Article on the Bates SAT Study

Parents Forum
21

<p>To Dadx:</p>

<p>[The SAT and Racial Politics</p>

<p>Although Atkinson says that the UC must set high standards, he also says that since California has a highly diverse racial and ethnic population, the UC “must be careful to make sure that its standards do not unfairly discriminate against any students.”16 According to Atkinson’s logic, because he believes the SAT keeps African-American and Hispanic students out of the UC, the test thus discriminates against these groups, so therefore it must be eliminated. Of course, he does not say why poor Asian-American students, many of whom come from the same or similar neighborhoods and schools as African-American and Hispanic students, do just fine on the SAT. Addressing such a point would not be politically or racially correct."]</p>

<p>Hey Mini, 45% of UC Berkeley, 40% of UCLA, 20% of UT-Austin, 25% of Stanford, 30% of Caltech, 27% of MIT, and 18% of Harvard (with its anti-Asian Am de facto quota) are Asian Americans. These schools have the highest SAT I mean scores in public and private higher education, making them the most elite colleges in America.</p>

<p>Stats are from the College Board as reported by the Washington Post in 2003.</p>

<p>[As one of only 192 blacks who scored higher than 1450 on the SAT this year (2003), Alice Abrokwa is being wooed by some of the nation's most elite colleges.... </p>

<p>The competition is particularly ferocious for blacks and Hispanics with SAT scores that put them on par with the most talented white (and Asian American) students. According to the College Board, only 1,877 black students (about 1.5 percent of blacks who take the tests) scored higher than 1300 out of a possible 1600 on the SAT in 2003. Only 72 scored higher than 1500. </p>

<p>Among the overall student population, 148,024 (about 10 percent of test takers) scored higher than 1300, and 13,897 earned scores higher than 1500."...]</p>

<p>Please click on:
<a href="http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001379.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001379.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Consider that figure: 72 African Americans with SAT scores over 1500 in 2003. Given that the mean SAT score at schools like Harvard and Stanford is in the mid-low 1500's, it is clear that the vast majority of the thousands of non-whites/asians being admitted to selective schools are benefiting from a double standard. Point: no amount of "outreach" can recruit high scoring blacks/Hispanics if they do not exist in the first place. The unavoidable conclusion is that racial preferences and outreach are not simply a "leg up", but a parallel, race-normed set of admissions criteria."</p>

22

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>The POOREST Asian Americans from families incomes of less than $20k/year with parents with a high school diploma or less outperform on the SAT I and achieve higher GPAs, and take more difficult courses than the richest blacks from family incomes of $100k/year and parents with college and graduate degrees. In fact, the poorest Asian Americans living in the poorest neighborhoods outperform whites in more affluent neighborhoods. </p>

<p>That's the well known DARK secret that the politically correct flaming liberals refuse to acknowledge.</p>

23

<p>"Just wondering, if some schools use SAT scores to ensure a higher percentage of high income students, why would they need the SAT scores to do that? Couldn't they just look at high schools and do pretty much the same thing? Without SAT scores, might kids from less known or less wealthy high schools, or less traditional settings, have even LESS of a shot? And aren't SAT scores used more heavily at many larger universities and honors and merit programs than they are at some elites?"</p>

<p>Because it gives them a rationale for doing so, and (more importantly) an argument as to why they accepted poor slob from Podunk High over the alumni's kid.</p>

<p>No, without SAT scores, kids from less known or less wealthy high schools might have a greater shot. Consider that the College Board knows how to adjust SAT raw scores if they wished to reflect "expected" scores, given financial status of families surrounding schools and parental education, but they choose not to do so. (If they did so, and it is not hard to do, they would hear screams and howls from coast to coast.)</p>

<p>Look - admissions officers are really intelligent people. They are professionals, and spend full-time doing their jobs. They know what the SATs objectively measure as well as anyone on this board does - the studies are clear and unequivocal, and they've read them. Some schools are looking for qualified (they ARE qualified) full-fare customers, knowing of course that this leaves plenty of room to subsidize others. It is no conspiracy - they actually SAY so. Other schools find that this method of finding "full-fare customers" detracts from their mission. Still others (public instititions) find that the use of the objective measure is not in keeping with their public policy objectives.</p>

<p>I honestly don't have any trouble with any of these approaches. I just think we should be aware of what they are doing.</p>

24

<p>Mini said,</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I think it is the opposite. </p>

<p>That's a claim that you just cannot validate with any studies or research. Dadx just stated that his opportunity to attend an elite university coming out of Appalachia and a poor high school, was getting a high score on the SAT I. This is exactly the same case for poor Asian Americans, who score higher on the SAT I than the richest blacks and many richer whites. Just examine the data from the College Board on performance by income and parental education disaggregated by race and ethnicity. In 1996, the College Board stopped publishing this data.</p>

25

<p>In British Columbia (Canada for the geographically challanged---don't laugh!) the schools give grade 12 exams to ALL students in the province. Your mark on the exam counts as about half your mark for the year. You do not get credit for the work done all year unless you take the provincial exam. Universities admit solely on scores, generally the top 4-5 grade 12 marks (which classes you must use depend upon your major and the marks required also vary with the major), so a student is admitted in the spring, provisionally, and must perform on the final in June or risk rescinded admission; no senioritis there!</p>

<p>Every single English 12 mark is based on the students taking the very same test. it does not matter which school you attend. There is also tracking of the school mark v the exam mark and there are reasons why the schools do not want to give inflated school marks, the idea is that they should correlate closely with the exam mark. If a student chokes on thier exam in June, they can retest in August to salvage the admissions.</p>

<p>it is very simple. I have heard there is a regents exam in NY that theoretically works in the same manner, but does not seem to in practice?</p>

<p>In BC, no letters of rec are needed for admissions, no SATs are done, it is simple and inexpensive and they have found a way to equalize the difference in schools. Amazing?! There does not seem to be any big political corruption, though there are many more day schools that would qualify as "prep" schools than you find on the west coast of the US, so perhaps that is an offshoot.</p>

26

<p>If the College Board could adjust the scores if they wished to reflect expected scores, how do we know that colleges aren't doing that same sort of thing, along the lines of: here's someone from Podunk, and yet look how well he did? If only given the kid from Podunk's grades, how would he be more likely to get in? The adcom is less aware of Podunk's grading policies or may think it a less rigorous school. This would run along the lines of what was mentioned above about those from lower incomes and URMs being more likely to submit their scores when optional: might they be aware that their scores are impressive in context of their own schools? The very fact that they are applying to highly regarded schools might suggest some awareness of this. Maybe I'm missing something here. I would never wish for SATs to be a sole measure of admission, and agree that they may be weighed too heavily at some schools, but as rank is not always available and given different grading policies and rigor at each school, might SATs serve as useful as one piece of the puzzle? It would be great if they could somehow be administered more like Canada's tests with less prep mania, though.</p>

27

<p>"If we were able to eliminate all income differences in the country, does it then follow that all SAT scores would fall into a very tight, statistically non-significant range?"</p>

<p>I think it is obvious, that the answer is no. SATs are not perfect, and wealthier kids do have an advantage of prep courses or what not, but SATs do benefit kids with natural intellectual ability that score high without major preparation, as well as kids who are willing to put forth effort and time to prepare for those tests (which can be done using library books, or books available for free at many GC offices even at the poorest schools)</p>

28

<p>nngmm said,</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>The POOREST Asian Americans from family incomes of less than $20k/year with parents with a high school diploma or less outperform on the SAT I and achieve higher GPAs, and take more difficult courses than the richest blacks from family incomes of $100k/year and parents with college and graduate degrees. In fact, the poorest Asian Americans living in the poorest neighborhoods outperform many whites in more affluent neighborhoods. </p>

<p>Again, Source; The College Board</p>

<p>Fact #1</p>

<p>Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children and Asian Americans from families below the poverty line.</p>

<p>Fact #2 </p>

<p>Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white or Asian children of parents with a high-school diploma or less. </p>

<p>From the College Board data, you will discover that Asians mostly sit on top of the heap; that whites, Mexican Americans and blacks follow in that order. Some details prove interesting. For example, whites enjoy a verbal advantage over Asians that disappears at high levels of income and social advantage. Regrettably, the College Board no longer discloses these data. In 1996, they stopped publishing performance by income and parental education disaggregated by race and ethnicity.</p>

<p>Check out;</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>See APPENDIX B. SAT 1995 DATA AND GRAPHS</p>

<p>for the actual data to verify the facts above.</p>

<p>The solution for closing these racial gaps of lower average achievement among ALL blacks and latinos is not the Band-Aid approach of race-based affirmative action.
It is solved by improving the K-12 schools for the lower economic classes which are disproportionately Black and Latino.</p>

<p>The question is , 'Why is this so ??". </p>

<p>What are the root causes for this OVERALL UNDERPERFORMANCE AND UNDERACHIEVEMENT of all blacks, including the most affluent blacks?? </p>

<p>That's the crux of the problem, and until you find the reasons for this, the racial gaps in academic achievement will never be narrowed or closed. </p>

<p>I do agree with what you had said, "SATs do benefit kids with natural intellectual ability that score high without major preparation, as well as kids who are willing to put forth effort and time to prepare for those tests (which can be done using library books, or books available for free at many GC offices even at the poorest schools)"</p>

29

<p>According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE), only 1% to 2%, not 8%, of all this nation's highly competitive colleges would be black had they not used race preferences with AA by lowering the standards to admit a total of 8% blacks. Almost all the competitive and selective colleges, numbering as a high as several hundred, out of 4000 institutions of higher learning in America, use race preferences for blacks and URMs</p>

<p>Blacks admitted with lower standards (SAT I and II scores, GPAs, academic awards, etc.) with AA are simiply not as prepared as whites and Asians. That's why they need race preferences for admissions. Without race preferences for blacks, blacks would only be 1% to 2% of the elite and competitive colleges, instead of of the 6% to 8% blacks in these schools, enabling over 10,000 blacks to enter who are less prepared than the rest of the class of whites and Asian Ams in each of their respective competitive colleges. Again, it is all relative!!</p>

30

<p>"If the College Board could adjust the scores if they wished to reflect expected scores, how do we know that colleges aren't doing that same sort of thing, along the lines of: here's someone from Podunk, and yet look how well he did? If only given the kid from Podunk's grades, how would he be more likely to get in?"</p>

<p>I think the Mount Holyoke study addressed that clearly and unequivocally: students who did not submit SAT scores were judged more highly in the admissions process than they would have been otherwise. What more do you need in terms of a "smoking gun"?</p>

<p>Do schools adjust for family income of the school area and years of parental education? Well, if they are "need-blind" (they aren't), that would be a funny question, wouldn't it? But they do - that's how many schools get so many Andover students. (they DO adjust it, but the other way - it's called "ECs" (think fencing teams), "difficulty of curriculum" (you can't take what doesn't exist), and contacts with private school GCs.)</p>