@milee30 U of Chicago recruits with QuestBridge and other low income recruiting nonprofits.
If the SAT test is not predicting success at UChicago, then low income student test scores will be as meaningless
as high income student scores.
Has anyone asked UChicago Admissions for an explanation?
@Coloradomama - you mean ask them to explain why test scores of students already admitted to UChicago don’t show any additional predictive power? No need to - sample bias is a well known problem that a few guys on faculty at UChicago know how to handle. Those are the guys to ask.
“U of Chicago recruits with QuestBridge and other low income recruiting nonprofits.
If the SAT test is not predicting success at UChicago, then low income student test scores will be as meaningless”
I’m aware of the Questbridge and other recruiting. Doesn’t change my answer one bit. Questbridge kids are part of the low income kids that are already being reached.
It’s interesting nobody has picked up on a flaw in the logic Nondorf expressed when justifying why they felt testing should be optional. He described a process where they examined the files of current students to see if high test scores meant current students wouldn’t struggle or if high test scores would predict who would be the “best art historian”. Apparently students with high test scores still sometimes struggled or didn’t make great art historians. Sounds reasonable. Here’s what I think is missing - this is a uni with high academic standards and requires a high level of prep and ability; did they also examine to see if students with low test scores were capable of doing the work and able to thrive? This is especially important in the context of attracting low income candidates, since those candidates may already be lacking good quality prep from their local schools and may have little or no family support.
@JBStillflying – the admit rate for Chicago in 2006 was 35% and my daughter’s ACT score was in the bottom quartile. In the years preceding her application (2004 or 2005) - when admit rate was indeed 40%, the ACT midrange at Chicago was 28-30. Just by way of comparison, at the same time, Columbia’s ACT midrange was 27-32 - and that was with an 11% admit rate. Harvard & Yale were ACT 30-34. So definitely lower numbers across the board… but my daughter still had scores below those numbers.
These numbers probably go back to 2004, because I have a chart I compiled as part of creating a college list, most likely put together in the spring or summer of 2005.
But it’s not really relevant to the question of why Chicago wants to go test-optional at this point. We know that Chicago still accepts a small percentage of students with scores like my daughter’s – and their test-optional policy will likely encourage more lower-end scorers to apply. I’d note that by “lower end” we are still talking about students who are scoring well above average on these tests – these are for the most part very capable students. So it’s possible that Chicago feels that the current level of competition for higher test scores is deterring students that it wants to have from applying.
The question isn’t whether my daughter would get in today. Chicago did not benefit from admitting her because she turned the spot down anyway. The question is simply whether Chicago admissions would like to have students like my daughter (or @poplicola - who did attend) who might have been willing to share their scores back in the day, but would be deterred in today’s climate.
They don’t have any shortage of applicants, but they may be seeing a change in the quality and breadth of their applicant pool that they don’t like.
“But it’s not really relevant to the question of why Chicago wants to go test-optional at this point. We know that Chicago still accepts a small percentage of students with scores like my daughter’s – and their test-optional policy will likely encourage more lower-end scorers to apply. I’d note that by “lower end” we are still talking about students who are scoring well above average on these tests – these are for the most part very capable students. So it’s possible that Chicago feels that the current level of competition for higher test scores is deterring students that it wants to have from applying.”
That’s my take as well. They may even be hitting a reasonable baseline score that others with more means or more ability in the testing department easily surpass but would also have hit if they were to take a one-and-done w/o prep. Unfortunately admissions will never know that one way or the other.
Schools like Chicago aren’t looking for “well above average” but “exceptional” - perhaps in this context meaning that providing an exception to the normal admissions criteria will result in good outcomes.
The change they are seeing in the applicant pool is a preference for stem and economics at the expense of other majors. Admitting students without considering their test scores will likely result in the admission of future humanities and non-economic social science majors. The art historians that Nondorf alluded to earlier.
@milee30 at 582 that’s a good point because it looks like what they examined does not necessarily lead to the conclusions they made. The other issue is one that I keep bringing up; that is, once you condition on admission it’s very hard to use any of those factors determining admission in the first place to have any additional predictive ability. For Example, being really smart will get you into the University of Chicago, and being really smart is correlated with a decent SAT score. But once you get in, the discipline and study habits you had in high school will impact your college GPA more meaningfully simply because those with good study habits likely get better grades than those with poor study habits. It is small wonder, then, that high school GPA predicts success at the College. It’s not at all clear what this result means for low income kids who don’t test well In the first place. The fact that university of Chicago has been seeing ever higher test scores is not simply a result of better test prep or higher income kids but is also a result of increasing selectivity and overall better academic preparation among the top students. Not sure how going test optional is going to result in the same kind of students but again if they’re trying to fill specific majors this may be a way to do that.
The problem is with the definition of “low” test scores. Apparently, on CC, anything below a 1550 SAT or a 32 ACT is considered “low”. In the rest of the universe, anything above a 500 on an SAT subtest or a 22 ACT composite is above average.
The top quartile of all scorers would be those that score above 1200 on the SAT; 24 ACT.
An SAT of 1250 or ACT of 26 equates to the top 18%.
An SAT of 1350 or ACT of 29 is in the top 8%.
Chicago is a very demanding college, but I’d think that most of the courses that undergrads would take should be manageable by any top 25% student. We know from Chicago’s own stats (https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/class-2021-profile) that they have been willing to accept students whose score put them at or below the 50% mark. So what is too low for Chicago?
And what has changed about Chicago’s academic environment in the past dozen years that would impact the students with scores of 28-31 who would have been midrange then, but are bottom quartile now?
And what would your metric be? My guess is that you would probably find that higher test scores correlated with higher first quarter grades, especially in the context of that low-income group - because they probably do reflect level of preparedness. But I think the more important metric would be graduation rates - is there any reason to believe that the lower scoring students are more likely to drop out or flunk out?
oops. Double post.
I think this is where some of us really differ. I don’t see a seat at any particular college as an award. But many aparently feel that the kids who have worked hard to garner those perfect grades and test scores somehow deserve to be accepted at all the schools they apply to. Even though, clearly, they can only attend one school. Show me the brilliant high stat kid who is rejected everywhere and left with no good options and then I will worry about a broken system.
College acceptance is not a prize. Its a joint decision. Like a marriage. The applicant gets to choose the school and the school gets to choose the applicant. Just because you are good looking, fit, have a great personality and make a ton of money, doesn’t mean you get your pick of every person in the world to be your spouse.
I am fairly certain that U of C is giving very good guidance to its app readers about how to evaluate candidates with and without scores. In any case, it will be a fascinating experiment. If U of C can join the other fine test optional schools to show that those without scores do just as well as those that submit, it may really change this entire field.
But the standardized test scores aren’t really a good metric for finding the “exceptional.” Because a student doesn’t have to be exceptional to get a good score, given the opportunities for test prep and repeated test taking. One of the major differences between the more affluent students and lower-income students is simply that one group has essentially been doing test prep throughout their school years, and the others haven’t. Not just formal, SAT test prep – but all the way back to early elementary school as reflected in the quality of their classroom experience. So in context of their educational background – a 26 ACT might be very “exceptional” for a kid who is coming from a high school where mean scores are around 18. How do you compare the ACT English scores of a student whose parents are university professors vs. a student whose parents are immigrants and who entered elementary school as an ESL student?
@calmom - I didn’t attend UChicago, so don’t have personal experience of the level of difficulty. I’m basing my guess in part on my and my childrens’ experience at a magnet high school. The students at this magnet HS have to test in the top 2% IQ for admittance; the average SAT of the students is just below 1400. And even with all that, there are “dumb” kids at this HS and it’s just brutal for them. No idea if these are kids with undiagnosed LDs, who are lazy, who shouldn’t be there, whatever, but all the other kids are acutely aware of which kids are struggling, which kids can’t keep up, which kids ask inappropriate questions or don’t have answers when called on. So even within this fairly intelligent population, there are kids who are hanging on by the skin of their teeth or who just can’t keep up… in high school. There is just too big a gap between their performance and that of the rest of the students.
Hard to imagine the atmosphere in a top ranked, world renown uni that’s famous for worshiping “the life of the mind” is much different. There is no way most kids with ability at a 25%ile SAT/ACT (1200/24) would survive four years at this public magnet high school, so it’s difficult for me to think what their experience at UChicago would be like. So no, I don’t think most kids in the top 25th percentile would be reasonably predicted to be academically (and maybe even socially) successful at a top uni without there being a heck of a lot more to their story. They would just be in a different universe academically than most of the other students if the majority of the student body was composed of the 1500/34+ group.
Are there kids who are smart enough to thrive at a top uni but for some other reason have a low(ish) test score? Of course! But again, if we’re talking in the context of low income students, how the heck are you going to reliably identify them? The only low income kids who aren’t being currently accessed through programs like Questbridge and schools like Stuy are the ones from crappy unknown urban and rural schools with low population density (see the Hoxby study for that analysis.) There are a lot of kids from crappy unknown urban and rural schools with reasonably good GPAs, but very few of them (just like very few of any other students) will have the raw brainpower to come up to speed and survive in a UChicago environment. They’re also unlikely to have the sort of ECs these colleges are used to and expect; their teachers may not have any clue what type of LOR a UChicago is looking for. They may or may not have access to equipment and editing software to make a video. So how do you pick the ones with the potential to survive and not dump them into the deep end with no ability to swim? At least if they get a great SAT, ACT or other standardized test score, you have a hint that they have the raw material to tap into.
I have knowledge regarding the level of difficulty at a top school which is supposed to be “easier” than UChicago and with similar SAT/ACT profile. Since my kid just finished freshman year as a premed, I can tell you the average score and 1st, 2nd standard deviation of the histogram of most courses. When I said those “low stats kids are better served by going elsewhere”, I am not looking down on them. I am feeling sorry for them. These days everyone seems to want to be in CS/Economy/Engineering/Pre-med/Pre-law. Impacted majors. I think if the goal of UChicago is to fill those empty classrooms, it might be successful. But to those kids who are so unprepared comparing to their peers, the chances of them succeed in those impacted majors are slim. Rich kids don’t need to find jobs. Their families arrange jobs for them. But those poor kids need to find jobs. A competitive major is much more important than the name of the school they graduate from.
“But the standardized test scores aren’t really a good metric for finding the “exceptional.” Because a student doesn’t have to be exceptional to get a good score, given the opportunities for test prep and repeated test taking.”
“One of the major differences between the more affluent students and lower-income students is simply that one group has essentially been doing test prep throughout their school years, and the others haven’t. Not just formal, SAT test prep – but all the way back to early elementary school as reflected in the quality of their classroom experience.”
Sure - but these policies are district-wide and most districts have a wide variety of student SES levels, regardless of quality of the overall curriculum or classroom experience. Top colleges are pretty good about wanting every state represented, so a top kid from a rural district in WV has a better chance of being admitted to Uchicago than the 75th most brilliant kid at Stuy. Not sure why this points to dropping test scores as an admissions piece.
“So in context of their educational background – a 26 ACT might be very “exceptional” for a kid who is coming from a high school where mean scores are around 18. How do you compare the ACT English scores of a student whose parents are university professors vs. a student whose parents are immigrants and who entered elementary school as an ESL student?”
Better question is how do you compare them WITHOUT the test scores? A 26 means something (as does an 18) and the college is more than capable of putting it in the proper context (National Merit Scholarship Corp, for instance, does this for every state when figuring out who should be National Merit Semifinalists). The way to compare English scores between the professor’s brat and the ESL kid is simply to read the rest of the application as it will provide this information.
BTW, where we live in the Twin Cities, and our school district in particular, there is a large number of ESL kids: Vietnamese, Hmong, Liberian, and Somalian are the primary groups. They all get extensive standardized testing throughout their K - 12, as do all kids in MN, so should be used to the process. These results from early on are used to target particular services to those with particular special educational needs. At any rate, knowing the disparate outcomes among these groups, as an AO I’d want to take a second look via a standardized score such as ACT/SAT. That way I wasn’t putting aside one of them who might be very bright and capable of high intellectual engagement in college, but a poor performer in school due to significant learning issues; conversely, another might be a high academic achiever but with access to the same resources as kids in the suburbs and therefore presents with a test score that’s not entirely impressive. Not all ESL kids are alike. Standardized testing is particularly important for this group as well as those kids who are in special ed.
“And what has changed about Chicago’s academic environment in the past dozen years that would impact the students with scores of 28-31 who would have been midrange then, but are bottom quartile now?”
If there has been a shift in the student body, that would be a huge contributing factor. If the mid-50 range 10 years ago was 28-30, a student with a 27 wouldn’t be significantly outside the norm and wouldn’t be expected to necessarily stand out in discussions or grades in the peer group.
The mid 50 range is now something like 32-35, a large shift upwards. Class discussions, class pace and overall environment with a 32-35 group is going to be very different than those same things in a 28-30 group. A very normal, smart kid in the 28-30 pack is much more likely to be an outlier struggling in the 32-35 group.
“And what has changed about Chicago’s academic environment in the past dozen years that would impact the students with scores of 28-31 who would have been midrange then, but are bottom quartile now?”
Two things: 1) Superscoring. 2) Better selection among prospects; in this Uchicago has also seen things like retention and years to degree completion improve.
As has been pointed out, UoC already is accepting students with scores in that range. The minimum scores among accepted students in the class of 2021 were 1020/20. Of course they aren’t accepting many students with scores this low, but neither are highly selective test optional colleges. For example, Bowdoin’s full class (including non-submitters on application) had only ~3% of students at or below the top quartile ACT range you listed.
The percentages are very small because Bowdoin, UoC, and similar are not just accepting any random student with a 1200/24. The students they accept will primarily be ones who have exceptional grades during HS while taking a rigorous courseload including AP, IB, DE, and other college level classes. The accepted students will also primarily have glowing LORs, impressive essays, and amazing accomplishments out of the classroom, often including impressive awards/pursuits related to their planned major… Few students who meet this criteria have low test scores, and when they do, there is often an explanation.
The important question is not whether scores are predictive for the random 1200/24 kid. It’s more whether scores add much value beyond what was predicted by the rest of the application. If the applicant is getting A’s in college level courses taken during HS and has stellar LORs, essays, ECs, … but has a lower score than most at Chicago, is he likely to be academically successful during college? All the research I have seen, suggests the answer is yes, in general…
I seriously doubt that the Chicago faculty has seen anything close to that over the last decade.
If anything, I’d guess that are frustrated with the loss of intellectual diversity over time.
When a school asks a prospective student to answer the question, “What’s so odd about odd numbers?” or “How did you get caught?” – they aren’t looking for the type of superficial knowledge or ability that SAT/ACT tests. They are looking for creative thinkers and originality of thought … and if anything, the SAT/ACT format tends to screen those students out.
Very possibly true @Data10 if you’re looking at a pool of mid and upper income students from decent schools. None of which will be true for the untapped low income schools this initiative was supposedly implemented to attract.
And I feel very, very sorry for that unfortunate 1200/24 student. Unless there is a lot more to that story, s/he is in for one miserable experience.
They aren’t categorically “low stats kids.” Nor unprepared. I’m telling you, the kids they will go after will have the qualities the U feels are both important to success at Chi and that the U can work with. Thay are not opening the floodgates and going to admit just anyone. I am familiar with the apps of low SES and you miss a lot when you push them into some strikingly lesser corner. Oddly, I think maybe some here have less faith in kids than they deserve. In ways, you’re generalizing, and proving your point by restating it.
That’s not to understate the challenges many face. But Chi won’t be going for the sorts of kids who would struggle at community college. Or kids with no support structure, no experience with academic growth. It’ll be the kids with a good hs record (rigor does exist at many under-resourced hs,) ECs that reflect energies and awareness, committment and some impact. And writing in the app and supp that reflect a strong level of thinking and understanding.
It won’t be easy on Chi adcoms. I suspect they’re ready to learn as they go and adapt often. I suspect they’re in contact with schools like Bowdoin, to learn from them. And work closely enough with the many programs that exist to mentor these kids through high school. It’s not just Questbridge. And they may quietly start with a small number of TO kids, as the Uand adcoms learn the ropes.
It is possible to identify the kids who deserve a chance. Chi has already been doing this. And has a 92% grad rate, one of the highest freshman retention rates.
“It is possible to identify the kids who deserve a chance. Chi has already been doing this. And has a 92% grad rate, one of the highest freshman retention rates.”
Yes, and it’s achieving those retention and grad rates with a population with a mid-50 ACT 32-35. If that is the level of intelligence at play in the classrooms, most 24/1200 kids are going to struggle unless there is a heck of a lot more to their story. Heck, most kids at that level wouldn’t even cut it at my kids’ high school so unless UChicago is a big, huge step down from a public magnet HS, it’s reasonable to assume there are going to be some issues there.
UChicago hasn’t given any indication of how they’ll discover these previously undiscovered kids or how they’ll evaluate them. Some seem to have faith this will somehow work out. I want to wait to see how it plays out because logically it doesn’t make sense.