On testing from The Economist

[Roadrunner]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/09/american-universities-are-pursuing-fairness-the-wrong-way

 

American universities are pursuing fairness the wrong way

Drop legacy admissions—not standardised exams
 

I know we beat this topic to death here but I was amused to see Economist opining on this especially as I spent my morning searching alternatives for once again cancelled SAT test.  

Edited March 14, 2023 by Roadrunner

[BusyMom5]

Is this free to view anywhere?  I keep watching education trends in elementary, high school, and colleges and feel like the direction is the opposite of what progress would imply.   Progress would mean more elementary children have on level reading scores, not passing everyone and ignoring discipline in the name of racism.  I also cannot wrap my head around the inflated grades, and how these strategies somehow will eventually lead us forward toward equality. 50% for doing nothing, 60% to pass, no late penalties, very little discipline. It sounds like it will lead to a lot of uneducated,  unemployable young people who cannot read or do math.  Real education is not the goal.

Accepting kids into college who are not ready academically seems fraudulent because it costs so much, and they are set up to fail.  Now many colleges are eliminating remedial courses and just sticking kids directly into College Algebra,  no matter if they are prepared or not- it just all seems contrary to common sense.  These ideas come from a misplaced understanding of how education happens.  

And now it's sounding like colleges are starting to pressure professors to pass kids without the skills- its dangerous.   

 

[Roadrunner]

I think if you sign up for a free account, you can read it. 
 

 

[catz]

I can’t get in to read this either and I did try.   Is this an opinion piece?

I don’t have a particular dog in this fight    And I am not anti testing.  I am pro meaningful and well designed testing.  But if test optional for college admissions is so problematic, wouldn’t colleges see significant shifts in grad rates and drop out?   To me this seems like a reflection of studies like this   …

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=5fdcf38132bd

its not like the average college applicant isn’t undergoing regular testing and are applying to college in a bubble.   These colleges have a lot of data on schools, peers and success at their disposal.  

My kid attends a big ten school and is finishing 2 degrees this year.   His education has been extremely rigorous and weed out classes are definitely a thing.   I regularly see parents ranting about them.   

[Roadrunner]

5 hours ago, catz said:

I can’t get in to read this either and I did try.   Is this an opinion piece?

I don’t have a particular dog in this fight    And I am not anti testing.  I am pro meaningful and well designed testing.  But if test optional for college admissions is so problematic, wouldn’t colleges see significant shifts in grad rates and drop out?   To me this seems like a reflection of studies like this   …

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=5fdcf38132bd

its not like the average college applicant isn’t undergoing regular testing and are applying to college in a bubble.   These colleges have a lot of data on schools, peers and success at their disposal.  

My kid attends a big ten school and is finishing 2 degrees this year.   His education has been extremely rigorous and weed out classes are definitely a thing.   I regularly see parents ranting about them.   

Did you just sign up for a free account? I have a user name and a password and it gives me certain number of free articles per month. I could copy/paste it, but I am not sure it would be OK to do that. 

[Roadrunner]

It’s in response to Columbia going test optional. Nothing new but here it is. Will delete if told.

”The best American universities wish to be ruthlessly discriminating on academic merit—and beacons for diversity on everything else. Trying to accomplish both at once can prompt mistakes. Lately Columbia University, an Ivy League member in New York, has been making a lot of them. Last year it admitted to submitting incorrect data to a college-rankings outfit in a bid to seem more exclusive than it really is. And on March 1st, in a bid to seem more inclusive than it is, Columbia said it would drop the requirement for applicants to submit standardised exam scores.

Campaigners claim that exams favour the privileged. Evidence for this is thin. Maths problems involve neutral things like numbers and algebra; reading-comprehension tests are rarely about silverware or yachting. The bias, however, is said to be latent. Because scores are correlated with race and parental income, the exams must therefore be contaminated with racism and classism. 

This confuses disparity with discrimination. Tests correctly measure educational inequality, which begins before kindergarten and grows as a result of bad policy. Just as smashing thermometers does not prevent climate change, so abandoning the measurement of educational inequality will not magic it away.

In fact, for meritocrats to abandon exams is self-defeating. Scores may be correlated with privilege, but they are probably the hardest part of an admissions application to warp with money. Children of the rich can get ample help in completing their coursework (which may receive inflated grades), hire professional writers to “edit” their essays and even spend lavishly on consultants who will help craft a delectable smorgasbord of extra-curricular activities. Yet research shows that intensive tutoring has a marginal effect on test scores. That is why, in the Varsity Blues scandal of 2019, very rich parents paid to have others sit their children’s exams. 

Worse, supposedly progressive universities like Columbia operate affirmative-action schemes for deep-pocketed dullards in the form of “legacy” admissions that shower advantages on the relatives of alumni. One study found that undergraduates at Columbia are more than 100 times more likely to belong to the top 0.1% of families by income than to the poorest 20%. The best way to promote fairness would be to eliminate such a regressive pathway to admission.

In the 1920s Harvard moved to a “holistic” admissions system because its president thought it had too many Jewish students (who excelled on the standardised exam adopted in 1905). A century later, Harvard is being sued over a holistic admissions system that limits the number of Asian-American students, who also do well on tests. Based on that case, the Supreme Court is expected to rule that race-based affirmative action is unconstitutional. A cynical observer might conclude that universities are jettisoning quantitative measures, the lawsuit’s key evidence, to make discrimination harder to detect.

Fixing educational inequality requires more data, not less. Susan Dynarski, an economist at Harvard, makes the case that free, universal testing helps unearth promising young talent from rough backgrounds. Timely reminders about financial aid also help. For decades, elite universities have sought skin-deep diversity to paper over abysmal socioeconomic diversity, a failing that is exacerbated by legacy admissions. If the Supreme Court rules that stratagem out, universities should not devote their energies to maintaining an undesirable status quo, but to crafting something better: a true meritocracy shorn of an unjustifiable, hereditary mediocracy. 

 

[EKS]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-truth-about-the-sat-and-act-1520521861

[Roadrunner]

“Scores may be correlated with privilege, but they are probably the hardest part of an admissions application to warp with money. ”

This really resonates with me.

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

This confuses disparity with discrimination. Tests correctly measure educational inequality, which begins before kindergarten and grows as a result of bad policy. Just as smashing thermometers does not prevent climate change, so abandoning the measurement of educational inequality will not magic it away.

I don’t think this is a good analogy. Not measuring the temperature isn’t going to do anything to improve climate change. If test optional does have the impact of admitting more students from lower quality educational backgrounds, those students go on to become well educated adults whose future lives and those of their children are improved, hopefully with the impact of less education inequality down the line.
 

I feel like this article is acknowledging education disparity exists, but saying it’s not right or fair to do anything to correct for that at the college admissions level; those kids just have to suffer the consequences of not having been given as good of an education and maybe hopefully something will be different for kids in some future time. 

[Frances]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

I don’t think this is a good analogy. Not measuring the temperature isn’t going to do anything to improve climate change. If test optional does have the impact of admitting more students from lower quality educational backgrounds, those students go on to become well educated adults whose future lives and those of their children are improved, hopefully with the impact of less education inequality down the line.
 

I feel like this article is acknowledging education disparity exists, but saying it’s not right or fair to do anything to correct for that at the college admissions level; those kids just have to suffer the consequences of not having been given as good of an education and maybe hopefully something will be different for kids in some future time. 

But are elite institutions in general the best place for students from poor educational backgrounds to become well educated adults? The trade off between doing away with legacy admissions vs doing away with test scores is not even a thing at most colleges. Sneeyzone posted a talk by Malcolm Gladwell in the college admissions thread where he presents data showing that if you want to increase your chances of receiving a STEM degree, you should choose a college where test scores put you in the top 1/3 of students. So for the vast majority of students, even those from excellent educational backgrounds, that is not going to be an elite university. Put another way, choosing the most prestigious university you are admitted to may actually close the door to some of the most lucrative and stable careers.

When my husband went back to school for his PharmD degree, he had several first generation college students in his class. None had attended elite undergrad institutions, but most certainly getting a PharmD degree changed the course of not only their lives but of future family generations.

I know a few people who were “discovered” by the NMS program and went on to have excellent academic careers. All chose strong, but not elite colleges for undergrad then went on to top grad programs. My grad school advisor, a mathematical genius who grew up in a trailer park, was discovered by his CC professors and they mentored him as he transferred to the local four year state school. He never even travelled out of state until his future employer, an Ivy League U, flew him out for a job interview.

 

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, Frances said:

But are elite institutions in general the best place for students from poor educational backgrounds to become well educated adults? The trade off between doing away with legacy admissions vs doing away with test scores is not even a thing at most colleges. Sneeyzone posted a talk by Malcolm Gladwell in the college admissions thread where he presents data showing that if you want to increase your chances of receiving a STEM degree, you should choose a college where test scores put you in the top 1/3 of students. So for the vast majority of students, even those from excellent educational backgrounds, that is not going to be an elite university. Put another way, choosing the most prestigious university you are admitted to may actually close the door to some of the most lucrative and stable careers.

When my husband went back to school for his PharmD degree, he had several first generation college students in his class. None had attended elite undergrad institutions, but most certainly getting a PharmD degree changed the course of not only their lives but of future family generations.

I know a few people who were “discovered” by the NMS program and went on to have excellent academic careers. All chose strong, but not elite colleges for undergrad then went on to top grad programs. My grad school advisor, a mathematical genius who grew up in a trailer park, was discovered by his CC professors and they mentored him as he transferred to the local four year state school. He never even travelled out of state until his future employer, an Ivy League U, flew him out for a job interview.

 

Oh, I guess I wasn't thinking of this conversation as only applying to elite schools. I'm not in the camp of finding those a worthwhile advantage for the majority of people anyways. Lots of schools are doing away with test scores, so I thought we were talking about the issue in general. I actually have mixed feelings on test scores (I think they can be really helpful for homeschooled students without any dual enrollment, for one), but I just didn't agree with the logic in that particular article.

[freesia]

One big problem with doing away with the tests is that high price extracurricular activities become even more important. There may be a way that admissions committees wave that for the poorest kids, which is fine, but those of us in the middle—or even upper middle cannot compete on any level. We’ve cobbled together a variety within our budget, but no way can our kids get the training they need to “stand out.”  I am convinced that their high SAT scores have made a huge difference. And this absolute applies to a lot of the URM kids in my town. 
 

It’s not that I love the SAT’s, but I like a variety of ways to show what you are capable of. 

[Roadrunner]

I was coming to say the same about extracurriculars. I won’t say what music is costing us. Breaking point.  
I am really surprised nobody objects to extracurriculars taking such an oversized importance. The easiest way to “manufacture” a perfect kid on paper with money is extracurricular. If I see one more kid “open an NGO” or “file a patent.” 🤣🤣🤦🏻‍♀️Nobody can outdo a well resourced family on that. There is no equality of opportunity in this. As somebody who is actively engaged in music community, boy do we break our heads trying to get funding for talented kids. Opportunities exist but most have a hard time knowing how to access. I feel so passionate about funding in music/arts and watching tremendously talented kids unable to afford lessons and improve just breaks my heart. Yes, the road is uneven for all of us, but I truly feel it’s in outside opportunities where it’s the worst.

test is small potatoes in comparison. It’s learnable with effort and super low cost and even free. 

Entire system is nuts. I know CA schools are experimenting with solutions but I really wish they would focus also on equal funding of elementary schools and making sure class sizes are truly capped. I don’t think one needs an electronic whiteboard in every classroom or super expensive textbooks with online components (Catholic schools have done just fine with paper, pencil, and a chalkboard), but you do need kids with full stomach, a small class size and a well trained teacher. If we really focused on that, we might have a very different conversation 20 years down the line. 

[freesia]

1 minute ago, Roadrunner said:

I was coming to say the same about extracurriculars. I won’t say what music is costing us. Breaking point.  
I am really surprised nobody objects to extracurriculars taking such an oversized importance. The easiest way to “manufacture” a perfect kid on paper with money is extracurricular. If I see one more kid “open an NGO” or “file a patent.” 🤣🤣🤦🏻‍♀️Nobody can outdo a well resourced family on that. There is no equality of opportunity in this. As somebody who is actively engaged in music community, boy do we break our heads trying to get funding for talented kids. Opportunities exist but most have a hard time knowing how to access. I feel so passionate about funding in music/arts and watching tremendously talented kids unable to afford lessons and improve just breaks my heart. Yes, the road is uneven for all of us, but I truly feel it’s in outside opportunities where it’s the worst.

test is small potatoes in comparison. It’s learnable with effort and super low cost and even free. 

Entire system is nuts. I know CA schools are experimenting with solutions but I really wish they would focus also on equal funding of elementary schools and making sure class sizes are truly capped. I don’t think one needs an electronic whiteboard in every classroom or super expensive textbooks with online components (Catholic schools have done just fine with paper, pencil, and a chalkboard), but you do need kids with full stomach, a small class size and a well trained teacher. If we really focused on that, we might have a very different conversation 20 years down the line. 

100% this. Oh my goodness!  My youngest, who is a very talented soccer player, we finally decided we could manage the select travel team for her. The level of training she gets is miles above the rec team. BUT now we know there is another level above that for double or more the price plus individual training and winter training and summer training. We cannot do that. We are done. One of the girls in our youth group swims. She said—I feel kind of bad that the kids on the school team who qualify for the A (top) meets are all Club swimmers. Yes, yes they are. So, the school teams aren’t really a level playing field. 
 

Sorry if I’m derailing. My kids are doing fine and have gotten scholarships and acceptances at some top schools. But I am sure the SATs played a part. 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

Oh, I guess I wasn't thinking of this conversation as only applying to elite schools. I'm not in the camp of finding those a worthwhile advantage for the majority of people anyways. Lots of schools are doing away with test scores, so I thought we were talking about the issue in general. I actually have mixed feelings on test scores (I think they can be really helpful for homeschooled students without any dual enrollment, for one), but I just didn't agree with the logic in that particular article.

But Gladwell’s findings apply to all levels of colleges. Choosing a college where you are not in the top third in academic ability relative to your peers, however that is measured, is very likely to close some important doors.

if we are just talking college in general and not elite schools, I think the atrocious state of most high school guidance counseling is more problematic than whether or not colleges do away with test scores. From almost all personal and anecdotal evidence I hear, most students are not given the guidance to find the best college fit. And that guidance would seem especially important for those from poor educational backgrounds. 

Given the very wide range of colleges available and the existence of CC, I don’t see how using test scores keeps students from getting a college degree and becoming well educated. On the other hand, having a student from a poor educational background with low test scores in a college where that represents only a fraction of students seems almost guaranteed to at least close many majors and careers to them, if not significantly decrease their chance of earning a degree.

[kokotg]

I kind of think the test optional debate is overblown. I just don't think it matters that much. Like...it matters to an individual kid when deciding where to apply, depending on whether they test very well and want the boost that the good score gives them at certain schools or they test poorly and don't want scores considered. But on a broader level, those very selective schools who get to pick the students they want have plenty of ways to...pick the students they want. When I look at schools that have been test optional for decades, they're not more diverse economically or racially than their peers who aren't test optional or weren't until the pandemic. (Look as somewhere like Williams vs. Bowdoin, for example). As has been pointed out, there are a whole bunch of ways in which the college admissions process at selective colleges favors the wealthy. I mean, there are other reasons why test optional might be a good thing, but increasing diversity just doesn't seem to be one of them: https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-test-optional-policies-didnt-do-much-to-diversify-college-student-populations/

ETA: 

Quote

Rosinger said not to expect “dramatic gains” in diversity from eliminating testing requirements because the other qualifications that admissions departments weigh, such as extracurricular activities and advanced high school courses, “tend to privilege the same students who are privileged by test scores.” Well-to-do families can pay for extras like sports and music lessons and high schools in wealthier neighborhoods are more likely to offer advanced coursework. 

Not to mention that the vast majority of schools with excellent need based aid aren't need blind. Wealthy kids get a big boost simply by literally being wealthy and not needing financial aid.

Edited March 15, 2023 by kokotg

[Roadrunner]

But on an individual level it matters a lot. And what matters to me is each individual. 

 

And musing on costs - how anybody could ever be conservatory ready without significant resources is mind boggling. 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Roadrunner

[catz]

If we are talking about elite schools, middle class is already underreprestented.  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/02/21/middle-class-heavily-underrepresented-top-private-colleges-report-finds

I just think at the end of the day it doesn't matter that much in terms of elite schools.  There were always back roads for the wealthy to get in and I think the students at low income schools that are do-ers and jump through hoops to be successful at their high schools will be more likely to succeed on a campus.  The wealthiest will continue to support and work a system that works for them.  These admissions offices are well oiled machines.  If they have 10-11 good pieces of data on a student instead of 12, they still have plenty to make a good decision about the likely success on campus and hitting their bottom line.  Elite schools value expensive extracurriculars and coincidentally (not) it makes them more likely to get higher pay students on campus.  They know how to skew their admissions to certain income level.  

I'm not convinced high end privates are vastly more rigorous across the boards than like a well regarded flagship or LAC.  Especially as someone who has done hiring in STEM.  My spouse currently works at a STEM based east coast company high in the coporate latter that quietly prefers the flagship new grads though they have a range of new grads because they tend to be very academically prepared and not need/expect a lot of hand holding.  

@kokotgabsolutely agree. 

I am a first gen student myself with 2 grandmothers that didn't get through 8th grade.  But were both obviously academically gifted.  My spouse is also first gen.  All 4 of my kid's grandparents had pretty rough upbringings.  And now I am sending kids to college as an upper middle class parent.  I can just see this from a lot of angles.

I thinking comparing numbers on an elite vs. a flagship school is always striking.

Dartmouth average family income 200K, 69 percent in the top 20 percent of earners, 21% of students with FOO over 630K.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/dartmouth-college

U of Tennessee average family income 96K, 42 percent in the top 20 percent of earners2.1% of students with FOO over 630K

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-tennessee

 

[kokotg]

2 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

But on an individual level it matters a lot. And what matters to me is each individual. 
 

 

I don't feel like my kids who, so far, are strong test-takers are at a disadvantage now that test optional policies are popular, though. In fact, the early numbers that I saw in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic policy changes showed that students submitting scores were admitted at significantly higher rates than students choosing test optional at most schools (or at most schools that released the information, at least). I know you've dealt with test blind rather than test optional policies, and that that's a different sort of game, though. 

[Roadrunner]

13 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I don't feel like my kids who, so far, are strong test-takers are at a disadvantage now that test optional policies are popular, though. In fact, the early numbers that I saw in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic policy changes showed that students submitting scores were admitted at significantly higher rates than students choosing test optional at most schools (or at most schools that released the information, at least). I know you've dealt with test blind rather than test optional policies, and that that's a different sort of game, though. 

I think either all have to submit or none. I think either way that would be fair. I am OK with test blind. Although I don’t know how test blind that is since some UCs take into account AP scores now that SATs aren’t there. 
I am not ok with optional for a variety of reasons.
 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Roadrunner

[kokotg]

20 minutes ago, catz said:

If we are talking about elite schools, middle class is already underreprestented.  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/02/21/middle-class-heavily-underrepresented-top-private-colleges-report-finds

 

 

For sure...my kids would have been much more likely to go to less expensive in-state publics if we made twice as much money, ironically. Caveat--looking at your link--that I think people are often too quick to put Ivies and a tiny handful of other schools in a special category juxtaposed against pretty much all other colleges...when there's a big group of schools out there with excellent need based aid AND substantial merit aid that are selective but not Harvard level selective where I imagine the middle and upper middle class is better represented because the merit aid closes the gap for families that can make a substantial contribution but not pay full freight. I have such mixed feelings about our weird American college system with its endless diversity and also endless flaws. 

[kokotg]

44 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

 

And musing on costs - how anybody could ever be conservatory ready without significant resources is mind boggling. 

 

We do it by having grandparents who can help out with EC costs. My kids are Pell eligible, but I'm very aware that they're a special kind of pell-eligible in that they have college educated parents who can help them navigate the system and a strong safety net with extended family--they just happen to have a Dad who decided to teach math and a family with just one full time income thanks to homeschooling. I mean, we also prioritize and make sacrifices so the kids can have lessons and all that..but there are plenty of people for whom no amount of sacrifice would make private lessons and orchestra fees possible. 

[Roadrunner]

 

I am seeing so many talented kids never fully develop because they went to the cheapest teacher or no teacher at all. It’s heartbreaking. I know performing arts schools exist in larger cities but in rural areas you are out of luck. 

[EKS]

5 hours ago, KSera said:

If test optional does have the impact of admitting more students from lower quality educational backgrounds, those students go on to become well educated adults whose future lives and those of their children are improved, hopefully with the impact of less education inequality down the line.

Unfortunately this isn't how this always plays out.  You used to be able to search a database on outcomes for students from various demographics (and possibly test scores) and completion rates were eye opening.  I don't think it's available anymore though.

[kirstenhill]

3 hours ago, Frances said:

 Sneeyzone posted a talk by Malcolm Gladwell in the college admissions thread where he presents data showing that if you want to increase your chances of receiving a STEM degree, you should choose a college where test scores put you in the top 1/3 of students. So for the vast majority of students, even those from excellent educational backgrounds, that is not going to be an elite university. Put another way, choosing the most prestigious university you are admitted to may actually close the door to some of the most lucrative and stable careers.

 

Can you remind me which admissions thread this link is in? (Or maybe someone could just post the link for me here...LOL).  I missed that and would be interested in finding it.

[Farrar]

Either-or fallacy. I strongly agree that ending legacy is the bigger issue and needs to be discussed more. But that doesn't mean that test optional policies are not also part of the problem. It's a false choice.

But we all know where this forum stands, so I'm not interested in having it out about this yet again.

[catz]

17 minutes ago, EKS said:

Unfortunately this isn't how this always plays out.  You used to be able to search a database on outcomes for students from various demographics (and possibly test scores) and completion rates were eye opening.  I don't think it's available anymore though.

But they are higher risk students regardless of test score.  

[Roadrunner]

Economist really echoes MIT decision on testing, which considering how not politically correct it is to like a test was something. 

[boringandunhelpful]

I would like to see the SAT edited. It really is more about test-taking skills than actual skills. That said, I personally believe that test scores then GPAs should be the only real considerations with regards to admission. They admitting students, after all, so things like extracurriculars should only come into play when deciding between students with comparable scores.

In my mind, it would be best if admissions never saw anything identifying about the student - name, address, school name, etc. Just use the student ID numbers, and admit purely on ability. 

[Roadrunner]

15 minutes ago, Drusilla said:

I would like to see the SAT edited. It really is more about test-taking skills than actual skills. That said, I personally believe that test scores then GPAs should be the only real considerations with regards to admission. They admitting students, after all, so things like extracurriculars should only come into play when deciding between students with comparable scores.

In my mind, it would be best if admissions never saw anything identifying about the student - name, address, school name, etc. Just use the student ID numbers, and admit purely on ability. 

A very European approach. I also prefer it. 

In a sense music conservatories are like that since acceptance is audition based. 
 

Also I saw a word “elite” used. I usually generally speak of 100 or so universities/colleges, not the crazy top 20. 

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, Frances said:

But Gladwell’s findings apply to all levels of colleges. Choosing a college where you are not in the top third in academic ability relative to your peers, however that is measured, is very likely to close some important doors.

if we are just talking college in general and not elite schools, I think the atrocious state of most high school guidance counseling is more problematic than whether or not colleges do away with test scores. From almost all personal and anecdotal evidence I hear, most students are not given the guidance to find the best college fit. And that guidance would seem especially important for those from poor educational backgrounds. 

Given the very wide range of colleges available and the existence of CC, I don’t see how using test scores keeps students from getting a college degree and becoming well educated. On the other hand, having a student from a poor educational background with low test scores in a college where that represents only a fraction of students seems almost guaranteed to at least close many majors and careers to them, if not significantly decrease their chance of earning a degree.

The point of his talk was that those top 100 colleges aren't the best fit for 2/3rds of the students in them buuuuuuut those colleges NEED those 2/3rd students to make the others both seem and feel their best - aaaaaaand - those top scores aren't distributed evenly across all majors. The top 1/3 by test score is RELATIVELY the best, not OBJECTIVELY the best. That's the relative in relative deprivation. In the real world, no one cares what your test score is post admission/degree and no one wants graduates in every major who can max out on math (or ELA or what have you) if what we need is creative studio artists. It's irrelevant.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, kirstenhill said:

Can you remind me which admissions thread this link is in? (Or maybe someone could just post the link for me here...LOL).  I missed that and would be interested in finding it.

It's here:

The longer talk is also on YouTube. He's done several with more detailed explanations and follow up. My biggest takeaway was that it really doesn't matter what my kids' test scores are. Whether they're at the top or the bottom, it makes no sense to be chasing names vs. ensuring solid teaching and relative privilege.

[kokotg]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

It's here:

The longer talk is also on YouTube. He's done several with more detailed explanations and follow up. My biggest takeaway was that it really doesn't matter what my kids' test scores are. Whether they're at the top or the bottom, it makes no sense to be chasing names vs. ensuring solid teaching and relative privilege.

There's also the study about how going to an elite college disproportionately benefits lower income kids, though: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/19/rich-students-flock-elite-colleges-study-finds-graduating-college-levels-playing

 

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, kokotg said:

There's also the study about how going to an elite college disproportionately benefits lower income kids, though: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/19/rich-students-flock-elite-colleges-study-finds-graduating-college-levels-playing

 

The lede is buried…

“What we found really surprising is other schools have outcomes nearly as good as Ivy League schools, but [they] admit many, many more poor students,” Friedman said.”

[cintinative]

15 hours ago, catz said:

 

I thinking comparing numbers on an elite vs. a flagship school is always striking.

Dartmouth average family income 200K, 69 percent in the top 20 percent of earners, 21% of students with FOO over 630K.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/dartmouth-college

U of Tennessee average family income 96K, 42 percent in the top 20 percent of earners2.1% of students with FOO over 630K

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-tennessee

 

What does FOO mean? I googled it and am coming up empty.

Usually for me it means Family of Origin 

[catz]

8 minutes ago, cintinative said:

What does FOO mean? I googled it and am coming up empty.

Usually for me it means Family of Origin 

That is what I mean.  Family income over 630k a year.  Sorry about my lazy shorthand!   

[kokotg]

12 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

The lede is buried…

“What we found really surprising is other schools have outcomes nearly as good as Ivy League schools, but [they] admit many, many more poor students,” Friedman said.”

Yes...it would be interesting if someone would tackle identifying why some less elite schools are better for social mobility than others. I don't think that's actually the study I was looking for...there's one I see pop up (but can never find when I'm looking for it) that talks about how poor kids benefit more from going to elite schools than wealthy kids because, IIRC, they get a bigger boost from the connections they make there, whereas wealthy kids already have those connections through family regardless of where they go to college. I also always think about how it's absolutely true that there are relatively few low income kids at elite schools, but those schools are MUCH cheaper for low income families than nearly any other option if their kids can get in to them. Low income families can very easily get into massive debt (relative to their income) paying in state public school costs when an MIT or Stanford or Vanderbilt or whatever would cost them little to nothing and allow their kids to graduate debt free (or an Oberlin or a Vassar would allow them to graduate with just the federal loans). But it's a system that benefits only a small number of low income students. But it DOES benefit those students, and I think too many of them don't know it's out there and don't think beyond in state publics.

Edited March 16, 2023 by kokotg

[SanDiegoMom]

23 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

I think either all have to submit or none. I think either way that would be fair. I am OK with test blind. Although I don’t know how test blind that is since some UCs take into account AP scores now that SATs aren’t there. 
I am not ok with optional for a variety of reasons.
 

yeah ITA about CA.  I feel like it is going to have the opposite effect from what they intended.  My husband thinks the SAT increases inequity as expensive test prep can inflate scores for those with means.  However I think now that it's gone, UC's will rely so much more heavily on AP scores, and that's going to be an ever greater reflection of wealth.  Our school is in a good district that teachers love to teach in.  Our AP teachers are very good, and they test prep all year. (I don't love AP's but we are in the system so that's a different thread).   I know many parents who have tutors for their kids to help them through their AP classes.  Year long tutors for multiple classes are much more expensive than just one SAT boot camp.

In a struggling school there will be fewer AP courses, the teachers won't be as qualified, and they might not prep nearly as well.  Spread that out over multiple AP classes over multiple years. 

I'm not in love with the SAT, but I feel like it would do a better job find that smart kid from an underprivileged background who can handle elite level classes.   I don't see how GPA is a good measure as it seems like everyone is getting 4.0's around here. In my daughter's Calc class, over half are getting A's.  Their homework is graded on completion, they get participation points, and now they get an extra point every week on their test if they are on time to class.  We figured it out last quarter that if she got an 80 percent on every test, she would get an A in the class.  

Some kids have college counselors from 9th grade helping them decide what their extracurriculars are.

 

 

[Roadrunner]

@SanDiegoMom Our so called highly regarded PS mostly doesn’t prep for AP tests and when I complained, the principal told me scores didn’t matter. 🤷‍♀️ Another teacher told me they teach to a 3, so nobody is overwhelmed in class.
I do think the disappearance of SAT (I am also so freaking sick of that test and the constant chasing of test centers and constant redesigns) makes AP scores more important, and yes, those aren’t nearly as easy to get, I think. Neither one of my kids ever prepped for SAT. Never hired a single hour of tutoring for SAT or enrolled my kid in any SAT class. We did however print a bunch of free releases tests. AP preparation was for my older one was a different game. Again no tutor but he studied hours and hours for those scores. 
I also think the situation is going to get worse than it was. We went from one annoying test to many it seems. I don’t blame them though because in our school two kids with an A in AP Calc might score a 1 and a 5. Grades are nearly meaningless here. 
 

[matrips]

On 3/15/2023 at 2:55 PM, Roadrunner said:

Entire system is nuts. I know CA schools are experimenting with solutions but I really wish they would focus also on equal funding of elementary schools and making sure class sizes are truly capped. I don’t think one needs an electronic whiteboard in every classroom or super expensive textbooks with online components (Catholic schools have done just fine with paper, pencil, and a chalkboard), but you do need kids with full stomach, a small class size and a well trained teacher. If we really focused on that, we might have a very different conversation 20 years down the line. 

I think the lack of discipline and accountability is the biggest issue.  You can have a large class and kids can still learn if the focus is on learning. That’s why private and charter schools have the advantage.  They can say no to the disruptive or violent behavior and keep the focus on learning better.  
 

My kids are in private school and even some of the regular (non-AP) classes drive them nuts because of silly distracting behavior and kids that just don’t care as much about being there. Yes, the teachers squash it, but it still prevents focus and takes the teachers time.  And therefore the other students. I can’t imagine what it’s like in some schools. Fix the discipline and I think it would fix much of the outcomes.

[Roadrunner]

@matripsi am not sure what goes on in terms of behavior, but I do think for the longest time AP scores didn’t matter, or maybe they did but people believed they didn’t. I don’t really know. But GPAs mattered in CA always, so pretty much anybody who isn’t a struggling student takes APs in our district to boost the GPA.  it isn’t just the strongest students enrolled. So the school strategy is to enroll most kids into APs, give high grades, and hence help students get into colleges. They truly don’t think those scores matter. Also our public mostly assumes everybody is going to a public university or a community college, so they careless what private colleges want. It’s very frustrating especially coming from homeschool classes where AP classes prep so well for exams (PAH being a good example). 

[SanDiegoMom]

3 hours ago, matrips said:

I think the lack of discipline and accountability is the biggest issue.  You can have a large class and kids can still learn if the focus is on learning. That’s why private and charter schools have the advantage.  They can say no to the disruptive or violent behavior and keep the focus on learning better.  
 

My kids are in private school and even some of the regular (non-AP) classes drive them nuts because of silly distracting behavior and kids that just don’t care as much about being there. Yes, the teachers squash it, but it still prevents focus and takes the teachers time.  And therefore the other students. I can’t imagine what it’s like in some schools. Fix the discipline and I think it would fix much of the outcomes.

The number of kids in these classes can be staggering.  My 3 kids were in different grades here over the course of two separate times (we were military so there is a gap, plus homeschool).  But my twins had 28 kids in their Kindergarten class, my older kid had 33 in her fifth grade class, and in Algebra she had 42.  There was no room for backpacks, and barely room to write on the shared tables.  

These were 7th graders in Algebra, so you can imagine the chaos of 42 7th graders trying to learn algebra.  

Now the youngest are in 11th and in mostly AP's, so the class sizes are smaller.  But the block schedule really encourages loading up on AP's, and accelerating in subjects just to appear better to college. 

 

[Sneezyone]

This discussion, per usual, is dominated by CA concerns. It’s an important state and its issues are important but it’s hardly dominant nationwide. When you base your views solely on what’s happening there, or what the admissions process looks like there, you’re flying BLIND. 

Let’s start from here: https:/www.statista.com/statistics/306880/us-higher-education-institutions-by-state/

From there, let’s consider the national landscape of test optional-informed/test required/no testing. These approaches are VERY different and the regions of the country /schools that use them have very different reasons for pursuing them.

- requiring tests at MIT may allow underprivileged students who don’t meet course-taking requirements to see themselves there.

- test scores at major state Us with low tuition/fees may discourage in-state applicants and/or encourage OOS applicants (where OOS limits aren’t applied) with more favorable stats.
 

Tests favor OOS/nationwide students with better schools, not in-state students with underfunded public grads and weak public schools. This is a major issue b/c the US funds higher  ed and K-12 on a state basis. There is no national standard!

Where public institutions are concerned, these are political considerations too. Who attends, how desirable the flagships are, and what limits exist to protect in-state grads is an issue. Those policies are not necessarily in the best interests of state residents and K-12 students overall (which are not the same thing as institutional concerns). Tests may well be in the institution’s interests due to prestige/selectivity/profitability reasons but not in-state students subject to local funding whims. My niece’s (southern) in-state flagship may well be subject to this paradox.

Even where private institutions are concerned, these are largely equity/balance considerations now and they’re likely to change…very soon based on SCOTUS whims. How, I cannot say, but  suspect in favor of fewer mandatory tests for state schools and MORE tests for the top 50-100  PRIVATE schools. It’d be more transparent but I don’t see that providing any outcome shift b/c those schools educate a minuscule fraction of students state/nation/worldwide.

Policy and practice is never as simple as ideologues make it out to be and people who think it is will continue to miss the boat.

It’s much easier and more productive/rewarding to focus on guiding your own kids toward the schools/opportunities that allow them to thrive.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[gstharr]

In fact, for meritocrats to abandon exams is self-defeating. Scores may be correlated with privilege, but they are probably the hardest part of an admissions application to warp with money. Children of the rich can get ample help in completing their coursework (which may receive inflated grades), hire professional writers to “edit” their essays and even spend lavishly on consultants who will help craft a delectable smorgasbord of extra-curricular activities. Yet research shows that intensive tutoring has a marginal effect on test scores. That is why, in the Varsity Blues scandal of 2019, very rich parents paid to have others sit their children’s exams. 

 

My kid is graduating from a s0-called very "elite" private k-12 school.  the school is in the middle of one of those zip codes.  The surrounding homes are well over $1 million, the middle range is into 8 figures.  k-6 class sizes are capped at 60 students per grade.  Admission to K is almost all students whose family can afford private college like  tuition starting at K, and still are able to donate annually.    The hook for these family is that it guarantees their kid admission to the school's nationally ranked high school.  Admissions know the value of every home.  They know who they are picking.  It is not very diverse.  But grade levels goes from 60 students at 6th to 120 at 7th grade.  Admission adds 60 new 7th graders every year.

All the  new students come in with test scores, and academic track record.  The school then fills its need for athletic, musical/artistic skills, and whatever the else the school wants.  This is also when the financial aid and urm students are admitted.  The school's average SAT is 1400.  Of the 120 graduating class, the 15-20 top SAT scorers go to the less than 5% admission rate schools.  The vast  majority of the 1500+ SAT scores are the financial aid kids and urm admitted at 7th grade.  These are also the  the NMSF finalists . 

The families at this school can and do pay $5,000-7,500 for test prep  classes.  But the financial aid kids and urms mostly study with prep books (sorry Kahn, but none of these kids use you for much of anything).  So, yes, I agree that test is the easiest and cheapest way for urms to stand out.

 

 

[Malam]

On 3/15/2023 at 5:21 AM, catz said:

But if test optional for college admissions is so problematic, wouldn’t colleges see significant shifts in grad rates and drop out?

Most of the test optional colleges are the super selective ones; even if they prioritize less qualified legacies and students privileged enough to have an expertly-crafted admissions profile, they're still unlikely to admit students so unqualified that they would drop out. And the lower ranked colleges doing this are likely the type to pressure professors to not fail too many students precisely because it looks bad.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, gstharr said:

In fact, for meritocrats to abandon exams is self-defeating. Scores may be correlated with privilege, but they are probably the hardest part of an admissions application to warp with money. Children of the rich can get ample help in completing their coursework (which may receive inflated grades), hire professional writers to “edit” their essays and even spend lavishly on consultants who will help craft a delectable smorgasbord of extra-curricular activities. Yet research shows that intensive tutoring has a marginal effect on test scores. That is why, in the Varsity Blues scandal of 2019, very rich parents paid to have others sit their children’s exams. 

 

My kid is graduating from a s0-called very "elite" private k-12 school.  the school is in the middle of one of those zip codes.  The surrounding homes are well over $1 million, the middle range is into 8 figures.  k-6 class sizes are capped at 60 students per grade.  Admission to K is almost all students whose family can afford private college like  tuition starting at K, and still are able to donate annually.    The hook for these family is that it guarantees their kid admission to the school's nationally ranked high school.  Admissions know the value of every home.  They know who they are picking.  It is not very diverse.  But grade levels goes from 60 students at 6th to 120 at 7th grade.  Admission adds 60 new 7th graders every year.

All the  new students come in with test scores, and academic track record.  The school then fills its need for athletic, musical/artistic skills, and whatever the else the school wants.  This is also when the financial aid and urm students are admitted.  The school's average SAT is 1400.  Of the 120 graduating class, the 15-20 top SAT scorers go to the less than 5% admission rate schools.  The vast  majority of the 1500+ SAT scores are the financial aid kids and urm admitted at 7th grade.  These are also the  the NMSF finalists . 

The families at this school can and do pay $5,000-7,500 for test prep  classes.  But the financial aid kids and urms mostly study with prep books (sorry Kahn, but none of these kids use you for much of anything).  So, yes, I agree that test is the easiest and cheapest way for urms to stand out.

 

 

Suggesting your experience is a meritocratic ideal (filling scraps/holes from the the lesser cadre/classes) is an abomination. It’s EXACTLY how CT prep schools tried to use me. What happens at the top 100 institutions neither reflects nor suggests the kinds of national policies being imposed on the other 90%+ of colleges.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Suggesting your experience is a meritocratic ideal (filling scraps/holes from the the lesser cadre/classes) is an abomination. It’s EXACTLY how CT prep schools tried to use me. What happens at the top 100 institutions neither reflects nor suggests the kinds of national policies being imposed on the other 90%+ of colleges.

ETA: I know that’s not what you’re (GSTHARR’s) suggesting, IJS I’ve seen how cherry-picking works up close.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Sneezyone

[gstharr]

43 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Suggesting your experience is a meritocratic ideal (filling scraps/holes from the the lesser cadre/classes) is an abomination. 

Whoa Comrade, not out to incite an uprising of the working masses.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, gstharr said:

Whoa Comrade, not out to incite an uprising of the working masses.

Wow. Tell us all how you really feel.

[gstharr]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Wow. Tell us all how you really feel.

Heck, I am just joking around. The only time I  would expect to read   meritocratic ideal,  scrap/holes, and lesser cadre/classes in a sentence is in a socialist/communist manisfesto.