I generally agree. But test scores and grades don’t need to correlate to family income because they don’t need resources. They just need parental awareness. We have had an inadvertent social experiment in our own household between two kids. One kid is a reader and the other kid was not. The reader hit a 1550 on the SAT in 8th grade with zero prep. The non reader did not quite get to that level (also zero prep) by high school. Likewise with grades. The reading can start very early in life. And it doesn’t need a wealthy family. You can just go to the library and check out 4-5 books a week. Fiction / nonfiction. Don’t discriminate.
4 Likes
Neither are objective. It is a mistake that people (often those w/ high scoring kids) want to view test scores as “objective.” They are not. I taught test prep for Princeton Review for many years. Test scores favor those who enrich (either with test prep, general enrichment like math classes or CTY, highly educated parents who can coach, private school programs, public magnets, etc). They also discriminate against kids with some learning differences and favor others. SAT particularly is problematic because of how they set up and word questions. It is not just about knowledge or ability. Standardized tests are their own thing and just another data point.
FWIW, my kid is NMF, so this is not a chip on my shoulder!
5 Likes
Just like extracurriculars favor those with well resourced,involved parents who can find and finance, or at least support, such opportunities for their offspring. My kid succeeded at both types of admission, so no ax to grind here either.
2 Likes
What is your support for this? I had kids go up 300 points in test prep classes I taught. Much of the “prep” for the one time takers and “non preppers” is in the steady enrichment they have had over the years. Don’t be fooled that standardized testing is objective. As I said previously, it is just one data point.
1 Like
I dont think anyone doubts that students with stronger academic preparation will perform better on standardized tests.
4 Likes
It is not to be held against some kid that he/she is academically inclined and they like to read or learn new things. Special enrichment doesn’t hurt, but is not necessary. Naturally the kid that is academically inclined would like to see some preference to be admitted to an academic environment without being discriminated against for being academic, as if he/she has had some undue advantage in life. We don’t treat sports people the same way – we don’t say, this kid is unduly advantaged by genetics. We need to level the playing field, and give this other tuba player a chance on the football team.
8 Likes
Perhaps test scores and grades don’t need to correlate to family income, but multiple studies indicate that they do. Just saying that families can go and check out books from the library as if that can erase the effects of a poor public school or parents with poor command of English or trauma in the home seems incredibly out of touch.
11 Likes
You can proactively adjust for special circumstances. Nobody will dispute that. In many cases, poor test scores and grades are just that. They are poor test scores and grades. Asking to be excused. I don’t ask to be excused if one of my kids has poor test scores and grades. I just tell him these are the consequences. You should deal with them. Do better next time. Every year is a new year when he can do better than he did the previous year. Applies to both the kids. And to the adults too :-).
1 Like
I think we are using different definitions of objective, then. I didn’t (and wouldn’t) say that test scores were not biased and manipulable. What I am saying is that the end result is directly comparable - a 1600 is greater than a 1500, for example. Particularly for standardized tests. In the case of GPA - the numbers are directly comparable but the specifics not necessarily so (rigor, grade inflation, etc.). The “objectiveness” makes it easier - whether it is valid is another discussion - to compare. Numbers can be compared. And that is what people so often do and then don’t understand when their application does not yield the results they expect based on those numbers. It’s a lot harder to compare “resumes,” so holistic for many means AOs can pick who they want. That’s just not my take. Like recruiters sift through resumes and see attributes they want, so do AOs sift through ECs and other subjective aspects of the application to make their decisions.
1 Like
Curious what percentage of your kids get 300 point boosts, and from what baseline? Can you get from 1300 to 1600? Or only from 900 to 1200? I heard somewhere in the 30-50 point range on average.
That is what the College Board used to claim in an effort to say that prepping wouldn’t yield any significant advantage. They changed their tune when they partnered with Khan academy to offer free on-line prep. Also, does no one else find it curious that while the number of kids scoring a 1400+ has doubled in the last decade, the average SAT score has hardly changed (it’s around a 1050).
2 Likes
I don’t have a problem with the holistic review for the college admissions; however, if college wants to do holistic review of students, they should do it with a proper way. First, all essays should be done in ACT/SAT writing format to make sure it’s authentic; all ECs should be signed by the responsible personnel and verified; and lastly, all applications should be submitted to the independent agency where they will send only assigned numbers for the applicants without names of applicants and their stats and information to the individual schools that students applied. For example, UC applications should be handled by the independents UC administration sending only the students assigned number without names and high school names and only stats and information to the applied individual UC schools. I think most of public Universities doesn’t have a money and time to do these kinds of holistic reviews specially colleges like UC schools where you have a 100K applicants. In summary, not all colleges are ready for holistic review, I believe.
2 Likes
I never paid attention to the average. Frankly when UCs removed testing, I was telling my friends (other parents in CA) not to worry about it, because for most of the schools their kids were interested in, given their ethnicity, testing was never a binding constraint. You are expected to show significant academic strength beyond a 1550 or a 1600 anyway – the score itself is pointless.
Test prep can take a kid up 300 points because that’s the population of the kids who pay for test prep. CTY’s SET kids (some of whom were scoring 1500 at age 12) aren’t paying for test prep. These claims really need five asterisks to appropriately explain what prep can do and what it can’t.
1 Like
Interesting proposition. Not sure I agree that’s the “proper way” but I think there’s value in some of your suggestions. Sure, having sign off on ECs is a great idea - but, if we believe the students exaggerate (lie?) what’s to stop the person who signs off from doing the same? There will always be cheaters and ways to cheat.
I guess that’s why you want the essays done a certain way. I assume? when you say ACT/SAT style you mean proctored and timed. So, penalize the kids who are willing to spend more time and craft a better product in order to stop the kids who are paying someone else to “help” with their essays. Again, always pluses and minuses to new rules.
Finally, I get your desire to make applications more anonymous - to take out potential bias. But removing high school names removes the tremendous value of the school profile which gives AOs the ability to understand grades and scores in context. An A in calculus at one school may be very different than an A at another - even if both are in California. The school profile may show that 5% of the students in one of those classes gets an A where 90% in the other school. So, clearly, the “worth” of that A is not the same at the two schools.
I agree, not all colleges are ready for holistic review - and not all colleges perform holistic review. I believe there are still some schools where acceptance is all numbers based and essays are not required (my kids applied a couple years ago and there were then).
1 Like
The UCs do holistic review, and the factors they consider are on the websites.
Most of the UCs hire external admission readers, which is how they can give a thorough read to each app. UCLA AOs/readers read each app at least twice…if they can do that with 150K apps, most schools can (if their practice is holistic review). Obviously rack and stack schools, like Iowa and Iowa State, don’t have to invest as much time and money into the reading of applications.
1 Like
UC readers do not see the applicants name only a UC application ID.
High school name and location is part of the 13 areas of review to help admission readers determine what resources are available to the applicant. Applicants are reviewed in the context of what is offered at their high school so knowing the HS name and location is important.
I am not defending any one review system, just saying no system is perfect. Schools do not want just academic excellent students but a diverse population of students with different backgrounds, different experiences and different perspectives
The issue with CC is what @skieurope has previously stated
the users on College Confidential are by no means a statistically representative subject of college-bound students and their parents.
I have been a CC poster and contributor for many years and believe me, students are resilient and they do end up where they were meant to be.
6 Likes
you know, we saw something similar; one of our kids read 308 books in middle school. (the librarian told us!) then the smart phone took over; and reading dropped. but that kid did score without any prep a 36 in the reading section on the ACT . sort of anecdotal i know. but also slightly a social experiment as the other 3 kids never read that much, and didnt score that high.
ok carry on!
Trick is to give non-smart flip phones when they are young :-). Smart phone are really pernicious. Even for adults.
4 Likes
I think holistic review benefits the college AND the future college peers, and I would not want to see admissions be SAT/gpa alone. And I have two high-scoring kids who both had 99%ile PSAT unprepped in 10th grade and consistent SATs, so I suppose they are more “natural” test takers (or whatever the CC phrase is for that), yet I still do not believe SAT/ACT should be predominant. They are bright kids. But they also are thoughtful, kind kids who challenged themselves and took the hardest classes available because they truly love learning. Our older one did not have a 4.0uw in these hardest classes, so her class rank was great but not tippy top. However, her essays and LORs were amazing. One said “best in so many yrs” (revealed unsolicited after admissions done)–for thinking, writing, engaging, etc. She did very well in admissions across the board. We have seen peers who had higher numbers such as the “perfect 36” ACT have much worse “luck” in college acceptances, even one with perfect grades and scores who got rejected everywhere but safeties. However, those kids either took the less -rigorous path to the high GPA and/or had some obvious personality issues that surely would come across in LORs. It happens every year, and it happens on here–yes there are tons of “top” stat kids who are all -around amazing and get rejected, but there are also top-stat kids who appropriately are rejected at these highly selective holistic schools because they will not add positively to the college environment, and the AOs figure it out. I think the AOs who practice holistic review get it right most of the time. A popular Dean who visits CC has said it–they see the whole app–we do not. I think if we did, a significant portion of the “surprising” rejections would not be too surprising.
6 Likes