cgeldmacher

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.

The problem with this trend is that it doesn't take into account the difficulty of the high school. Grade inflation at high schools is huge problem. There are some high schools were half of the graduating class has a 4.0. This occurs most often at less competitive schools. The ACT was the great identifier of whether you actually learned something in high school or just got a 4.0 because your high school is excessively easy. Kids who go to high schools that challenge the students might get a 3.7, but learned much more than a kid who got a 4.0 at a much lesser school. The kid with the 3.7 is much smarter and a much harder worker, but now looks like less of a candidate to a school only looking at GPA. Now, high schools will be under more pressure to make classes easier and kids will be under more pressure to take easier classes in high school since the all-mighty 4.0 is the holy grail compared to actually being a smarter kid.

I have never once been asked by a casual sports fan if SLU is D1.

Got it. I always thought the joke was "what player that can dunk can't dunk over a damn trashcan." Now I realize that it is beyond even that.

Knollmeyer doesn't even go over the damn trashcan. He goes around it. Watch his legs. He never would have cleared it if he was actually going over it.

I know Billiken fans can sometimes complain about being the far West team in the A-10, but I cannot imagine we would be on the radars of guys like Beadle and Rupert if we weren't in the A-10. The East coast isn't a bad place to have exposure for your program.

Looks like 247 Sports has Larry Hughes, Jr. up to No. 84 in the 2022 rankings. Tarris Reed is at No. 64. https://247sports.com/Season/2022-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool

Wonder if Carter meant to put "officially decided to not play any more this year and is hoping to get a redshirt."

You beat me to making the same comment. We were saying the same things about Jimerson before last season. Then we were all pleasantly surprised when his defense was better than expected (which I attribute to our coaches and practice atmosphere more so than we all missed something). Add to this that AL seems to be very athletic for a perimeter big, see his dunk video. If he is a bit more athletic than the normal 6'8" euro big, and he gets to practice against our guys and get coached by our coaches, I'm confident that he will defend just fine.

Or just shoot over him.

Coach, you're scaring me a little bit. I hope the local basketball community is not giving Jordan bad advice about his future. He needs another year of improvement to get fully on the radar of NBA teams. I also have no doubt that he will match or exceed his stats from last year. I don't see who is going to be taking away points from him next season. I really hope he doesn't have people in his ear that are toying with his future based upon what they'd like to see happen rather than what is realistic and best for Jordan.

I think he fits in much better here than he did at Oregon. By that I mean that he seems like an intense player that busts his ass defensively and for rebounds. On the Coach Ford on the Radio thread, Ford said that Oregon was mostly a perimeter team. Once he gets here and practices with our guys and starts playing our bully ball style, I think he may be even better than his projections.

I take the fact that Diarra decided to transfer after we signed Okoro to mean that Ford expects both French and Goodwin to return. In response to what Coach 314 said, I really want Goodwin to maximize his earnings while playing professional basketball. If accomplishing that means leaving this year, then he should do it. However, I don't think that leaving this year will accomplish that. I think his having any shot at the NBA will mean coming back to SLU for one more year, working on his shot at a Javon Bess style level of commitment and then showing the NBA what he can do while playing for SLU next season. I want him to stay for selfish reasons, obviously, but truly believe that it's the best move for him as well.