Since you appear to take the position that being in such a high school is not a disadvantage to getting into an elite college, that implies that you are promoting the stereotype that students in such high schools are inherently less worthy of attending elite colleges, based on their underrepresentation there (and that students from the top 5% of SES are inherently more worthy due to their great overrepresentation there).
2 Likes
Huh?
I don’t think we can deny wealth and other inherited advantages play a significant role in elite college admissons in general. The only question is how significant that role is. The greater the vagueness in their admission processes, the greater those advantages are, because the vagueness presents an even greater challenge and barrier to the disadvantaged.
3 Likes
Excellent point! Would love to hear @lookingforward 's response.
D21 visited almost all of the Ivies and found that she could see herself thrive at each and everyone of them. D21 has lots of interest, is open-minded, and is a people-person.
1 Like
I think you also need to consider how represented different SES groups are among applicants. For example, if 80% of applicants are upper SES and 80% of admits are upper SES, upper SES kids are dramatically overrepresented among admits compared to the US population, yet it does not suggest that upper SES kids are favored or are in any way more likely to be admitted than the few lower SES kids who apply.
One of the Harvard internal documents from the lawsuit at http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-421-112-May-1-2013-Memorandum.pdf lists some specific numbers below. The lower income kids seem to have a similar admit rate to middle/upper income kids who applied for FA. Instead the lack of lower SES representation at Harvard seems to be largely driven by few lower SES kids applying. Many papers have noted that few lower SES kids apply to selective colleges, such as the one at https://www.nber.org/papers/w18586 whose abstract begins, "We show that the vast majority of very high-achieving students who are low-income do not apply to any selective college or university. "
Harvard Admit Rate by Income Among Applicants who Applied for FA
<$40k Income: 11% Admit Rate (estimated 6% admit without lower SES preference)
$40k-$80k Income: 11% Admit Rate (estimated 9% admit without lower SES preference)
$80k-$120k Income: 9% Admit Rate
$120k-$160k Income: 10% Admit Rate
$160k-$200k Income: 10% Admit Rate (estimated 11% admit without lower SES preference)
$200k+ Income: 12% Admit Rate (estimated 13% admit without lower SES preference)
I think that the reasons why fewer lower SES kids apply are mutifaceted, many of which are beyond Harvard’s control. For example, it may be obvious to members of this forum why you should want to go to Harvard. Much of the non-forum member population has different opinions, particularly ones who don’t personally know anyone who attended Harvard or similar. There also can be issues with family, neighborhood, or financial situations where it is not practical or desirable to attend college on another side of the country.
While few lower SES kids applying is a key reason why few lower SES kids attend, there are many other important factors as well. For example, giving a strong legacy preference isn’t helping lower SES representation. As I recall, the Harvard freshman survey showed that ~half of legacies reported a family income of >$500k. This >$500k income legacy group is not included in the admit rate stats above since they would be unlikely to apply for FA. Several other aspects of the application also tend to favor upper SES kids from better schools over lower SES kids.
These exhibits suck. They uses different income categories for different graphs, and uses “score level” in Exhibit 2, without actually explaining what the relationship is between that and the actual SAT score.
Exhibit 2 also ignores the fact, which is pretty clear in Exhibit 1, that a low income student, whose parents cannot afford tutoring, are much more likely to get less than 600.
On average, high income students have SAT scores that are, on average, 50-100 points higher than low SES students. It is difficult to figure out whether the increase in admission rates of low SES students takes that into consideration, because of how ridiculous Exhibit 2 is.
However, since distribution of SAT scores is not linear, a shift of 50 points can triple the percent of a population with scores in the top 1%. After all, the top 1% of SAT scores in 2020 is anything over 1520, while there are three times as many in the range of scores above 1460.
So, if a low SES student is only 1/3 as likely to get high SAT scores as a wealthy applicant who has the same capabilities, admitting them at twice the rate does not counteract the disadvantages of being poor,
But Harvard seems to at least be trying to increase the number of low SES students.
1 Like
Below the graph, it states, “The analysis above uses the average of the maximum math, writing, and reading scores a student received. Average SAT I Scores less than 600 are excluded…” The range is 60-80 rather than the expected 600-800. I expect that they did list did not list the extra 0 on each index entry to make it more readable.
I agree after having been through both a French school, an American High School and an IB program. French teachers are notoriously difficult graders and have no issues with “trick” questions or adding questions not covered in class. It’s torture for the perfectionist.
How is this legitimate in an academic setting?
1 Like
I have no idea how it is justified. Public school. I guess since not all high schools have semester exams - you could justify that way?
Definitely a high-stakes exam system in the UK, where 3-4 A Level grades dictate which university you attend. Worse, the results come out in mid August, 6-7 weeks before the start of the academic year. So, you’re on edge for most of the summer and if you “miss your conditional offer” at your 1st or 2nd choice university (you’re allowed to apply to 5 universities and hold on to two offers), you scramble for available places at other universities or try again next year.
2 Likes
Also true for standardized tests. Growing up in the 1980s, it was incredibly rare for hear of someone getting 1600 on the SAT and, when it occurred, it would be featured in the local paper. Today, it is much more common.
I don’t know if this is accurate, but I read recently that prior to 1995, only 10 or so people in the entire U.S. scored 1600 on the SAT each year. Today, it’s around 500-750,
That’s because they “re-centered” the test in 1994 – i.e., raised the scores. The average on the SAT in the 1980s used to be about 890. In 1994 the College Board changed the scoring so that scores were about 110 points higher. This had the effect of collapsing distinctions at the highest score levels.
In addition to the 1994 recentering, test preparation for the SAT has become more common and more intense.
In the 1980s, it was not all that common to do test preparation beyond trying the sample problems in the booklet that had the signup form. But now, it seems to be a given that students (at least in middle class or higher SES environments) do a considerable amount of preparation for the SAT, to the point of some complaining about how unfair it is that all of the time spent in test preparation was wasted due to COVID-19-related cancellations and such.
In the 1980s, it was also typical for students taking Achievement tests (now called SAT subject tests) not to do any prep beyond taking the associated high school courses, and it was typical for students taking AP tests not to do any prep beyond taking the associated AP courses. Now, it is commonly mentioned that students taking these tests do additional prep for these tests beyond taking the associated courses.
2 Likes
The obvious question is: why?
The obvious answer is that college admission has generally become more competitive (due partly to population growth relative to the space in more desired colleges and partly due to society becoming perceived as more “winner take all” or “elite or bust”), so students have more incentive to improve their college admission credentials, one aspect of which is test scores. Of course, test scores are not the only part of the college admissions arms race where this has happened. For example, it used to be that college bound students took honors and AP courses only in their areas of academic strength and interest, rather than feeling that they need to take every possible one available.
That said, I would not be surprised if high volume (in terms of time spent) test preparation that is sometimes mentioned is often misguided time-inefficient test preparation.
Isn’t that grade inflation, such that a 1600 today is no longer the 1600 in days past (similar to perfect GPAs today)?
My lazy high school self was happy to follow the “you can’t prepare for the SAT” advice! I didn’t realize intensive prep has become so common/widespread. Where do the students find the time, given how busy they are with classes, sports, other ECs, etc.? Also, do the schools encourage this or is it driven by students and their parents?
I think the Common App has also contributed to the high stakes/frenzy by increasing the number of applications that you can practically submit. In my day, you had to type or hand write each separate application. I only applied to 5 colleges. Back then, the admissions rate for HYP was 20-25%, so test score distinction was less critical. I think back then, mid 1300’s put you in the ballpark with 1400 a good target. I had no clue about test prep until some family friends told my parents about commercial test prep books senior year. I did work for Kaplan in college to make pizza money.
1 Like