The weather, the popular D1 sports that dominate ESPN, the beautiful campuses, the Greek life (for some), the idea that there’s enough merit awarded to make them as affordable as the applicant’s in-state options, opportunities to get into honors programs, the popularity of the cities that the colleges are located in, etc.
3 Likes
I defer to the various studies that show the relative unimportance of test scores in college success, as well as people who are experts in the enrollment management industry.
ACT/SAT tests are far from objective, but there are plenty of threads on CC discussing that, as well as ample web resources with thorough/accurate analyses of the various issues.
10 Likes
All true, adding that many 18 year olds in the last two years have been looking for colleges with less restrictive covid policies!
14 Likes
Northeastern and BU had among the most restrictive COVID policies and both were seriously over enrolled.
4 Likes
Outside of levelling the playing field for those who are economically disadvantaged (which I feel is defensible as wealth differences drive a lot of the inequality in college admission) and perhaps also to ensure a balance of academic interests, why is it necessary for schools to social engineer their classes? In a different thread, we had a brief discussion that top schools in countries that admit largely by academic metrics (such as the UK) do bring together an interesting and diverse mix of students.
The following comment by Jeff Selingo in this recent The Atlantic article is also telling:
“Indeed, that’ the dirty secret I learned the year I watched admissions offices review applications: Most don’t know exactly what they’re trying to assess when they ask for multiple essays and recommendations as well as an encyclopedic list of activities. Highly selective colleges like to talk about how they “craft a class,” but let’s not kid ourselves about that level of precision. In reality, the schools are not choosing a class as much as they are sending out invitations to join a class. Not every student will RSVP “Yes.” At Northwestern, just 60 percent do so, meaning four of every 10 accepted students say “No thanks.” At Wesleyan (no slouch in the prestige department), a mere 35 percent take the college up on its offer."
Selective schools also like to emphasize authenticity but the feverish scramble to compile the most impressive academic and EC records is anything but.
10 Likes
Well it sounds like you know a trick to getting merit aid at UF or UGA. Please let me know as I am top 10 % in my very competitive high school in colorado and would need some more money to go to UF or UGA.
1 Like
This is Selingo’s opinion. I would assume the VPs of Enrollment Management at UWash, Davidson or Emory (the 3 colleges where Selingo sat in on admissions meetings) believe that their team knows exactly what they are trying to assess in applications.
So, who should we believe? The person who is trying to sell a book and get paid speaking engagements, or the people who are living and breathing admissions every day?
Regarding yield, some schools predict yield at the applicant level, so their admitted student pool does have significant math behind which applicants are going to say yes or no. Obviously these yield models have had their challenges over the last two cycles!
2 Likes
I agree that relative GPA should be weighed more than test scores given that it is a better predictor of academic success as measured by completion of college work. Also it reflects 4 years of effort, not a single day high stakes test.
At the same time, we have just had 2 years of online classes with very different standards and rigor (aside from those classes tested by an objective standard - AP classes) where some schools have intentionally scaled back the expectations on level of work. Aside from the general and real trend of grade inflation which causes strong students to have less stratification from poor students, you have a cohort of kids with even less differentiation based on GPA.
Even prior to COVID, test scores are a predictor of success in college, just less so than GPA. But with GPA becoming more watered down every year, accelerated by COVID, the value of test scores remains as an important objective criterion to supplement the rest of an assessment.
9 Likes
This all sounds good, but why don’t more college admission deans/enrollment managers feel the same way?
You’ve chosen two very popular and competitive southern publics. Neither of those are known for huge merit (if any, from UF). If you’re at the very top, stat-wise, you could have some luck at UGA. Or could possibly get an in-state waiver at FSU. As I said in my post, even the schools previously known for merit are decreasing their awards. In the past, out-of-staters might have been able to depend on decent merit from UofSC, Clemson, UTK - but average awards from those colleges have gone down. Alabama is known for being generous but I’m not sure if their amounts have gone down. Like others have said, many more students are hunting for merit now.
2 Likes
In my opinion, many admissions officers have social goals related to equity; they see themselves as a karmic authority using their power to select as a way to balance out those with disadvantaged lives or stories that appeal to them; and like all humans they fiercely oppose accountability in their work.
A sustained drop in a school’s admitted student test scores represents accountability for the admissions office. Everyone can see it in the common data. “Test optional” neatly solves that problem.
18 Likes
The south is growing in population, economic opportunity, jobs, and funding for universities.
2 Likes
Most studies I’ve reviewed suggest that SAT scores are unimportant because GPA is a better predictor, not because SAT scores in isolation aren’t predictive. It’s largely an argument based in regression analysis. And many of those longitudinal studies are now dated considering that they were conducted at a time when there were larger distinctions in GPA. SAT scores would be more predictive, now, for selective schools simply because 10% of classes at some high schools are now graduating with 4.0 UW GPAs, and most don’t rank. So AOs have in ways had their most predictive tool watered down. I would also submit that studies show that what has replaced scores in admission weighting is often far more subjective, more influenced by wealth, and less predictive. For example, this study on personal statements:
The crux of the matter is that every factor in college admissions is sensitive to family income and school district resources. Test optional admissions have replaced the partly addressable problem (and I would agree that it remains a big problem) of an uneven test prep playing field with an even bigger, unaddressable problem.
The fact is, there is no true equivalent of Khan Academy for published research, governor’s office internships, multi-million dollar start-ups, exclusive summer camps, study abroad, writing assistance, private admissions advisors, $1000 sport fees, or any of the other ways that wealth now MORE heavily factors into the college admissions game.
Finally, the notion that a 250-word “essay” with a 5-minute, subjective review by a human bears as much weight in as it now does only serves to underscore the inanity of the current process. I don’t doubt that AOs have good intentions; I doubt they can do what they are trying to do effectively given their resource constraints. It’s very difficult to tell “fit”, “passion”, “uniqueness” or any of these other holistic buzzwords in a few minutes. They are trying to mirror corporate hiring practices, but at least in part, have replaced three comprehensive job interviews with a close reading of a few sentences of very contrived text.
32 Likes
If you believe everything that comes out of the mouths of AOs, I have a bridge that I’d like to sell you. In my view, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
10 Likes
This.
6 Likes
And the University of California’s own study found that test scores had more predictive power than grades. And, for the reasons you note, the predictive power of GPA was declining while that of test scores was increasing.
From pp 3-4 of the report:
The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%.
Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain
more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.
15 Likes
I agree with everything you said. One thing I would like to see more detailed analysis - SAT correlation with college success.
What do they mean by that? 4-year graduation rates. Meaningless, IMO, if not taking course rigor into account.
I suspect that SAT (math) scores correlate very highly with success in engineering/math majors.
There is also rampant grade inflation in colleges, which is why some employers also administer their own tests. We keep kicking that testing football down the road.
7 Likes
I thought I was reasonably informed of the college admissions progress until I learned of all of these this cycle.
In particular, the paid services that link you to a college professor who will tag you on to their work (at age 16) so that you get research publications are the most disgusting to me. Spending money on enrichment activities for your child is one thing, but blatantly skirting the edge of fraud specifically to give your kid a boost in college admissions is arrogant and unappealing.
12 Likes
Yeah, the paid services - research/internship thing is headed for a varsities blues type scandal. Because, I suspect that some of those profs may never have met the kid.
I agree with everything you have said as well. The “age of information” has lead to a race to nowhere in my opinion.
3 Likes
Like many in their jobs, goals are often set by the senior people in the organization, and employees are accountable to those people. At colleges, that includes senior administrators and board of trustees/state board of governors.
Some people on this thread have raised some seemingly valid points re: testing, yet no one seems to be able to answer why most college admissions/enrollment peeps don’t agree that tests are important in the evaluation process, or help AOs better understand transcripts/applicant potential.
For another example, this cycle, the senior admission person at a test required public college stated that even though the state board of governors mandates we require the test, that doesn’t mean we have to use it in the admission process. So, that school didn’t use test scores as part of their application review, even though it was required to be submitted.
2 Likes