What Happened After Elite Universities Made Standardized Test Scores Optional? (nytimes.com) 312
The New York Times reports:
Whether college admissions have changed for the long haul remains unclear. But early data suggests that many elite universities have admitted a higher proportion of traditionally underrepresented students this year — Black, Hispanic and those who were from lower-income communities or were the first generation in their families to go to college, or some combination — than ever before... The easing of the reliance on standardized tests, which critics say often work to the advantage of more educated and affluent families who can afford tutors and test prep, was most likely the most important factor in encouraging minority applicants.
Only 46 percent of applications this year came from students who reported a test score, down from 77 percent last year, according to Common App, the not-for-profit organization that offers the application used by more than 900 schools...
Schools had been dropping the testing requirement for years, but during the pandemic a wave of 650 schools joined in. In most cases, a student with good scores could still submit them and have them considered; a student who had good grades and recommendations but fell short on test scores could leave them out. Most schools have announced that they will continue the test-optional experiment next year, as the normal rhythm of the school year is still roiled by the pandemic.
It is unclear whether the shift foretells a permanent change in how students are selected.
Only 46 percent of applications this year came from students who reported a test score, down from 77 percent last year, according to Common App, the not-for-profit organization that offers the application used by more than 900 schools...
Schools had been dropping the testing requirement for years, but during the pandemic a wave of 650 schools joined in. In most cases, a student with good scores could still submit them and have them considered; a student who had good grades and recommendations but fell short on test scores could leave them out. Most schools have announced that they will continue the test-optional experiment next year, as the normal rhythm of the school year is still roiled by the pandemic.
It is unclear whether the shift foretells a permanent change in how students are selected.
Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:2, Insightful)
In about 4-6 years, more new buildings and bridges will collapse while being built. In 10+ years, doctors will be even bigger morons than they already are.
Re: Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:4, Informative)
I attended Stevens Institute of Technology in the Fall of 1983, and unbeknownst to the incoming freshman class, the school decided to accept the top female applicants in numbers greater than ever before, they expanded 'female dorm space' and took in several times the usual number of women... the problem is, the majority of the women were not up to the academic rigors of the school, and in normal times they wouldn't have gained admission, but the school had rooms to fill.
Now, every year there are a number of women that apply, attend, and graduate from stevens, but when they went from, say, 25 women to 125 women, they accepted and admitted many young girls who only applied because their father attended the school, or it was a moon-shot stretch school for them.
The result was as you would predict, many (most) never returned after freshman year, they walked away with few college credits, a years worth of tuition expenses, and the feeling they were no smart enough to succeed.
But all year long the administration kept patting themselves on the back for admitting more women!
(BTW, at Stevens, at least when I attended, half the freshman class left before their sophomore year, the class of graduating seniors was half the size of the freshman class, and typically half the graduates transfer in fir their junior year. Being accepted to Stevens gave you a 1 in 4 chance of graduating from the school.)
Taking in students that don't measure up academically but suit preferred racial, gender, or orientation goals, only to see them wash out does much, much more harm to them than simply rejecting their application on academic grounds.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Taking in students that don't measure up academically but suit preferred racial, gender, or orientation goals, only to see them wash out does much, much more harm to them than simply rejecting their application on academic grounds.
Currently, at a university, one would be wise to avoid voicing such opinion. If one values their career, anyway.
We just had a very prominent invited diversity speaker (with 5-figure fees from what I hear) explain that
1) People misunderstand affirmative action in that it simply gives the opportunities to underrepresented groups and does not disadvantage anyone (so it is only fair)
2) If you just look at the horrible history of discrimination how could you begrudge any effort in trying to fix it?
3) Also
Re: (Score:3)
This was true when I went to college back in the 90s, at a major state university. They had expanded entrance under affirmative action for underrepresented groups, but found they were failing to complete their degree at approximately double the rate of normally admitted students.
Rather than admit the issue needed to be resolved BEFORE they attended college-such as by improving elementary, middle and high school education -they were preparing to double down on admitting when the state killed affirmative acti
Re: Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:5, Insightful)
How in the hell does giving people a chance HARM them?
Do you seriously not understand that? Suppose you are an average student, able to pass your high school courses with solid, but unexceptional grades. Now imagine two possible futures:
In the first case, have started your life. In the second case, you are a failure, your self-confidence has been shredded.
tl;dr: Giving people opportunities is great, but only if the opportunities are realistically within their grasp. Which is exactly where objective testing standards (SAT, ACT) are useful.
Re: Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:4, Interesting)
In support of your point I'd also add that Academic performance does not always (or even mostly) reflect real world performance. Confidence on the other hand is generally believed to translate well to overall success in life.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't you agree that learning to fail gracefully is a core lesson in anyone's life?
Also, what about the motivation one gets from rising to the challenge?
You assume that everyone who enters water over their head will drown. I am sure that some will, but I am positive that some will learn to swim too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:5, Insightful)
So there are a number of students who may otherwise have graduated if they were matched with an appropriate university, yet because we are hyper focused on race and the unrealistic expectation for equal outcomes, we've actually negatively affected the outcomes for those with fewer advantages. And these are very real effects... the pay gap between someone with a high school diploma and someone who has a 4 year degree is significant, especially over a lifetime of earnings.
And this is exactly the problem with those with their heads in the clouds who are crying about equity... the complete and utter lack of comprehension of unintended consequences and wanting to oversimplify most issues. This is how the hell it harms people to "give them a chance" rather than letting them earn admission through merit.
Re:What nonsense is this (Score:4, Insightful)
[Yale] probably accepts 50 people total that aren't valedictorian/salutatorian.
To be honest, knowing GWB was accepted at Yale (even though it was via the "son of alumnus" path) doesn't make me trust Yale's entrance criteria all this much.
Re: (Score:3)
There's "get's in because they are the child of an
Re: (Score:3)
It's not giving them a chance. Its exploiting them so that wealthy students can interact with poor students as a part of getting a well rounded education.
Re: Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:4, Insightful)
lol The answer to this 'problem' was to lower the bar so that elite graduates don't have to be so elite to compete. Next up, work place performance of graduates now shows the elite schools really aren't so elite after all.
Re:Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:4, Interesting)
In about 4-6 years, more new buildings and bridges will collapse while being built. In 10+ years, doctors will be even bigger morons than they already are.
Different entrance criteria doesn't imply different exit criteria -- these students will still have to take/pass the same courses to get their degrees. As TFS notes, more affluent students often have benefits less aflluent students do not, not that they're actually intrinsically better:
The easing of the reliance on standardized tests, which critics say often work to the advantage of more educated and affluent families who can afford tutors and test prep, was most likely the most important factor in encouraging minority applicants.
Re: Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:2)
Re:Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:5, Informative)
Different entrance criteria doesn't imply different exit criteria
You misunderstand the issue. The goal is not to have good graduates. The goal is to have diverse graduates. Entrance criteria weren't changed because they didn't make sense - they were changed because they were leading to results that weren't ideologically and politically correct. I have no doubt the same ideology will also force the relaxation of exit criteria until the desired result is reached.
Re:Just watch the ripple effects in time (Score:4, Insightful)
Different entrance criteria doesn't imply different exit criteria
You misunderstand the issue. The goal is not to have good graduates. The goal is to have diverse graduates. Entrance criteria weren't changed because they didn't make sense - they were changed because they were leading to results that weren't ideologically and politically correct. I have no doubt the same ideology will also force the relaxation of exit criteria until the desired result is reached.
And it will of course not be framed as a relaxation but that the current exit criteria disfavors oppressed groups and thus have to be changed to be more fair and equitable. The truth is of course that the students coming out will have educations of lower standards than the ones who preceded them and that the new exit criteria will be unfair and discriminatory.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Y'all need 500 grams of flour," said Erick Boykins, scraping out a small pile of flour with a razor. "That's half a kilo right there. Now the recipe says we gotta cut it with 200 g's of sugar."
Thanks for spelling it out, but I caught on way back around "teenagers are even saying Kilo as slang!"
Clickbait headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clickbait headline (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not allowed to know that. They don't want to publicize the increased drop out rates, or the lower percentage finding careers in their fields, etc.
Remember, the only thing that matters is how woke they are.
If you care about educational outcome rather than racial outcome you must be racist!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You said woke. Everyone take a drink.
Re: (Score:2)
You said woke. Everyone take a drink.
You complained about woke. Everyone take a drink.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to assume the educational outcome without knowing it, you must not actually care to know the outcome.
Besides, by the metrics you propose, these colleges will have been on a downward track since way before they started ignoring the SATs. Identity politics aside, the general consensus I hear from teachers is that standardized testing promotes poor "teaching to the test"-style schooling.
Re: Clickbait headline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Men are on average stronger than women
That's putting it very mildly; objectively, almost all men are stronger than almost all women. [reddit.com]
Reporters, not time travellers (Score:5, Insightful)
The people were just admitted to college, and have not yet even matriculated. It's amazing that the article had no statistics on what the students do during and after their university education that will start in Fall 2021.
To those who didn't read the article, it talked about the effects of standard-test-less admissions, enacted because COVID-19 shutdowns made it hard or impossible for some students to take tests. It also talked about George Floyd possibly raising issues within the admissions offices, which again would only affect the incoming class.
Re:Reporters, not time travellers (Score:4, Insightful)
Equally likely the universities are seeing a drop in income due to COVID and are relaxing their requirements to increase revenue. Universities don't care if the low-income families fail and drop-out next year, permanently mired in debt, so long as the profit margins are kept high this year.
Whenever you see a policy that is reputedly for good reasons, it's often a cover story for the more disreputable reason of making money. A common example is greenwashing by corporations trying to extract more money from well-meaning but poorly-informed consumers.
Re:Reporters, not time travellers (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry you apparently went to a for-profit university and think that. The universities we are talking about have waitlists begging to get in and for every student have between 10 and 25 who would gladly take their place.
Re:Reporters, not time travellers (Score:4, Interesting)
The point of the article is how the demographic makeup of incoming classes change. I'm sorry if trends aren't interesting to you, feel free not to pay attention to those articles for another 5 years until the first cohort of data is "complete". Although maybe you don't want to pay attention for another 45 years until that cohort retires. Maybe then the data will be "complete" enough for you.
At any rate, you claimed ot have read the article, but either failed to see it was about the class of 2024 (very clearly spelled out with many connected facts that require it) or didn't put it together. For shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's enough of a trend for a newspaper, which normally covers what happened in a day.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"This year red berets are the 'it' fashion" is most definitely a trend. You're insisting it's not a topic on an trend because it might be short lived is using a narrow definition of a trend as emerging from a time-series. That's not the only definition, nor the only newsworthy one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop using definition 2 [merriam-webster.com]. We're using definition 1 [merriam-webster.com] (same source)
Re:Clickbait headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't really find out what of substance happened "after elite universities made standardized test scores optional".
We can look at what used to happen before elite universities used standardized test scores: Jewish people, as well as Asians in general, and Blacks, Hispanics etc. needed not apply, because they wouldn't get in. Selection was race-based, and the race of choice back then was white, and preferably rich. At some point people began to realize this wasn't quite fair, and adopted standardized testing as a race-blind method of acceptance, since all that mattered was what you knew, not who or what you were. Currently there's a trend towards reversing back into race-based selection, except that with a slightly shuffled around composition. And, unsurprisingly, Jewish people and Asians are once again targeted for a reduced presence in campus. In short, another example of the horseshore theory [wikipedia.org] in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing about the outcomes of such such students during and after university education.
I can make a wild guess. Standardized tests are, in many ways, worthless BUT they are the most objective effort measure in the student application. Even grades depend on the institution from which the student comes (and grade inflation is out of control in most places).
Every applicant I see who does poorly on their GREs states that "they just didn't have time to study". Always. And I always wonder to myself if they plan to use that line in their classes.
failure (Score:4, Insightful)
>"But early data suggests that many elite universities have admitted a higher proportion of traditionally underrepresented students this year"
And future data will show increased failure and drop-outs, all carrying crazy, unnecessary debt. Unless, of course, you just abolish all testing in the classes too, and maybe give credit for just showing up. Then you can pass people who really did poorly, and later can't market their skills or hold a good job because of it, and still have crazy, unnecessary debt.
Forced outcomes aren't productive. If you want to increase broad participation, then target what holds people back- family support, early and better primary education, safety/security in the home, fight back against teacher unions who work against getting rid of bad teachers and administrative staff, support school choice to increase accountability and force failing primary-high schools to change, get involved in PTA, etc. You don't lower the entry standards, or any standards for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
all carrying crazy, unnecessary debt
And the government will step in to forgive it or pick up the payments. This will produce the groundswell of popular support for the student debt problem. Pay close attention to who will be left holding the bag. Better yet, don't pick it up in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
We should abolish all testing so all students have the same outcome. It is certainly how I choose my doctor. It does not matter which school he went to or what qualifications he has. All that matters is that the doctor would be the "right" race. People should also add race to the resume, sex is generally quite clear from the name but the race is not. Then we can screen out all of these privileged white people, and only pick minorities to restore the natural balance.
I think at the end the problem will self
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've worked in the admissions office of a large university, and was disappointed to see them recruit from local high schools to get numbers, but the students would far too often fail out and be burdened by the debt you speak of. Plus, they now have poor grades on the books, and perhaps fell like they couldn't succeed. That was more than 2 decades ago, and some things have changed.
Thankfully with TRIO these days, there is more support for first generation and disadvantaged students. Schools are not suppos
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Holy random guessing (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
So we agree that standardized tests measure mostly your ability to take standardized tests. So I understand, your point is that the predictive value of "went to tutoring" is not only indicative of motivation, but that motivation isn't adequately shown by anything else on the application. Extracurriculars or grades or recommendations or similar don't count?
Re:Holy random guessing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With or without standardized tests, university admissions personnel hold nearly all the decision power on who is admitted (subject only to other administrators ensuring actors, athletes and donors' kids get in). There's no appeals process just because your 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA kid gets rejected. So I reject that this upends some status quo that's worth a hell of a lot.
Am I sure that standardized tests aren't helpful? Not at all (double-negative, they may help). It just isn't that important to me or society
Re: (Score:2)
Now however I see tutoring to make up for deficient teaching in schools. Failing new style curriculums supposedly to make the subjects easier, filling curriculums with useless subjects https://www.news.com.au/lifest... [news.com.au] . Tutoring even replaces the Homework schools won't give because the snowflakes are supposedly overloaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a purposefully and explicitly uncharitable interpretation. I both made that interpretation and called attention to its uncharitable nature because I felt that the OP didn't explain his position in a significant way and I wanted to prod him to do better.
There were no entrance exams to pass, because of COVID. Or if they were available it was likely in areas that could afford in person testing which implies wealthier areas. At any rate, there is a question as to how predictive these exams are. This
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well don't do that. Slashdot has mostly managed to avoid that kind of antisocial behaviour. Go to Facebook or Twitter if you want to randomly accuse strangers of being "racist" or "sexist" or "whatever-ist" to advance your point.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't accuse him of being racist. I said his post was so low information content it came across as racist or nonsense. Feel free to go to Twitter if you want to write 120 characters without context about things going on. Here I expect you to make a point that's interesting, informative or at least detailed enough I can argue with.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment comes across as asshole-ish. Note that I'm not accusing you of being a asshole. Just saying that your post is so far up its own rectum that it comes across as asshole-ish nonsense
Re: (Score:2)
Since the OP responded, you can see my explanation to him here [slashdot.org].
And I stand by what I said. He said something that without context would be racist and then accidentally left out that context (maybe he thought it was assumed.) Now he added it, and I can explain what I find wrong in his reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase is and was "traditionally underrepresented students". If you don't understand that is referring to ethnicity, well, I don't believe you. You took "traditionally underrepresented students" and assumed that the people I was talking about were both black and poor-performing. I highly recommend you look in a mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
I think his point was that he believes standardized tests demonstrate your knowledge and if you got admitted even when you didn't submit your standardized test score (presumably because it was not good), then your knowledge may be lower than the previous admissions standards required.
Now you can argue whether rich people do better on standardized tests because of test prep and tutors, or because the parents in general pay more attention to their child's education and live in a better school districts than m
Re: (Score:2)
Well if that's what he thought than that's where his entire argument falls off the rails. They were optional because many areas didn't offer standardized testing due to a global pandemic. Your attempting to assign whether they were submitted or not as a predictor for quality is just wrong.
Now, if someone is in an area that was wealthy enough to have in-person testing and the required safety g
Re:Holy random guessing (Score:5, Insightful)
>"I don't see why you would expect that. I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt, because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying you expect black people to fail out more (no reason given.)"
Race has nothing to do with ability. Nothing. And no, that is not what I was saying at all.
Why would I expect that if there are lower standards or NO quantitative standards on admission in a tough school that there will be MORE failure and MORE dropouts? Does that really need explanation?
Here is a thought experiment. You want to create a basketball team. You have entry testing based on basketball ability. You suddenly notice that XYZ is "under-represented" in your selection. It is not because you are actively working to not admit XYZ... in fact, you try to make sure that the ability testing doesn't discriminate in any way, except basketball performance.
So to "fix" this horrible "inequity", you lower your entry standards to ensure more XYZ can make the team. Do you think your team will perform better? Do you think the XYZs you admitted will do better? Do you think the rest of the team will be happy with underperformers? Will the fans be happy with losing more games? Will the non-XYZ people who were actually better at basketball who did not get in due to limited space be happy? Or will they be resentful? Do you think you will want to keep underperformers? How will the good XYZ performers on the team feel about allowing or forcing more XYZ on the team?
This is what we are faced with when we try to force so-called "equity." It is also what we get with quotas. And when it gets political, it is how we end up with identity politics- assuming people of a certain immutable characteristic think, believe, or perform, based on that immutable characteristic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and built off of what you said here, but please read this from what you originally posted:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
lower standards
They didn't lower standards, they just changed the way that candidates are evaluated to make the evaluation fairer.
Re: (Score:3)
>"They didn't lower standards, they just changed the way that candidates are evaluated to make the evaluation fairer."
Removing an objective eval does lower the standards. What they have left are much less relevant and valuable:
1) HS scores, where HSs are passing people just to move students along.
2) Extra activity lists. Which are helpful, but not terribly.
3) Interviews or letters.
"Fair?" Oh give me a break. It isn't more "fair" to the school, to the existing students, or even to the applicants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The end of the test requirement occurred because in 2020 a giant global pandemic kept many applicants from reasonably being able to be tested.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why you would expect that.
Well, that's what happened at the university I went to. They set up a special program to admit students with lower standardized test scores and grades from local high schools, whom wouldn't have able to get in otherwise. They didn't do well, and ended up owing the university a bunch of money. It was a debacle. The local papers even called them out as being "predatory" for accepting students, taking their money, and allowing them to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that happens at some for-profit schools. It can be done in a predatory fashion. That's not this. This isn't lowering standards, it's not examining one thing (which would make grades more important, since there are fewer data points.) One data point we cannot gather right because it involves gathering in a large room and tests were cancelled. There's no reason to expect that these kids cannot cut it - their extracurriculars, etc. should provide enough information.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't lowering standards, it's not examining one thing (which would make grades more important, since there are fewer data points.)
But it is lowering standards in a way, because standardized tests are relatively objective.
Grades unfortunately aren't objective due to a combination of
1-a) being school-dependent,
1-b) being a function of various professor's curve policies (primarily relevant when coming from undergraduate to graduate school -- strategically choosing courses by instructor's reputation can lead to much better GPA)
2) grade inflation.
There's no reason to expect that these kids cannot cut it - their extracurriculars, etc. should provide enough information.
I am honestly curious how extracurriculars will provide information about student's academ
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that happens at some for-profit schools.
This was a major public university. The incoming students did have high grades, but low standardized test scores. Thing is, high grades do not always mean proficiency. The university had to create a remedial English program, as the incoming students were below grade level (sometimes *far* below grade level) for reading and writing.
This is less about university standards and more about failed public school systems.
My question is, (Score:4, Interesting)
Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
What Happened After Elite Universities Made Standardized Test Scores Optional?
They will stop being elite universities (at least world-wide).
Re: (Score:2)
Is it the test scores that make the school elite or the graduates and the people they become? That's ultimately the test here. The students that graduate from Harvard still have to face the Harvard Business School. The students that graduate from MIT still must face MIT. They have to put in the work or they will fail. These programs are looking for the kids who fall through the cracks. The non-traditional successes. This is behind this whole rigamarole behind the lawsuits of asian kids who get perfect SATs
So basically, after 4-6 years (Score:2)
in an "Elite" University, if they stick it out, they will be rewarded a diploma, also to be known as a participation award.
I remember back in the day, where you took college entrance exams was almost more important than how you did on the exams.
Lots of my friends went to take the exams at inner city schools, regardless of where they actually went to school.
standardized tests help some too (Score:4, Interesting)
I left high school after 11th grade to go to college. I had bad grades and didn't have enough credits to graduate. My first child was due that summer. I was not exactly the type that could get into college early.
But grades, extracurricular activities, etc. don't tell the whole story. My grades sucked because I refused to waste my time doing homework. I generally had the highest score in the class on any test I took. I used my extra time to learn extra things on my own because learning is what I love to do. I had taken all of the 12th grade college prep courses like pre-Calculus, physics, etc.
I was able to get into college that year because the state I was in required admission for people with a certain score on the ACT at that time. I had the highest score entering the state university that year and actually started college on full scholarship because of it.
Without that option of getting in by test, I would have quit school and gotten a job to take care of my family. I would not have become one of the first graduates in the new Computer Engineering program four years later. Though my grades still sucked because I maintained my aversion to doing homework that didn't help me to learn (I had near full retention just by reading), I was one of the 1 in 10 that made it through (the cut rate there was unbelievable) and most regarded me as the most capable. I was doing grad student work while an undergrad senior including pretty much running the labs.
I went on to do a lot of great things in the defense industry. But seriously, without that ACT score, I'd have been working on an assembly line that next year. Tests give people like me the opportunity to reveal themselves beyond the school.
Admission test scores best predictor of... (Score:5, Insightful)
...college success. Asians score best overall on such tests. Already, Harvard, Yale, etc., think they have too many Asians. So this is basically more anti-Asian sentiment transparently masquerading as merit-based adjustments.
Re:Admission test scores best predictor of... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not that all Asians are super smart or anything. The cross-section of Asians who apply to these selective colleges and Ivys come from very driven ambitious families who invest so much of time and energy in making sure their children do well in school.
Takes just one or two generations for them to realize, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat. At that point they ease back and become normal. Third generation Asian Americans do not particularly stand out. It is the children of the immigrants fresh off the boat who post such huge test scores, spelling bee championships etc.
Re:Admission test scores best predictor of... (Score:4, Interesting)
families who invest so much of time and energy in making sure their children do well in school
This may be the most fundamental aspect of the differences in children's school performance. Sure, recent Asian immigrants turn this to 11, but OTOH large parts of black and hispanic cultures consider doing well in school to be "acting white" [educationnext.org]. Funny, how the children from those backgrounds do poorly in school - and are subsequently underrepresented in college and challenging careers.
Dropping standards to admit more students from those background just creates a worse dilemma in a couple of years: When too many black and hispanic students are failing, what do the colleges do? Admit they were wrong? That won't happen - the woke are never wrong. Instead, instructors will be pressured to pass students based on their race. Instructors who refuse will be called "racist". Y'all know how this game is played.
Re:Admission test scores best predictor of... (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is that US admission tests are aptitude tests, i.e. IQ?
Already, Harvard, Yale, etc., think they have too many Asians.
That sounds familiar. In the past, it was too many Jews. Actually, has that changed?
This article from 1999 said Harvard is 20% Jewish and 20% Asian.
Together, Jews, only 2 percent of the U.S. population, and Asians, only 3 percent, comprise nearly 40 percent of Harvard College enrollment. That is about the same as the percentage of Harvard students who are non-Jewish whites, a group that makes up more than 70 percent of the U.S. population.
That means that Christian whites are far more underrepresented at Harvard, relative to their numbers in the general population, than even blacks and Hispanics. Of course not all white Christians are underrepresented. The old white elite -- Episcopalians, for example -- are bearing up well, abetted a bit by the admissions preference for children of alumni. But it appears that groups like Italian-Americans and Southern Baptists do not fare so well.
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gott... [udel.edu]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Define College Success. "I went to college for 4 years, did the absolute minimum, got my degree, and now I work at a thoroughly ordinary job where I am paid roughly the same as this other schlub that went to school half-as-expensive who may be just as good as I am at this job" is probably the obvious one. The elite school are finding that by only going by grades and test scores, they don't push any boundaries; they're not getting the innovators, the pioneers, the leaders. They're getting people who are real
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the desired belief that it is the best predictor of college success, standardized tests are not the best predictor. It is an easy to generate a number, and there is some correlation between high scores and college performance so people hang their hat on it and say they've done their job. (I will not debate any inherent bias that may or may not exist, that is off base since the test itself is not a good standalone predictor)
A better predictor is GPA and high school performance, including attendance
Dumb and bad (probably) (Score:4, Insightful)
Real life... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> A question by definition is an open query,
It's really not. Many questions have quite specific answers, such as "Must a question be open ended?" The answer is "no".
There were reasons for standardized tests (Score:2)
Standardised tests are good at one thing ... (Score:3)
Telling us which students do well at standardised tests. It's a very limited way of figuring out anything at all except maybe how well those students fit into the established industrialised education system. Once you get past a certain level of basic competency there is a very weak relationship between standardised test scores and life success measures like having a well paid job. If universities are about preparing students for actual life then it's a good trend to see them moving past raw test numbers.
Re:Standardised tests are good at one thing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a very limited way of figuring out anything at all except maybe how well those students fit into the established industrialised education system.
Yes, standardized tests scores don't mean much. But, given that everything else on the application is subjective (often including the grades on the transcript), the standardized tests are almost the only objective measure of student effort.
In my opinion, the standardized tests are a measure of whether the student can be bothered to sit down and prepare. And if they cannot be bothered to study for a standardized tests, it's not conclusive but it is a bad sign.
I am involved in graduate admission. And every student who does poorly on their GREs always states that they "just didn't have time to study for it".
Re: Standardised tests are good at one thing ... (Score:2)
By not accepting them this year you are giving them a chance study for another year!
Of course, if they stay out of school more than 6 months (I think it is) their student loan payments start, so they will go anywhere (on borrowed money) to defer starting to make loan payments. Of course, once they return to full-time studies, their loan payments are deferred.
Re: (Score:2)
By not accepting them this year you are giving them a chance study for another year!
For what it is worth, our graduate students can apply at least 2 times a year (Fall and Winter start).
Of course, if they stay out of school more than 6 months (I think it is) their student loan payments start, so they will go anywhere (on borrowed money) to defer starting to make loan payments. Of course, once they return to full-time studies, their loan payments are deferred.
All accurate, there is a 6 month grace period for most federal loans. I believe due to COVID these deferments have been temporarily extended in various ways.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the SAT is to measure a high school student's readiness for college, and provide colleges with one common data point that can be used to compare all applicants. [princetonreview.com]
When discussing the SAT, we must make sure we know what it is intended to do. It is not intended to measure success in life. Interesting tidbit: Statistically speaking, the most significant skill for success in life is "impulse control." There are tests to measure that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I do appreciate this. Most, if not all tests that we use in education are about how well we see students doing in their future education and they are definitely good predictors at this. However we do need to consider that the only way of measuring this effect is with more standardised tests. This ends up being "if you do well at a standardised test in high school, you'll do well in a standardised test in college". It ends up being a self-perpetuating feedback loop with the unfortunate side effect that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Telling us which students do well at standardised tests.
That's just plain wrong and ignorant. Aptitude tests are the best predictor of academic success that we have, and for success in fields that require a high IQ, such as engineer or scientist (social "sciences" excepted?). They predict better than parental wealth or occupation, or lower school grades.
Of course standardised tests are not just for aptitude, and the US SAT is no longer the Scholastic Aptitude Test. It also tests skills gained in high school, (and what else?)
A big problem is that such tests
Re: (Score:3)
p.s. - I'm not saying that standardised tests are the best way to decide college admissions. But it is very wrong to say they have no useful predictive value.
For example, when I was applying for college, we had a standardised test that everyone sat, but it only counted 1% toward our admission score. Just enough to motivates students to make a good effort on the test.
Actually, the standardised test results were used for statistical purposes, to scale the results of academic tests in di
Why do colleges offer remedial classes? (Score:2)
In most cases, a student with good scores could still submit them and have them considered; a student who had good grades and recommendations but fell short on test scores could leave them out.
In other words, (academically) poor student don't send test scores in, academically strong applicants include them.
Either test scores are required or not accepted, optional is something the marketing department came up with, so they could pick-and-choose their incoming class members based on 'soft' criteria, like race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation - anything other than the standard most people assume they employ - merit, academic accomplishment.
Why do colleges offer removal classes? Because if t
Re: (Score:2)
Elite schools turn away 95% of applicants. They probably got less tuition money because they have fewer rich people writing full tuition checks and more people on financial aid. Financial aid which includes loans but elite universities also commit to grants based on need.
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely, most parents don't have that kind of money.
And rich people just buy it done and don't actually have to do real things.
These schools are fast becoming, mail us your check,. we will send your kids degree back as a pdf.
Re: (Score:2)
These schools are fast becoming, mail us your check,. we will send your kids degree back as a pdf.
Reminded me of this exchange in Community [wikipedia.org]:
Jeff Winger: I'm in a bit of a jam. The Bar Association just suspended my license. Turns out my law degree was not legitimate.
Ian Duncan: I thought you had a Bachelor's from Columbia.
Jeff Winger: Now I have to get one from America. And it can't be an e-mail attachment.
Re: COVID year too (Score:2)
Current seniors are not only biding their time in 'zoom classes' which do not prepare them for college, and will be accepted by colleges based on essays and zoom class grades, not the SAT. In college they will likely take an exceptional number of remedial classes, and before too long we'll see college classes become pass/fail. Then, this large collection of 'never challenged' students with their academic record consisting of little more than participation trophies and nothing else, will have to find a job.
T
Re: (Score:2)
The goal is expressed in the summary:
The _next_ goal will take a while to express. in say 5-10 years, you'll hear about the disproportionate graduation rate of certain classifications, and there will be calls for "fixing" the curriculum. You'll start hearing about things being compared to "No Diverse College Student Left Behind" and calls to implement more fair evaluations, not catering to "affluent" students
Re: (Score:2)