AP scores

[Roadrunner]

I didn’t want to take over the other thread, so I will ask here. @Farrar mentioned AP scores don’t matter. Can you elaborate on this? For a homeschooled kid with a transcript provided by a parent, surely AP scores are being looked at? 

[fourisenough]

I definitely plan to list them on transcript and have DD self-report in Common App. In our case, they will be an asset, so I want to be sure they are considered during the application process. 
 

The only way I can imagine they won’t matter is if they are only sent after student is admitted/before matriculating.

[Roadrunner]

15 minutes ago, fourisenough said:

I definitely plan to list them on transcript and have DD self-report in Common App. In our case, they will be an asset, so I want to be sure they are considered during the application process. 
 

The only way I can imagine they won’t matter is if they are only sent after student is admitted/before matriculating.

But wouldn’t all the kids report good scores? So you would assume not reporting them would imply less than desirable outcome. 

[daijobu]

I'm not @Farrar, and I was scratching my head at her post as well.  I do hear anecdotally about schools in underserved areas that offer AP courses and their students routinely do not score over a 3, and many do worse.

OTOH, I'm finding that AOs are fairly easy to fool.  Put a College Board approved AP class (or better yet a whole slew of them) on your transcript, and in the 5 seconds they look at your transcript they think "rigor." 

But I'm also eager to hear @Farrar elaborate.  Do you think the AOs are savvy or gullible?  

[Farrar]

I don't think this is a particularly shocking revelation, but maybe? I've now seen many AO's say they don't expect to see the AP scores and it's not part of how they evaluate applicants. The courses are what they want. The scores are for credit. The courses are for admissions.

I mean, that's an oversimplification. Obviously you can show them your scores in various ways and some schools like test scores and you can absolutely enhance an application with good scores. I mean, I really felt like Georgetown made it clear this year that they'd take your 4th grade ITBS scores if you didn't have anything else because they were so desperate to see any test scores. And some schools have a test flexible policy or have a test optional policy that specifically asks for other scores like AP's as one path among many for satisfying the "I have no SAT score" option (others including extra essays and so forth). But in a general sense, most schools aren't like that. If they are test optional, they are. And if they aren't, they aren't. And beyond that, nothing else is required and they are primarily evaluating the other elements - activities, essays, letters of rec... and I increasingly hear AO's saying strength of curriculum just over and over.

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

and I increasingly hear AO's saying strength of curriculum just over and over.

which is so strange because I can write you a curriculum that knocks your socks off, but that doesn't mean the student has mastered anything.

 I see how many of our incoming freshmen had "calculus" in highschool and place into remedial college algebra.

[Farrar]

Just now, regentrude said:

which is so strange because I can write you a curriculum that knocks your socks off, but that doesn't mean the student has mastered anything.

 I see how many of our incoming freshmen had "calculus" in highschool and place into remedial college algebra.

I understand this. But I also understand where they're coming from.

None of the measures are perfect. They all have issues. I think that's part of why we're seeing the landscape get even more complex. One experience I've had a bunch of times in the last two years is explaining American college and American college admissions to immigrants. And nothing has woken me up to how utterly absurd it all is than that.

[daijobu]

Speaking of utterly absurd, a neighbor mom and I were having a philosophical conversation about college admissions.  Even before test optional, it seems like holistic admissions is selecting for "nice" candidates.  Which is fine.  No one wants to help "mean" people succeed.  But do we really want to select the nicest people?  What does this mean for applicants who aren't really good with people, maybe even rude or back stabbing, who would otherwise make an extraordinary contribution to academia?  

I know I'm painting myself into a corner by sticking up for people no one likes, but it is food for thought.  

Similarly if AOs put greater emphasis on LoRs, we may be selecting for more personable, nicer students.  Some teachers will happily write a stellar LoR for a student to earns an A+, but never attends lecture.  They earned an A+ after all.  But do mediocre students who contribute to discussions, raise their hand frequently, will they do better at earning a favorable LoR?  

I don't have any answers, just questions.  Who knows, maybe we will find that going test optional worsens equity and they revert back in 15 years?   Or our most talented students will enroll in a Chinese university instead.  

[Arcadia]

11 minutes ago, daijobu said:

Speaking of utterly absurd, a neighbor mom and I were having a philosophical conversation about college admissions.  Even before test optional, it seems like holistic admissions is selecting for "nice" candidates.  Which is fine.  No one wants to help "mean" people succeed.

...

Similarly if AOs put greater emphasis on LoRs, we may be selecting for more personable, nicer students.  Some teachers will happily write a stellar LoR for a student to earns an A+, but never attends lecture.  They earned an A+ after all.  But do mediocre students who contribute to discussions, raise their hand frequently, will they do better at earning a favorable LoR? 

Two zoom sessions that I attended where AOs were the guest speakers, there was this idea that with schools going virtual, the AOs might be choosing more introverts than they would have pre-COVID. They mentioned introverts do tend to get overlooked in the holistic admissions process.

I also know teachers who would make more effort to write nicer LoRs for students whose parents are active parent volunteers. "Mediocre students who contribute to discussions, raise their hand frequently" tend to get the "he/she is a good team player" on their teachers' comments.

@Roadrunner we played with the UC transfer planner and it auto calculates the AP exams credits and DE credits. Since your safety is a UC, you can play with the tranfer planner if you want to since it is a planner and not an application. What AOs think of AP scores I have absolutely no idea obviously.

"Exam Summary

Exam Area: Units(Sem/Qtr):

Advanced Placement (AP):  29.33/44.00"

 

[NewnameC]

1 hour ago, daijobu said:

Speaking of utterly absurd, a neighbor mom and I were having a philosophical conversation about college admissions.  Even before test optional, it seems like holistic admissions is selecting for "nice" candidates.  Which is fine.  No one wants to help "mean" people succeed.  But do we really want to select the nicest people?  What does this mean for applicants who aren't really good with people, maybe even rude or back stabbing, who would otherwise make an extraordinary contribution to academia?  

I’m not sure I understand how holistic admissions selects “nice” candidates. Do you mean folks who volunteer are selected more than those who don’t?

 

personally, I wonder if backstabbing people make true contributions to academia or anywhere, or if they take credit for the work of others

[Farrar]

I just read about a study today that was about how college admissions selects for kids who show "passion" in an area... but kids who don't have the resources - either monetarily or because of lack of access/understanding by family - often are just as capable or even more capable of success in the same fields.

It's definitely all a lot of theater in many ways.

[daijobu]

21 minutes ago, NewnameC said:

I’m not sure I understand how holistic admissions selects “nice” candidates. Do you mean folks who volunteer are selected more than those who don’t?

You know, I don't have a very specific answer for this.  But it's the idea that we all naturally root for the good guy, maybe it's the one who volunteers, maybe it's the one who really opens up on his/her essay, maybe it's the student who is inclined to help his/her teacher.  A good guy could be someone who overcame serious obstacles.  We all want to see the good guy succeed (including me). 

But is the purpose of college to reward good guys?  Maybe it is!  Particularly for the helping professions, like medicine, we don't our doctors to be bullies.  Unless they cure covid.  

ETA:  I think this is contrast to a more objective test-based system like they have in Korea.  The #1 student could be an unpleasant person that no one likes, but will still enjoy the best academic opportunities.  

Edited April 21, 2021 by daijobu

[Roadrunner]

So I think for kids who have a ton of DE or for public school kids, maybe AP scores are less of an issue (?). Yet I am looking at our PS, and I can tell you it is stamping out kids who look virtually identical on paper. And our PS is very generous with grades, so you would think logically an AP score of 5 versus a 1 (or not reported one) with a same grade for the class would matter.

Now the question though is for homeschoolers. I understand that vast majority of colleges admit almost everybody. I also understand that some admit almost nobody. So what about the 20% to 30% acceptance schools? What about schools were a ton of super bright kids end up (say Boston U, Wake Forest.... just naming here randomly). I mean for a homeschool kid with aspirations for somewhat selective (but not crazy) places, surely AP scores would matter especially if a big chunk of the transcript is parent generated? I have a hard time believing all they care is to see the À I assigned. 

[Roadrunner]

18 minutes ago, daijobu said:

You know, I don't have a very specific answer for this.  But it's the idea that we all naturally root for the good guy, maybe it's the one who volunteers, maybe it's the one who really opens up on his/her essay, maybe it's the student who is inclined to help his/her teacher.  A good guy could be someone who overcame serious obstacles.  We all want to see the good guy succeed (including me). 

But is the purpose of college to reward good guys?  Maybe it is!  Particularly for the helping professions, like medicine, we don't our doctors to be bullies.  Unless they cure covid.  

The purpose of college- I have been thinking about this or more about who/how gets selected. I tend to like an old world approach that if you can prove subject competence (A levels in Britain, Bac in France...) the doors open for you and then it’s up to you what you do next. I think acceptance should be based on hard work. If you want to study math, show me some competence in calculus. If you want to major in history, show me competence in English/history.... sort of a thinking. 
People grumble about SAT being coachable. I don’t understand why anybody would want an exam that you can’t prepare for. I mean shouldn’t we reward work? Otherwise just run IQ tests (not endorsing this).

I think the current system stresses everybody by vagueness and resembles a high school popularity contest. Essays and extracurriculars to show off your personality. 🙄 I don’t know. I would rather myself sit in for 3 A level exams. At least I would know what I have to do. Beats jumping over invisible hoops. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Roadrunner

[JennyD]

3 hours ago, daijobu said:

 Even before test optional, it seems like holistic admissions is selecting for "nice" candidates. 

Similarly if AOs put greater emphasis on LoRs, we may be selecting for more personable, nicer students. 

 

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

People grumble about SAT being coachable. I don’t understand why anybody would want an exam that you can’t prepare for. I mean shouldn’t we reword work? Otherwise just run IQ tests (not endorsing this).

We just go around and around and around in this country.  

From what i have read (here's one short summary), the whole idea of a 'well-rounded applicant' was a direct response to the sudden influx of Jews into private universities during thee early 20th century.  Places like Columbia, Princeton, Yale and especially Harvard quickly moved away from admitting students based on academics and started incorporating factors like legacy status, sports, letters of recommendation, and extracurricular activities, with the specific goal of keeping down the percentage of Jewish students and making sure that the appropriate number of white, privately educated, Protestant young men would still be admitted.   The SAT was a postwar effort at meritocracy; it was specifically designed to be as close to an IQ test as possible, with the idea that students would be selected based on their "pure intelligence" rather than on where they went to high school.  

I have a deep and abiding skepticism about the test-optional trend; historically, it seems like highly subjective criteria for anything -- whether it be a work dress code or an elite college's admission process -- inevitably reinforce existing power dynamics and biases.  And I agree with Roadrunner that if we're going to have tests, better that they simply measure past performance and effort rather than try to predict future success.  

With respect to universities outside the US, however, I will be very interested to see if some of these places stick with their mostly-meritocratic admissions processes as their societies -- and the students admitted through these meritocratic processes -- rapidly become more diverse.  I hope they do, but the American experience is that majority ethnic privilege dies hard.

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by JennyD

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

So I think for kids who have a ton of DE or for public school kids, maybe AP scores are less of an issue (?). Yet I am looking at our PS, and I can tell you it is stamping out kids who look virtually identical on paper. And our PS is very generous with grades, so you would think logically an AP score of 5 versus a 1 (or not reported one) with a same grade for the class would matter.

Now the question though is for homeschoolers. I understand that vast majority of colleges admit almost everybody. I also understand that some admit almost nobody. So what about the 20% to 30% acceptance schools? What about schools were a ton of super bright kids end up (say Boston U, Wake Forest.... just naming here randomly). I mean for a homeschool kid with aspirations for somewhat selective (but not crazy) places, surely AP scores would matter especially if a big chunk of the transcript is parent generated? I have a hard time believing all they care is to see the À I assigned. 

Well, as you nudge 20 or 25% acceptance rates, you're well into that "reach for anyone" category - just because even if you are well within their admit group stats, you don't know in a given year what they'll want for programs, skills, profiles, etc. But sure, around the 30-40% range, AP's help. They help at any range. But IME, so do other things. I know some big success stories for kids getting into schools in that range without just a couple of AP's or just a little DE and ***no test scores*** this year. Kids who either had amazing writing or amazing unique coursework or super strong letters of rec, or all three.

[Farrar]

6 minutes ago, JennyD said:

 

We just go around and around and around in this country.  

From what i have read (here's one short summary), the whole idea of a 'well-rounded applicant' was a direct response to the sudden influx of Jews into private universities during the early 20th century.  Places like Columbia, Princeton, Yale and especially Harvard quickly moved away from admitting students based on academics and started incorporating factors like legacy status, sports, letters of recommendation, and extracurricular activities.  The SAT was a postwar effort at meritocracy; it was specifically designed to be as close to an IQ test as possible, with the idea that students would be selected based on their "pure intelligence" rather than on where they went to high school.  

I have a deep and abiding skepticism about the test-optional trend; historically, it seems like highly subjective criteria for anything -- whether it be a work dress code or an elite college's admission process -- inevitably reinforce existing power dynamics and biases.  And I agree with Roadrunner that if we're going to have tests, better that they simply measure past performance and effort rather than try to predict future success.  

With respect to universities outside the US, however, I will be very interested to see if some of these places stick with their mostly-meritocratic admissions processes as their own societies -- and applicant pools -- become more ethnically diverse.  I hope they do.

 

 

Early indications are that TO helped diversity.

SAT correlates too closely with race and socioeconomics to lead to meritocracy. This new system is ALSO not fair. But we'll see how it all shakes out, I guess.

 

[Roadrunner]

4 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Well, as you nudge 20 or 25% acceptance rates, you're well into that "reach for anyone" category - just because even if you are well within their admit group stats, you don't know in a given year what they'll want for programs, skills, profiles, etc. But sure, around the 30-40% range, AP's help. They help at any range. But IME, so do other things. I know some big success stories for kids getting into schools in that range without just a couple of AP's or just a little DE and ***no test scores*** this year. Kids who either had amazing writing or amazing unique coursework or super strong letters of rec, or all three.

So they do help. I would hope they help. Those exams are no joke. ☺️
 

You know, people grumble in CA about UCs being so selective, but I am telling you, kids with just good grades (aren’t hard here to pull off) from public schools and very little of anything else all get in. UCB and UCLA seem to be exceptions, but it doesn’t take much to get into others. So I believe you. 

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

Early indications are that TO helped diversity.

SAT correlates too closely with race and socioeconomics to lead to meritocracy. This new system is ALSO not fair. But we'll see how it all shakes out, I guess.

 

I can’t read. Paywall. 

I just wanted to say that nothing prevented those universities from accepting a more diverse class before. It’s not like they lacked applicants from diverse backgrounds. 🙄

 

I am curious to see stats if GPAs and AP scores correlate with income and race. 
Would love to see dropouts stats from UCs by race (and as I type this, I bet it’s out there!). 

[rzberrymom]

19 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I just wanted to say that nothing prevented those universities from accepting a more diverse class before. It’s not like they lacked applicants from diverse backgrounds. 🙄

 

The article specifies that when universities dropped the tests, applications overall jumped but applications from minorities, low-income and first-gen students jumped WAY more. So so so many kids weren’t applying. They were taking themselves out of the running. I think it’s a huge window into understanding the nuances of what has been going on.

Edited April 21, 2021 by rzberrymom

[Roadrunner]

16 minutes ago, rzberrymom said:

The article specifies that when universities dropped the tests, applications overall jumped but applications from minorities, low-income and first-gen students jumped WAY more. So so so many kids weren’t applying. They were taking themselves out of the running. I think it’s a huge window into understanding the nuances of what has been going on.

Do they talk about tippy tops or public Us as well? I ask because CA certainty saw a huge jump in UC apps from minorities, and given they admit tens of thousands of kids, I totally could see the impact. But I don’t buy for a second that tippy tops with single digit acceptances and very few seats didn’t get enough applicants from minorities before. It’s all a big.... you know what. 

[rzberrymom]

9 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Do they talk about tippy tops or public Us as well? I ask because CA certainty saw a huge jump in UC apps from minorities, and given they admit tens of thousands of kids, I totally could see the impact. But I don’t buy for a second that tippy tops with single digit acceptances and very few seats didn’t get enough applicants from minorities before. It’s all a big.... you know what. 

The article just focused on the tippy top schools, since those are the schools that saw big overall gains in applicants this year. Harvard, Cornell, MIT, NYU, UC Berkeley, UCLA.

[madteaparty]

5 hours ago, daijobu said:

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by madteaparty

[Not_a_Number]

9 hours ago, JennyD said:

From what i have read (here's one short summary), the whole idea of a 'well-rounded applicant' was a direct response to the sudden influx of Jews into private universities during thee early 20th century.  Places like Columbia, Princeton, Yale and especially Harvard quickly moved away from admitting students based on academics and started incorporating factors like legacy status, sports, letters of recommendation, and extracurricular activities, with the specific goal of keeping down the percentage of Jewish students and making sure that the appropriate number of white, privately educated, Protestant young men would still be admitted.   The SAT was a postwar effort at meritocracy; it was specifically designed to be as close to an IQ test as possible, with the idea that students would be selected based on their "pure intelligence" rather than on where they went to high school.  

I have a deep and abiding skepticism about the test-optional trend; historically, it seems like highly subjective criteria for anything -- whether it be a work dress code or an elite college's admission process -- inevitably reinforce existing power dynamics and biases.  And I agree with Roadrunner that if we're going to have tests, better that they simply measure past performance and effort rather than try to predict future success.  

Yep. I totally agree and DH says all the same stuff. He also has firsthand experience of test scores changing things: people at his school wouldn't take him seriously until he had SATs in hand as a 7th grader.

I think you're right about the test-optional trend. We'll almost certainly regret going that direction... 

[Farrar]

It's demonstrably false that tippy top schools had "plenty" of African-American, Indigenous, Latinx, and socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants. Those numbers rose dramatically this year because of test optional policies.

It's also the case that study after study has demonstrated that race highly correlates with SAT/ACT score.

And that a huge slew of studies have found a high correlation between the ability of high school grades to predict college success and a low correlation between SAT score predicting college success.

Top schools reject a huge portion of highly qualified kids. So when we think about how they're going to "regret" this decision, it's important to put it in the context of understanding that they are choosing to admit a different group of highly qualified applicants at these tip top schools and reject a different group of highly qualified applicants.

[regentrude]

31 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Top schools reject a huge portion of highly qualified kids. So when we think about how they're going to "regret" this decision, it's important to put it in the context of understanding that they are choosing to admit a different group of highly qualified applicants at these tip top schools and reject a different group of highly qualified applicants.

The issue I see is how you will know who is highly qualified when all you have is highschool transcripts with non-standardized curriculum, vastly fluctuating rigor, plus rampant grade inflation. What does "received an A in calculus" mean if that same student fails our college algebra placement test?

ETA: Just to clarify: I am not a fan of standardized tests. But in the absence of a national, or at least state, curriculum or highschool exit exam that tests subject knowledge, that's better than nothing

2nd ETA: And yes, I know that homeschoolers may provide detailed course descriptions. But a ps transcript has merely a course name with absolutely no indication what was covered.

Edited April 21, 2021 by regentrude

[Farrar]

6 minutes ago, regentrude said:

The issue I see is how you will know who is highly qualified when all you have is highschool transcripts with non-standardized curriculum, vastly fluctuating rigor, plus rampant grade inflation. What does "received an A in calculus" mean if that same student fails our college algebra placement test?

ETA: Just to clarify: I am not a fan of standardized tests. But in the absence of a national, or at least state, curriculum or highschool exit exam that tests subject knowledge, that's better than nothing

I don't want to say there are no issues - like, we know that the issue you're talking about is an issue. But like I said in my post, the greater predictor of college success - grades and graduation - is high school GPA. So even though neither measure is perfect, GPA predicts this better than the SAT does. So it makes sense that colleges are shifting to rely on it more when the SAT not only is a weaker predictor of success, but is also shown to have a greater measure of bias.

In terms of homeschoolers, I can imagine this could mean more pressure for us to take the test or to have externally validated grades like from community colleges. I see a little of that, but not as much as people here fear. Or have planned for, honestly. I mean, some people here already think they need to validate everything.

[Roadrunner]

Yes, nobody is going to persuade me that not enough kids form variety of origins applied to Princeton. I mean maybe if you only define diversity very narrowly, but even if they wanted to admit only Latino and African Americans (not including immigrants), just out of private schools (which they so vastly prefer to admit) they would have had enough applicants to increase numbers among their meager spots. 
Now UCLA is a different story. A school that mostly recruits CA kids (out of state is capped) has different calculus.

 

Are AP scores correlated with race? 

and why are we admitting based on promise? I want to admit based on demonstrated competence. That helps everybody. 

And honestly public universities need to be ashamed looking at their graduation rates. I looked at CA ones last night. More selective the school, higher the graduation rate, but frankly I have no idea why we even have CSUs. It’s a scandal. We really need to make sure we admit qualified kids, as in capable of taking higher level courses, and GPA isn’t going to help us especially for STEM. 
 

I don’t think we need to validate everything, but I think we need to advocate what is good for homeschool kids not what is the latest popular political flavor. But telling parents that we should celebrate now that SATs are gone, AP scores aren’t looked at and don’t matter, but GPA is all that counts, is just terrible. This is not a situation that is homeschool friendly. As homeschoolers tests are in our interest. UCs for example won’t count a parent designated honors course as honors, but bump a GPA to 5.0 for a PS kid who took an honors course. In the past, my kid could have done what he wanted and then taken subject tests, or worked hard at SAT and showed he had basics down... Where are the homeschooling voices standing up to fight for us? I don’t hear them. 
 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Roadrunner]

I am with regentrude. Subject knowledge tests I favor. 

[Farrar]

7 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Are AP scores correlated with race? 

I don't know the answer to that and it would be interesting to see. The access to AP courses in a school - especially more than one or two - is definitely correlated with privilege along lots of lines. But the tests? No idea. The way AP tests work is so different from the SAT.

[Farrar]

I will say that I can easily imagine that a decade from now, more schools could have AP programs and they could be core to getting into schools. The whole thing is constantly changing.

[Roadrunner]

5 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I don't know the answer to that and it would be interesting to see. The access to AP courses in a school - especially more than one or two - is definitely correlated with privilege along lots of lines. But the tests? No idea. The way AP tests work is so different from the SAT.

Fixing access to courses is a much easier business. With so many virtual APs available and so many of them run by virtual state charters, that bringing those courses into classrooms for those who want it should be a doable and worthy goal. 
Plus you shouldn’t need more than 3 of those exam scores if you ask me. 

I am almost afraid for them to do AP test correlation, because if they decide that AP tests are also racists, homeschooled will be totally pushed into what is often a very subpar CC education. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Roadrunner

[regentrude]

6 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Fixing access to courses is a much easier business. With so many virtual APs available and so many of them run by virtual state charters, that bringing those courses into classrooms for those who want it should be a doable and worthy goal. 
Plus you shouldn’t need more than 3 of those exam scores if you ask me. 

I am almost afraid for them to do AP test correlation, because if they decide that AP tests are also racists, homeschooled will be totally pushed into what is often a very subpar CC education. 

I do not believe the AP exams are racist but access to AP tests, courses, and high quality of public education who can prepare the student for them are very correlated with race. It doesn't help if the test is unbiased when students have not been prepared to succeed since the quality of their public schools is abysmal.

Offering access to online courses is not a solution to inequality. After this past year, I hope nobody who makes decisions about education is still under the delusion that online education is equivalent to in-person classes.

Edited April 21, 2021 by regentrude

[Not_a_Number]

51 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I don't want to say there are no issues - like, we know that the issue you're talking about is an issue. But like I said in my post, the greater predictor of college success - grades and graduation - is high school GPA. So even though neither measure is perfect, GPA predicts this better than the SAT does. So it makes sense that colleges are shifting to rely on it more when the SAT not only is a weaker predictor of success, but is also shown to have a greater measure of bias.

Could you cite that?

I’d prefer that statistic to come from a context where people are genuinely coming from very different kinds of schools, by the way. Is this genuinely comparing an A from an affluent school and from a failing school, or is it simply that most kids at top schools come from similar backgrounds?

Because having been at UT Austin, where they genuinely took kids from all schools... I am wondering how well this generalizes.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[regentrude]

31 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

And honestly public universities need to be ashamed looking at their graduation rates. I looked at CA ones last night. More selective the school, higher the graduation rate,

I see lots of factors who play into this that do not have anything to do with the quality of the education.

Highly selective schools have students who are academically capable and have high executive function - otherwise they won't get in. Most are traditional students without family responsibilities. Also, some top schools will not keep students past the 4 year mark - at certain elite institutions, either you graduate after 4 years, or you will not graduate. That pushes students. And makes major changes very difficult.
But the top schools are cherry picking the students who are almost certainly going to succeed.

In contrast, public unis accept a much larger pool of applicants - that is part of their mission. Not all of these students are academically prepared, not all have their EF together. Some are nontraditional students who juggle families.

The less expensive a school, the lower the barrier to spend longer, change majors, take a couple extra years. That's something you can afford at your state U, but not at the private.

[Roadrunner]

11 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I do not believe the AP exams are racist but access to AP tests, courses, and high quality of public education who can prepare the student for them are very correlated with race. It doesn't help if the test is unbiased when students have not been prepared to succeed since the quality of their public schools is abysmal.

Offering access to online courses is not a solution to inequality. After this past year, I hope nobody who makes decisions about education is still under the delusion that online education is equivalent to in-person classes.

Yes and no.

We are considering Florida Virtual school AP course for my son. Now if I had a good in person alternative, I wouldn’t do online, but it’s a course we can’t self study.

I don’t advocate online school, but say a tiny high school only has few APs, but a kid wants to take AP Computer Science. I would hope the district would let them access to one of those virtual ones. So I think for schools to concentrate on English, Math, Science APs in person and maybe look in online when a classroom with 2 students doesn’t justify hiring a new teacher is an OK thing to do.

We as homeschoolers have done that with PA Homeschool. 
 

I think tests need to be learnable. We don’t have tutors at home here and self study a ton, but we can do that because tests are learnable. A kid with a private school education and great tutors will always exist. I don’t see a problem with that as long as the rest of us have access to materials to study. Life is what it is. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Roadrunner]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Could you cite that?

I’d prefer that statistic to come from a context where people are genuinely coming from very different kinds of schools, by the way. Is this genuinely comparing an A from an affluent school and from a failing school, or is it simply that most kids at top schools come from similar backgrounds?

Because having been at UT Austin, where they genuinely took kids from all schools... I am wondering how well this generalizes.

 

Somebody once linked the entire study. I was so hoping you would chime in with analysis. I will see if I can dig it up. 

[Arcadia]

7 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Offering access to online courses is not a solution to inequality. After this past year, I hope nobody who makes decisions about education is still under the delusion that online education is equivalent to in-person classes.

@Roadrunner

https://edsource.org/2021/how-the-pandemic-changed-higher-education-in-california/651334

”As part of his 2021-22 budget proposal, Newsom has requested that, by 2022, California’s public colleges and universities permanently increase the share of courses offered online by at least 10% over pre-pandemic levels.

...

 

Michael Dennin, UC Irvine’s vice provost for teaching and learning, said Newsom’s proposal reinforces a “false dichotomy” by pitting online vs. in-person classes.

Rather than focusing on increasing the percentage of online classes, Dennin said colleges and their faculty should use what they’ve learned during the pandemic to teach each class in the most effective way possible. He predicted that would result in many more hybrid courses that mix online and in-person elements.

“And by doing that, we’re going to better leverage the skills of the faculty because some of us are really good at making videos that engage and that a student can watch and learn something from,” said Dennin, who also serves on UC’s systemwide Academic Planning Council. “And some of us are really good in person.”

Like UC, the chancellor’s office overseeing the state’s 116 community colleges is still studying Newsom’s proposal for a 10% increase in online class offerings, said Marty Alvarado, the system’s executive vice chancellor of education services. However, Alvarado added that she anticipates it will be easy for the community colleges to meet and even exceed that target.

Alvarado noted that, because of the shift to online classes last spring, all of the system’s colleges have now approved the majority of their classes to be offered online, and professional development for faculty in how to embrace online teaching “has been scaled up across the system.”

She expects many classes will be offered in a “hybrid-flex” manner, meaning that students will be given the option to attend fully online, but could also choose to attend in person.”

 

[Roadrunner]

4 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

@Roadrunner

https://edsource.org/2021/how-the-pandemic-changed-higher-education-in-california/651334

”As part of his 2021-22 budget proposal, Newsom has requested that, by 2022, California’s public colleges and universities permanently increase the share of courses offered online by at least 10% over pre-pandemic levels.

...

 

Michael Dennin, UC Irvine’s vice provost for teaching and learning, said Newsom’s proposal reinforces a “false dichotomy” by pitting online vs. in-person classes.

Rather than focusing on increasing the percentage of online classes, Dennin said colleges and their faculty should use what they’ve learned during the pandemic to teach each class in the most effective way possible. He predicted that would result in many more hybrid courses that mix online and in-person elements.

“And by doing that, we’re going to better leverage the skills of the faculty because some of us are really good at making videos that engage and that a student can watch and learn something from,” said Dennin, who also serves on UC’s systemwide Academic Planning Council. “And some of us are really good in person.”

Like UC, the chancellor’s office overseeing the state’s 116 community colleges is still studying Newsom’s proposal for a 10% increase in online class offerings, said Marty Alvarado, the system’s executive vice chancellor of education services. However, Alvarado added that she anticipates it will be easy for the community colleges to meet and even exceed that target.

Alvarado noted that, because of the shift to online classes last spring, all of the system’s colleges have now approved the majority of their classes to be offered online, and professional development for faculty in how to embrace online teaching “has been scaled up across the system.”

She expects many classes will be offered in a “hybrid-flex” manner, meaning that students will be given the option to attend fully online, but could also choose to attend in person.”

 

You know what I think of that 😢.

My entire CC is online in the fall. They are sending kids to watch videos online. Shy kids aren’t going into office hours. I am really upset that such a wonderful resources as our community college is now a virtual hellhole. Meanwhile they just raised $245 million all in local real estate taxes for their facilities. For what? 
 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Arcadia]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Could you cite that?

 

 

4 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Somebody once linked the entire study. I was so hoping you would chime in with analysis. I will see if I can dig it up. 

 

High School GPAs and ACT Scores as Predictors of College Completion: Examining Assumptions About Consistency Across High Schools

 

Elaine M. Allensworth, Kallie Clark

First Published January 27, 2020
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X20902110

news link https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success

[Arcadia]

Just now, Roadrunner said:

My entire CC is online in the fall. They are sending kids to watch videos online. Why kids aren’t going into office hours. 

The class that I am taking for fun has 6hrs of office hours via zoom (4-10pm) and students attend at whichever time they can. The teacher already said he won’t be offended if we go in and out of Zoom to take care of other household tasks. He is there to answer any questions. Another class I took I knew the teacher is a slacker but I also knew the two TAs are great.

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Somebody once linked the entire study. I was so hoping you would chime in with analysis. I will see if I can dig it up. 

I’ll reply when I’ve had more chance to read it. However, I do think this is flawed from a brief examination.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, Arcadia said:

The class that I am taking for fun has 6hrs of office hours via zoom (4-10pm) and students attend at whichever time they can. The teacher already said he won’t be offended if we go in and out of Zoom to take care of other household tasks. He is there to answer any questions. Another class I took I knew the teacher is a slacker but I also knew the two TAs are great.

Mine often doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. Office hours don’t help with that. He is self studying with no guidance, thinking he understands it all, but alas, we get nasty surprises here and there. 

[JennyD]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

So when we think about how they're going to "regret" this decision, it's important to put it in the context of understanding that they are choosing to admit a different group of highly qualified applicants at these tip top schools and reject a different group of highly qualified applicants.

i don't think that the schools will regret anything, at least not anytime soon.  Making their admissions process even more opaque encourages more applications and gives admissions officers (and development folks, and coaches, and other internal power players) more autonomy.  I do wonder whether -- after this extraordinarily unusual year is over -- some of those who currently advocate test-optional policies as an equity issue may come to regret that decision.  But we will see.

The issue of homeschooled students is a separate matter, in my view, and as a homeschool parent I definitely share Roadrunner's concerns:

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

But telling parents that we should celebrate now that SATs are gone, AP scores aren’t looked at and don’t matter, but GPA is all that counts, is just terrible. This is not a situation that is homeschool friendly.

 

[Arcadia]

@Roadrunner@Not_a_Number

https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/sat-act-study-report.pdf

Relationship of the SAT/ACT to college performance at the University of California (46 pages)

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Report of the UC Academic Council Standardized Testing Task Force (228 pages)

ETA:

”The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.3 For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.“

Edited April 21, 2021 by Arcadia

[regentrude]

32 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

The class that I am taking for fun has 6hrs of office hours via zoom (4-10pm) and students attend at whichever time they can. The teacher already said he won’t be offended if we go in and out of Zoom to take care of other household tasks. He is there to answer any questions. Another class I took I knew the teacher is a slacker but I also knew the two TAs are great.

For my class, we are offering over 20 hours of help sessions and tutoring each week, plus multiple sessions at the same time so the Zoom groups don't get too large. But our Zoom sessions have extremely low attendance - where pre-pandemic, I would have 60-80 students come, now there's maybe 10 total. It's very difficult to motivate them to come for help. Don't blame them - too much screen time in their days, who want;s to do to Zoom office hour....

[Farrar]

I'm not saying that GPA is all that matters. And I get that many homeschoolers would like to use a test-based strategy. There are schools that continue to encourage that, so if you target those schools, you still can. If your state schools like in California, have shifted to test blind, then obviously that's not an option there specifically. But I refuse to believe that increased holistic admissions where coursework is more heavily evaluated hurts homeschoolers. Especially not when I do not see that happening on the ground in admissions stories. Which, yeah, are anecdotal, but there's not much data for this. If there were a giant wave of high flying homeschoolers who suddenly had a much worse year than everyone else, I think we'd hear about it. The homeschoolers I know by and large had a good year in admissions.

[Roadrunner]

 

5 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

@Roadrunner@Not_a_Number

https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/sat-act-study-report.pdf

Relationship of the SAT/ACT to college performance at the University of California (46 pages)

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Report of the UC Academic Council Standardized Testing Task Force (228 pages)

“II. How UC Uses Standardized Tests in Admissions ...................... 14
III. Rationale for Current Use of Standardized Tests .............. 17
IV. Concerns Over Use of Standardized Tests in UC Admissions ................... 63”

If you read it, do they look at APs?

Edited April 21, 2021 by Roadrunner

[regentrude]

34 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Mine often doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. Office hours don’t help with that. He is self studying with no guidance, thinking he understands it all, but alas, we get nasty surprises here and there. 

huh? My students find out what they don't know when they attempt the homework and find that they cannot translate to a problem what seemed like they understood it from lecture. Then they come to office hour.
If you;'re self studying and don't have these kinds of checkpoints, I suggest you follow a syllabus that has built in assessments along the way that let students check their understanding. There's gotta be plenty of material available

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, Farrar said:

I'm not saying that GPA is all that matters. And I get that many homeschoolers would like to use a test-based strategy. There are schools that continue to encourage that, so if you target those schools, you still can. If your state schools like in California, have shifted to test blind, then obviously that's not an option there specifically. But I refuse to believe that increased holistic admissions where coursework is more heavily evaluated hurts homeschoolers. Especially not when I do not see that happening on the ground in admissions stories. Which, yeah, are anecdotal, but there's not much data for this. If there were a giant wave of high flying homeschoolers who suddenly had a much worse year than everyone else, I think we'd hear about it. The homeschoolers I know by and large had a good year in admissions.

Well, I think the devil is in detail. 
CA schools now hurt homeschoolers and there isn’t a single person fighting for us, because the only homeschoolers are really either CC students or PS students with charters. Those of us who actually homeschool with home courses are now a voiceless group.

 

And I don’t know who high flying homeschoolers are, but I am not in the business of making advice based on gifted geniuses.