<p>New study just out (conducted by Williams Mini!) says that elite schools could easily boost enrollment of low income "high ability" students to nearly 16% in order to mirror the distribution of such students nationally. The study suggests that that students in the lower family income quintiles ($41,000 or less) are being largely excluded from elite college admissions, but when they do apply and get in, they tend to pay a higher share of family income than middle and upper income students, even after they receive significant financial aid. The study suggests considering all kids earning above 1300 on the SATs as "high achieving." Here's the link:
<a href="http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/08/poor%5B/url%5D">http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/08/poor</a></p>
<p>Well, I read the link, (though I haven't read the full report, yet, though I have downloaded it), but it strikes me as a big "duh". (although it doesn't say the schools "should" boost low-income enrollment, only that they can, easily, without lowering standards.) There are plenty of high-income kids from prep schools, with plenty of test prep, and 1300 SAT scores attending elite schools now - including, but not limited to: legacies, developmental admits, athletes, sons and daughters of Senators, Congressmen, ambassadors, and high-income URMs. The equivalent SAT scores to these for a low-income student (according to the CollegeBoard) would be 1100, without lowering standards. (The 1300 score would be the equivalent of a 1500 for a high-income student.)</p>
<p>The paper makes the case that there are plenty of such students out there, even at the 1300 level. But it is easier to make believe that they aren't rather than have to confront the policy question. (And I don't believe that private colleges are under any particular obligation to do so.)</p>
<p>The study also found that they came to the same conclusion ("the exclusion of low-income high-ability students to favor the children of society's most advantaged") even using a minimum combined SAT score of 1420.</p>
<p>I like the article. Low income people are out there and can do well at any school. </p>
<p>In my opinion and experience, a difference of as much as four or five hundred points on the SAT [math and verbal] may or may not be significant in indicating potential for success in college, he said, noting that SAT scores only correlate somewhat with first year college GPAs.</p>
<p>400 to 500 points. So we are using SAT scores because....</p>
<p>One more note from the paper: this paper examines whether there are low-income high ability kids out there (that are not found in at the elite schools); but they say they are working on a second paper investigating the "procedures (which) exist which disadvantage highly able low-icnome students when they compete for admission with those from wealthier families" (or as they refer to it, "procedural bias"). What they don't seem to be investigating is whether there is purposeful bias, which I think is odd (and in no way a slap at elite colleges), as a purposeful bias in favor of developmental admits or high-income legacies (which I think makes lots of sense, and fully support) just for starters would of necessity have impacts down the foodchain. (The study also suggests, as I have repeatedly, that middle and even upper middle income students -- upper-middle here presented as $61-92k - are markedly underrepresented.) Where there is overrepresentation of low-income students is in the 1520 and above SAT range ("1720s!" sic).</p>
<p>
[quote]
400 to 500 points. So we are using SAT scores because....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...because it's easy. </p>
<p>It's easy because it's "standardized" and therefore requires minimal interpretation. </p>
<p>And it's easy because, regardless of what SAT score predicts what level of success in college through whatever year, students who score 1500+ tend to be capable of high level work if they feel like it. </p>
<p>A score of 1500+ says that something has happened along the way--whether it is the result of innate ability, hard work, or a combination--which resulted in mastery of a body of material. It doesn't even matter much what that body of material actually is -- the fact that a body of material was mastered gives comfort in that it says that the individual has somehow figured out how to do what people what him to do. And it makes life easier to have more of those kids on your campus than the ones who need a little guidance. The kid with the average score of 1000 -- you have to dig deeper to find out whether that's predictive of anything, and no matter how deep you dig, you might not find your answer. </p>
<p>If the argument is that the test itself is flawed and not predictive of future academic success, regardless of test prep advantages, then one could still argue that if you have to choose between two kids -- one who has jumped through a hoop and one who hasn't, there is still an argument for taking the kid who jumped through the hoop because there will be more hoops to jump through in college and not having to worry about teaching kids how to jump through hoops makes life easier for everyone. And I'm not saying that this is fair. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just finishing the sentence, "we are using SAT scores because..."</p>
<p>It's like the volleyball coach who has to choose 10 girls out of 15-20 fantastic players at tryouts. After four days of drills and scrimmages and testing, he decides to use the mile run time as the cutoff. Even though volleyball is an explosive sport that does not require running. Even though long distance running may actually be counter-productive to achieving high vertical leap. The logic is that the kids who can run the mile the fastest are the ones who either worked to stay in shape over the summer or are naturally gifted, and either way those kids will probably require less supervision, attenting and prodding to do what they need to do through the season. There is absolutely nothing about a mile run speed test that is predictive of future success on the volleyball court. And yet, it is used in high schools throughout the country as one more way to pick a team. Personally, I don't agree with it, but I do understand why it happens.</p>
<p>1Down2togo, I love your analogy.</p>
<p>1Down2togo, The authors do NOT challenge the validity of SAT scores for low-income students (the CollegeBoard is the one that threw in that wrinkle.) No, on the contrary, the authors found the pool of low-income students WITH THE SAME SCORES as high-income ones, and found them underrepresented.</p>
<p>I wasn't addressing the study's findings, mini. I was responding to the following: </p>
<p>
[quote]
In my opinion and experience, a difference of as much as four or five hundred points on the SAT [math and verbal] may or may not be significant in indicating potential for success in college, he said, noting that SAT scores only correlate somewhat with first year college GPAs.</p>
<p>400 to 500 points. So we are using SAT scores because....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So somebody quoted in the article was challenging the validity of SAT scores and dstark asked a good question.</p>
<p>LOL, so what will happen to Mini's oft-repeated correlation between income and SAT? </p>
<p>Was there EVER a doubt that the numbers culled from the non-mandatory SAT surveys were less than conclusive? This is the same source that tells us that 41% of the high school students have an A average. </p>
<p>If I were working for The College Board, I would ask an additional question -right after the income question. The question would be, "Are speculating about the income or playing games?" I'd expect the second question to have a lot more YES than NO. </p>
<p>Lastly, to whom are we supposed to attribute this gem:
[quote]
In my opinion and experience, a difference of as much as four or five hundred points on the SAT [math and verbal] may or may not be significant in indicating potential for success in college, he said, noting that SAT scores only correlate somewhat with first year college GPAs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yeah, it is only "In my opinion and experience"! Thanks for clarifying the absolute absence of scientific analysis. What a bunch of ....</p>
<p>Sorry Xiggi, someday, you will see that SAT scores don't mean much in life.</p>
<p>And like some of us have been arguing for a long time, there are many more qualified low income people than the small amount that gets into the elite schools.</p>
<p>I agree with mini. If the elite schools want more qualified low income students, they can have more qualified low income students.</p>
<p>The individual quoted is Jay Rosner, Executive Director of the Princeton Review Foundation, a non-profit organization under the auspices of Princeton Review that develops outreach programs to provide test preparation programs to underserved students. He's probably got some experience and his opinion is something I'd at least consider.</p>
<p>"So somebody quoted in the article was challenging the validity of SAT scores and dstark asked a good question."</p>
<p>Apologies. I was reading the actual study itself, not the article based on it. (The study itself does not challenge the validity of SAT scores, and does not make any assumptions about the ability of high-income candidates to score higher based on test-prep, previous academic experience, or, purely, income.) As to the link between income and the scores themselves, others should take that up with CollegeBoard, not with me.</p>
<p>Sorry, Dstark, but I have never advanced that the SAT means much in life. Quite to the contrary, my views is that it is a simple test that is part of a more complex admission process. It is also my contention that most flaws regarding the SAT stem from the lack of proper context analysis by schools. </p>
<p>I would love to be able to COMPARE the SAT -preferably the old one- to something else, anything else. What do we have that can serve as equalizer for all the shenanigans currently performed by our high schools ... you tell me. Saying that it is the best we have does not equate to saying it is perfect.</p>
<p>And, for what it is worth, I also believe that there are MORE qualified lower-income students than typically accounted for. However, this "qualification" does not necessarily mean that all these qualified students should be accepted at our prestigious schools. The schools are entitled to SELECT the candidates who fit the criteria the best. And, in this regard, the distribution of income among candidates is only one element, and not necessarily the most prominent one.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I'm not totally sure, but I think I agree with you. :)</p>
<p>"The schools are entitled to SELECT the candidates who fit the criteria the best."</p>
<p>Agreed! It's their money. ;) All the paper attempted to do was to show that, using SAT/ACT as the qualifying criteria, the COHFE schools COULD take in more low-income (and middle income, and upper-middle-income, defined as $61-$92k) students without making any special allowance for lower performance that might (or might not) be related to that income, and (using SAT/ACT as a surrogate) without impacting the quality standards of the student body.</p>
<p>"And, in this regard, the distribution of income among candidates is only one element, and not necessarily the most prominent one."</p>
<p>We may find that out in the next paper (on "procedural bias").</p>
<p>"The individual quoted is Jay Rosner, Executive Director of the Princeton Review Foundation, a non-profit organization under the auspices of Princeton Review that develops outreach programs to provide test preparation programs to underserved students. He's probably got some experience and his opinion is something I'd at least consider."</p>
<p>Yes, please consider his opinion and experience, but after reading about Jay Rosner and his agenda. For once, he still clings to the notion that the SAT is a RACIST test. And as far as credentials, I remain highly doubtful about anything that carries the name Princeton Review, especially when it comes to ethics and integrity.</p>
<p>"We may find that out in the next paper (on "procedural bias")."</p>
<p>I hope so as well . I believe that the impetus of Morton Schapiro at Williams will help shed even more light onto the "darker side."</p>
<p>Why do you think it is "the darker side"? I don't, except when it lacks transparency.</p>
<p>Xiggi, you do know that this whole college admission process is bs. And for almost every person in the country, where you go to college doesn't matter as long as you go. </p>
<p>This "getting into college stuff" exists so people can make a living. There aren't even 100 schools in this country that are hard to get into.</p>
<p>Most of us are just venting on this board so we don't drive our kids, husbands or wives, or friends crazy. :)</p>
<p>Thanks, xiggi, but I'm aware of the agenda. Most organizations do have one. I am troubled by the idea that just because someone holds views that differ from our own, we should simply ignore them.</p>