A new (and larger) Chetty study on elite college admissions is released today

Parents Forum
893

Other posters have pointed out that is not really what the study suggests, and that often people who think that have failed to realize they are looking at something where test scores were part of the control.

I realized that which is why my comment mentioned controlling for equally qualified applicants.

It’s the non-academic scoring that’s causing the disparity in acceptance rate among equally qualified applicants of different income levels, not the test scores.

In other words, I think it is hard to just tweak our system and expect it not to be a form of whack-a-mole where even if you drove down the high-SES advantage in one area, it would not just reappear in another.

Could you not just give a boost to low-income applicants in terms of their ‘overall’ score?

Harvard and other elite schools can already determine who is low-income (Harvard gives a boost to low-income applicants - <$80k household income - already so just make the boost bigger).

If you instead just fiddle with the end parameters, I am confident that system of privilege will easily adjust.

I think elite schools could easily diversify their campuses in terms of income if they wanted to.

Richard Kahlenberg (who helped support that case that shall not be named) created a model where over 50% of Harvard kids could be from ‘disadvantaged’ families without taking a big hit to academic performance by giving low-income students a massive boost.

Harvard essentially said they couldn’t afford it (even though they have significant unrestricted endowment). But they had no real justification for why they couldn’t in my opinion.

894

Yes, I probably should have put “aptitude” in scare quotes. I was really just referring to the fact that at one point, the “A” in SAT stood for “aptitude”. I believe at this point, it officially stands for nothing. I personally think they are primarily tests of your ability to take similar standardized tests.

But the point I was trying to make was just that whatever they are, they are not going to help a college, say, normalize the grades given in different higher-level French or Chemistry or so on classes offered at different high schools.

1 Like
895

By the authors’ definition of “elite and prestigious firms”, many firms outside of finance and law are included. Not all of them appear to have higher earning potentials.

1 Like
896

So wait, you meant by this:

It’s the non-academic scoring that’s causing the disparity in acceptance rate controlling for test scores of different income levels, not the test scores.

Because we didn’t need a study for that–if you have controlled for test scores, then test scores definitionally cannot explain whatever you have left to explain.

But that also definitionally means you have not assessed how much test scores are helping high-SES families in college admissions.

Sure, or just have quotas and apply different standards in order to meet the quota, which is functionally the same thing as providing a score “boost” until you hit a target percentage of low-income admits.

But these are not what I would call tweaks, and they also have nothing in particular to do with what criteria you would use outside of this score boost.

I also note that as described so far, this would create even more of a donut hole problem, meaning given what we know about their other admissions factors, satisfying the quota for low-income admits would largely come out of middle-income admits.

Of course you could get even more radical, and enforce quotas across the board.

We looked at the Harvard operating budget above, so at a minimum we know net tuition is part of their operating budget. So assuming such a quota system would reduce their net tuition, then they would in fact have to reduce their operating budget. They also argue it could eventually affect gift income, which is another large part of their operating budget.

As to what exactly would happen eventually if you forced a comprehensive quota system on them, I think that is hard to say.

But I will note once again there are in fact colleges in the United States that have a very flat admissions rate curve through the income distribution–namely, in-state public colleges.

The “problem” we are trying to solve is these private colleges do things differently, in a way that leads to more very high SES admits than in-state public colleges . . . and also more very high SES results than in-state public colleges (there is no apparent difference in results below the very highest SES results).

There seems to be a casual assumption among some in this conversation that these are unconnected, and it is just a coincidence there is a statistical correlation between the very high SES admit patterns and the very high SES results pattern. In a world where networking and such is obviously a real thing, I suspect it is not so much a coincidence.

897

Name history of the SAT:

Scholastic Aptitude Test
Scholastic Assessment Test
SAT I: Reasoning Test
SAT Reasoning Test
SAT

898

With respect to GRE requirement, I’m not sure it’s really about DEI. One of things I noticed when my S applied to PhD programs (in AI/ML) a couple of years ago was how their GRE requirements vary by schools (actually programs). Generally speaking, the tippy-top programs tend to be GRE blind (or nearly blind). GRE becomes required (or recommended) starting with the next tier of programs. My interpretation is that for tippy-top programs, GRE offers little discriminating value (all their potentially successful applicants would have top test scores if they took the test). Since their applicants had to demonstrate academic depth, research experiences/accomplishments, and strong recommendations by professors known to the programs, to be successful (not to mention near-universal interviews by sponsoring professors whom applicants identified in their applications), there’s little need for GRE.

2 Likes
899

Note that GRE tests include only a general test (which is probably only a little higher level than SAT level, due to the divergence of learning in college) and three subject tests in math, physics, and psychology. Perhaps it is not surprising that a PhD program in another subject would see GRE tests as basically irrelevant.

900

I was referring to the general GRE. Relevance of subject GRE would obviously depend on the discipline.

901

The problem with the SAT as I remember it, at least the non-verbal component, was that whatever it was measuring could be corrupted by learning certain tricks of the trade for high scoring. But, absent that, it did seem to be measuring something not specific to any particular subject though no doubt enhanced by studies of such subjects. Call it mental agility, or logic, or the ability to see relationships and extrapolate from them. It is a good deal like reasoning power itself. People do vary in such abilities, and higher abilities will certainly relate to higher academic performance, not only in mathematics but most fields.

@NiceUnparticularMan , I don’t understand the distinction you are making above between what private colleges are doing that leads to high SES “admits” as against high SES “results.” I am, however, willing to be instructed, as Meno said to Socrates. Probably the idea of it resides somewhere deep inside me if you can but bring it to birth.

1 Like
902

Probably any standardized test in wide enough use will attract test prep companies trying to find ways to help their students score higher than what they would otherwise score based on what the test intends to measure or proxy.

The SAT writing section from 2004 to 2016 was probably a recent example. In the early part of that era, it was seen by some colleges as more predictive of college performance than other parts of the (then three part) SAT. However, in the later part of the era, it appeared that some test prep companies had figured out how it was graded and developed test prep methods that helped students who were not very good writers (including English learning international students) score very high on that section.

1 Like
903

Is there some reason why novelists, filmmakers, religious studies scholars, teachers, psychologists, landscape designers, playwrights, urban planners, sociologists, etc should be considered unsuccessful just because their salaries might be lower than those who work at a wealthy financial firm? Are people with those types of careers failures and should never attend elite colleges?

Are we clear that high SAT scores are the best measure of who may go on to win a Pulitzer or who might become a teacher of the year in a particular school system? For all anyone knows, SAT scores are good way to gatekeeper those professions or maybe the SAT is a terrible way to measure the contribution that someone might make to society. Paolo Friere, Junot Diaz, Edwidge Danticut, Tobias Wolff, Anna Deavere Smith, Robert Fagles, Amy Tan, August Wilson, William Julius Wilson, and Jack Kemp probably all took the SAT at some point (or I dunno, Frank Lloyd Wright the only architect’s name that I happen to know :rofl:). And for all I know, those people kicked butt on the test when they were 18, and got great scores. Well probably not Friere since I don’t think he was in the US as an undergraduate but he certainly has had a huge impact on several scholarly fields. However, I am not so sure that they got a 1500+ or whatever seems to be the stand-in for “intelligence” in this conversation.

2 Likes
904

I just meant this study shows two things (among other things):

(1) If you compare relative attendance by income at Ivy+ colleges to flagship public colleges (in-state), the Ivy+ are similar to the publics until about the top 1%, where the Ivy+ mostly shoot up (except MIT and Chicago), but the relative in-state attendance at the publics actually goes down a bit in the top 1%ish range;

(2) According to the study, if you compare graduates of these colleges, even controlling for family SES, both the Ivy+ and flagship public graduates end up with a disproportionate fraction of top 1% outcomes (by income, or various alternate measures), but the Ivy+ even more so than the the flagships. However, when it comes to less-than-top-1% outcomes, there doesn’t appear to be much if any difference between the Ivy+ and flagship publics, controlling for everything else.

OK, so at a high level, I think there are some people who think it is unfair that these Ivy+ schools have that advantage in top 1% outcomes (or results, or whatever you want to call that second thing), given that the top 1% is disproportionately attending these schools (or being admitted to them, or whatever you want to call that first thing). That would be the self-reinforcing elite issue.

But my point is it is plausible those things are actually connected. Indeed, I know there is empirical work that suggests the presence of those high SES students at the most selective private colleges benefits the non-high-SES students in terms of future life outcomes, but not so much the other way around.

So not to be crude about it, but it appears plausible that the Ivy+ are outperforming the flagship publics in terms of top 1% outcomes after graduation at least in part because they provide more opportunities to mingle with students from very high SES families.

Which in turn would imply that if we forced the Ivy+ to end up with admittance/attendance rates that looked like in-state publics, i.e. they did not have that takeoff in relative attendance at the top 1%ish level, they may well end up not doing any better than flagship publics at producing graduates who get top 1% outcomes.

And some people would probably be fine with that from a social justice perspective. But it would be a case of leveling down, not leveling up, from the very limited perspective of outcomes as measured by this study.

1 Like
905

Thanks, @NiceUnparticularMan , I had not picked up that the second of your two terms was referencing outcomes in life after school. I certainly take the point that there may not be anything inherent in, say, a Harvard education that causes a super-rich kid there to ultimately outperform a super-rich kid at UMass in later life. As you say, it is probably nothing more than flocking together with others of their kind - the flock is larger at Harvard, the results greater. Yet, if the flock was completely broken up and spread democratically around, you say, that would mean a net loss in high outcomes without raising lower ones. That could be, I suppose, but is it so certain that it wouldn’t just open up more of those high outcomes to others not in the flock? And, if so, the objection to this flocking wouldn’t be just a matter of sour grapes.

906

The study emphasizes 3 measures of outcome:

  1. Working at a firm that employs a disproportionately large number of Ivy+ grads at age 25.

  2. Attending an Ivy+ college for grad school, or one of 5 high USNWR ranked publics.

  3. Earning over $650k tax reported income at age 33.

These 3 particular measures of outcomes were cherry picked because they are 3 measures for which attending an Ivy+ college for undergrad may increase chance of the outcome. They were most certainly not selected to be the best measures of how colleges “tend to define success” for their grads. Colleges tend to emphasize very different metrics in their publications.

I’m am not surprised that there is a significant correlation with test score among Ivy+ grads for these 3 metrics. Test score may serve as a barrier for all 3 of these categories. It’s common for grad schools to emphasize test score. “Elite” finance/consulting firms often consider test score. Many fields associated with top 1% income may consider test scores for entry, such as MD/JD, and “elite” finance/consulting, as noted above. There are also less direct selection effects, that can make it difficult to distinguish how much is driven by test scores and how much is driven by other things that are correlated with test scores, such as parents’ income.

Implications for test optional are a different matter. For test optional, you need to consider what metrics the colleges are using for admission in place of tests. It’s not simply substitute GPA in isolation Ivy+ colleges consider things like rigor of course work, which particular courses have higher/lower grades and relevance to field of study, LORs, awards/ECs, etc.

Many selective, private colleges have published information about outcomes for test optional vs test submitter. They generally don’t show notable differences in things like college GPA or college graduation rate. However, they often do show notable differences in rate of entry to fields for which test score is a barrier, such as MD/JD, which could have implications for portion with top 1% income at age 33. As an example, the Bates 25 years of test optional study found the following:

Mean College GPA: Submitters = 3.16, Non-submitters = 3.11
Mean Graduation Rate: Submitters =89%, Non-submitters = 89%

Among those Receiving MD: 87% Submitted SAT scores
Among those Receiving JD: 73% Submitted SAT scores
All Students: 57% Submitted SAT Scores

2 Likes
907

They were most certainly not selected to be the best measures of how colleges “tend to define success” for their grads. Colleges tend to emphasize very different metrics in their publications.

Harvard’s site says they want to produce leaders so I’d assume that’s their definition of success.

I wonder if there’s a link between SAT scores and leadership in society?

Are SAT scores more predictive than high school GPA in determining leadership or vice-versa?

For test optional, you need to consider what metrics the colleges are using for admission in place of tests. It’s not simply substitute GPA in isolation Ivy+ colleges consider things like rigor of course work, which particular courses have higher/lower grades and relevance to field of study, LORs, awards/ECs, etc.

That cannot be as comprehensive as also including test scores as well surely?

I just can’t see there being a great way to determine the rigor of a rural school that sends no kids to Harvard vs a school like Phillip Exeter that sends 10+ kids a year to Harvard.

If it’s as you say, that test scores are correlated with being an MD/JD, going into finance/law, than surely it should be fairly rational to argue that leadership is also heavily correlated with test scores (and income indirectly)?

908

That’s actually not what I meant.

I meant if you forced elite private colleges to be no more elitist than elite in-state public colleges, it might significantly reduce, and possibly ultimately eliminate, THEIR ability to place more graduates in top 1%-type careers. So that is a leveling down of what I might call the “college value added as measured solely by chances of a top 1% outcome” (or something like that).

However, consistent with what I have written throughout this thread, I don’t think that would end the ability of very high SES families to disproportionately achieve such outcomes for their kids. Instead, I think these elite private colleges are just the middle part of a chain of privilege that goes back to before birth, and extends on to various post-graduate opportunities.

And you might say, well, weaken this link, and isn’t the whole chain weaker? Except again, the whole chain is not predetermined. And so if these elite private colleges stop working as well to benefit the kids of the SES elites, the SES elites can just redirect their social and economic resources to different ways of helping their kids.

Indeed, we know this has already happened. This study looks at things at a college level, but we know that SES elites have long created institutions within colleges–all sorts of societies and such–to allow for even more elitism. And depending on where in the U.S. you are talking about, there may not have been the same depth of elite private colleges as in, say, the Northeast. But then a lot of the local SES elites might have been sending their kids to, say, certain fraternities and sororities at certain publics, with their own legacy policies and such.

That’s just an example, but my point again is it is hard to prevent the SES elite from finding ways to use their social and economic resources to benefit their kids.

OK, so if you level down elite private colleges, will that stop the SES elite from disproportionately getting elite opportunities for their kids? I highly doubt it. And in fact, once they have adjusted, it may end up doing little at all.

909

Perhaps also because those students from very high SES families who are present at relatively high density at those colleges also tend to have additional advantages with respect to moving into (or staying in) the top 1%.

910

So sometimes adding more factors just adds noise.

I don’t think it is quite that dire as a rule, but I do think the most selective colleges face a real problem with the lack of high-quality information available from the crude sorts of standardized tests available in the US. In that sense they are very noisy, and therefore it is not surprising some colleges have gone not just test optional, but test blind, and others are looking at just staying test optional.

Depends on what you mean by “great”. They get detailed information from school reports, and have their own internal experience to draw on as well. None of that is perfect, but again the US secondary school system, including the lack of actually good standardized testing, means nothing can be close to perfect.

So I happen to be really good at taking standardized tests, and that in fact was a material factor in me getting into a very good law school.

And my experience as an attorney is that almost nothing I do particularly resembles the LSAT. I guess passing the bar, but almost nothing I do particularly resembles passing the bar. That’s just not how legal practice works, like at all.

And as for leaders–I don’t even think the people best at doing legal tasks are necessarily the best legal leaders. Indeed, if anything the opposite–the “academic” lawyer types typically benefit from being led by the more practical lawyer types who may not be as good at, say, writing a brief, but actually are good at relating to jurors, judges, witnesses, clients, and so on as people.

So that’s just my perspective, but having seen it all from the inside, about the last thing I would ask about when trying to figure out if someone should be leading a high-stakes legal team is what LSAT score they got.

1 Like
911

But they at least tried to control for that. Meaning the additional value-added effect restricted to the Ivy+ with respect to top 1% outcomes appeared even after controlling for family SES.

912

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as Harvard defines success as being a leader. However, if Harvard wants to admit leaders, then it wouldn’t be a simple choice of either use GPA in isolation to evaluate leadership or use SAT score in isolation to evaluate leadership. Instead I’d expect the non-stat holistic aspects of admission to be particularly important for evaluating leadership, including things like showing evidence of leadership in out of classroom pursuits, LORs, essays, etc.

For example, the personal qualities rating includes comments about leadership, as quoted below. They don’t suggest test score as a means of evaluating this leadership.

1 . Truly outstanding qualities of character; student may display enormous courage in the
face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles in life. Student may demonstrate a
singular ability to lead or inspire those around them. Student may exhibit
extraordinary concern or compassion for others. Student receives unqualified and
unwavering support from their recommenders.
2. Very strong qualities of character; student may demonstrate strong leadership. Student
may exhibit a level of maturity beyond their years. Student may exhibit uncommon
genuineness, selflessness or humility in their dealings with others. Students may
possess strong resiliency. Student receives very strong support from their
recommenders.
3+ Above average qualities of character; Student may demonstrate leadership. Student
may exhibit commitment, good judgment, and positive citizenship. Student may exercise
a spirit and camaraderie with peers. Student receives positive support from their
recommenders.

I wouldn’t assume that test scores being correlated with MD/JD/“elite” finance, means that test scores are highly correlated with leadership. I think it’s more likely that test scores act as a barrier to entering the listed fields.

For example, a student who has has an average MCAT score probably isn’t going to be accepted to med school since MCAT score is a key barrier to admission. A students who has an average LSAT score probably isn’t going to a T## law school since LSAT score is a key barrier to admission. A student with an average SAT score probably isn’t going to get an “elite” finance/consulting position that asks about SAT score. There is a clear and direct relationship.

It’s far less clear how an average MCAT, LSAT, or SAT scores relates to chance of showing leadership. Maybe there is a significant correlation. Maybe not.