy classes vs. harder classes in high school, no school is going to outright say we're making classes easier, just like no high schools set out on a mission to have half their class have 4.0. It just gradually happens that way given the landscape. I presently have a high school junior who is going to a very competitive jesuit high school. He took AP Physics this year. This might be the hardest course offered in St. Louis. He busted his ass to get a B the first semester. He is probably going to get a C+ this semester. I was concerned before he signed up for the class that this might happen. He's a smart kid, but the class is famously difficult. If he had taken an easier class, he probably would have maintained his 4.0. Now, he'll end up showing colleges a 3.8. If I had known that all schools were going to toss out the ACT, I would have insisted that he take an easier class and maintain his 4.0. He's a very smart kid who now is going to look less impressive to colleges than some kid at another school who put much less work in and is not nearly as intelligent as him, but got a 4.0 because their at a school that hands them out like locker assignments. So, that is exactly how it happens. Kids and their parents will make that decision all over the country. And, thus, the dumbing down continues.