One, how do you assess and compare the rigour of high schools across the country without relying even more one standardised curricula and subject tests such as AP and IB, with the result on colleges relying even more on feeder high schools they know well?
Two, when adjusting GPA according to course rigour in the admissions process, how do you do that without disadvantaging low SES kids even more since they do not have access to high rigour classes and even more limited access to subject tests now?
Your logic again baffles. If Harvard were to adopt a lottery system for admissions, nearly every kid, regardless of their SES, would line up. The composition of its current applicant pool is irrelevant. Take a real lottery, for example. All indications are people in lower SES participate in it more enthusiastically than they should (to the extent that some advocates are concerned about its reverse wealth distribution effect).
I am starting to think your lottery argument is nonsensical. I am at the point where I think I learned more about lotteries from reading, than admissions.
BTW, Iâm not advocating replacing college admissions with a lottery system (thereâre people who do). My argument is that nearly every major admissions criterion is a greater impediment to admissions of students in lower SES than those in higher SES. Elimination of any one of them would increase the representation of students in lower SES. And elimination of all of them would make them fully represented. Whether thatâs a good policy or not is a separate question.
I am not sure that assessment is as likely as you think. I grew up low SES, and still tutor and mentor low SES students and Harvard is just not on their radar, even for the most talented students. A large contingent of students I have worked with do not understand the different financial aid policies (especially among the 1st generation students) that make those schools very affordable for low SES students. And I have also observed a larger than expected number of âhighly qualifiedâ underrepresented students in my area (like my own kids) who do not even consider the most selective schools. Among my kidâs ORM friends with similar stats and ECs, all applied to top 25 USNWR schools and almost all are currently either at our state flagships (GT and UGA) or at highly selective top schools.
If Harvard were to adopt a lottery system for admissions, it would be all over the news and reach nearly every HS in the country, probably by word of mouth alone. If all colleges were to adopt such a system, nearly everyone would know by default.
No argument. I just think there is a lot more to the post than what you are discussing. U Penn and Penn State announcement, for example. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Iâve said previously that I think TO policies are here to stay. There doesnât seem to be much disagreemnt on that, at least on this thread. On the other hand, thereâs clearly disagreement on what impact these policies may have.
As a teacher, I can tell you that the kids are not getting the entire cirriculum presented the way they would in a normal year. And, further, this varies from state-to-state and areas in those states. To require testing on a national level from all students is unfair to those who, either A) Those unable find a testing place and B) those that did not get the same material covered and the same preparation that they would have in with in person learning.
In addition, basing merit on these tests is also unfair and caters to the wealthy who have the means to pay for outside tutoring at this time.
You are assuming that the main reason why ânearly every kidâ does not apply to Harvard is because they donât think they will be accepted. This simply isnât true for most lower SES kids.
The previously linked study divides high achieving lower SES kids in to two groups â âachievement typicalâ and âincome typicalâ. The âachievement typicalâ kids follow the typical strategy we see among posters on forums â apply to x reaches, y matches, and z safeties; then choose among the most selective colleges to which you are accepted. High achieving upper SES kids tend fall into this group. However, only 8% of high achieving lower SES kids did this.
Instead lower SES high achieving kids usually followed what they author calls âincome typicalâ college applications, which involves not applying any selective colleges. Many applied to only a single college, often a community college or public that is very close to home.
If a kid doesnât know anyone who attended Harvard/Ivies and doesnât receive any pressure from family, community, teachers, friends or others to attend one; many are not enthusiastic about traveling thousands of miles away from home to attend. Itâs not always obvious that they are supposed to attend Harvard instead of a nearby public. Many also have family or neighborhood obligations that prevent them from attending. The $80k sticker price is also a common barrier. Most lower SES kids and families arenât aware of the outstanding FA. Iâm sure some also feel that they wouldnât belong or fit at Harvard. There are countless reasons. One can be certain that lower SES kids would not apply to Harvard at the same rate as higher SES kids, regardless of what type of admission system Harvard has, including a random lottery.
Using a personal example, one of my relatives lived in a lower SES rural area. She was the first person in the history of her HS to ever apply to a selective college (she was accepted and attended). The problem wasnât that the area kids thought Harvard or other Ivies were too selective and theyâd be rejected. Instead it more related to that wasnât what people they knew in the area did. Area kids who attended college generally applied to colleges nearby home and usually stayed in the area after graduating, often working on the family farm. It wasnât obvious that they were supposed to fly ~1000 miles away to attend Harvard, like it might be to some higher SES kids who have lots of friends, families, teachers, and community members who attended Harvard/Ivies.
Again this assumption of yours is based on the current environment of college applications and admissions. A lot of these low-SES kids donât even know about Harvard now but they will be made aware of it if Harvard admissions became a lottery. Participation in a lottery doesnât require any sophistication but a dream, as long as the barrier isnât high.
Getting back to the original question, about 1/2 of the people felt TO would continue for the class of 2026 and about 1/2 of the people felt it is too early to tell. Some people felt the ivyâs and the state schools would move fastest back to testing. Any changes in thinking now?
@michaeluwill Among the Ivies, Cornell, Columbia, and Penn have already announced that they will stay TO for next year.
I havenât been tracking what is going on with test centers for upcoming dates. It would be good to know if people are reporting any trouble getting seats and/or wanting to avoid testing for health reasons. If that will be the case through the May and June dates, the call is easy, colleges will continue with TO.
My thought process: a switch back to tests-required would feel unfair if not announced before some certain time (March-ish at the latest?), to prepare for spring testing. Announcing over the summer that tests are now required again would bring criticism upon the college, not to mention a small number of fall test dates to choose from, so that wonât happen. Which means that everyone will likely end up staying TO for next year.
(And this doesnât begin to get into the popular push for permanent TO policies and the coming unknown changes to the SAT down the road.)
It seems to me that the voices of the TO are particularly loud in relation to their number. Most families and kids want to follow standard practices esp. now in the time of Covid. Parents want the kids to take the tests and use them. Tests match GPA most of the time (I think someone cited earlier the mismatch was about 25% either way, high GPA/low SAT, high SAT/low GPA). For the kids who want to test and who can test, it should be left alone. IF there are kids who donât want to test or who think they are so outstanding and their school is so strong that their GPA advocates a spot for them in a selective program, great.
I would not follow the drumroll of the TO. If my kids tested poorly Iâd skip them. But sending your kid to a selective program and finding out they are ill prepared isnât a good strategy. Likewise, if they are really strong students, then definitely apply.
What I have never understood is, how can a student who normally gets Aâs in class and understands all the material not be able to do well on a high stakes test? The pressure and stress is there on high school tests in most schools so why can they get a 4.0 but be unable to follow through on standardized tests?
What are you basing casual observation on? My kidâs friends all plan to take the SAT/ACT. Some already have scores. They are 2022âs. No kids are planning for TO. This is a group of public school and BS students in an area heavy hit by Covid ( more than 1x).
I could definitely see only about 50% being able to get scores. But I also think itâs likely it wonât be as bad as last year.
