<p>i don’t think they will ever be eliminated. Not fully and by all schools. I think that if your kid is not a good test-taker, you should have them go to state or community college…then transfer to better school. That is what I am doing.</p>
<p>The problem with testing though is that there is a strong correlation between high scores, family income and available resources. This doesn’t apply to everyone but enough that schools feel a need to address the issue. </p>
<p>@butterfreesnd Because if the total number of spaces in the freshman class remains constant then some students have to be denied admission to make room for those admitted without test scores. It is doubtful that high GPA high SAT/ACT applicants will be denied admission to make room for non-test submitting applicants. The group most vulnerable are those students who score high on Tests and have low GPAs to make room for non-submitting applicants. </p>
<p>I should qualify “high scores” as students who score higher than average of Temple applicants. Super high scoring kids with low GPA will still be accepted.</p>
<p>You are correct that some test optional schools that believe SAT has some value but if that is the case then require the test and give it less weight in the admission process. For instance Depaul University claims that the SAT is not probative in assessing students and went test optional, but in its 2014CDS it checked SAT is “very important” factor in the admission process. Why if it doesn’t have any probative value?</p>
<p>The test optional schools who claim “win-win” view is selling a marketing ploy because unless the schools are increasing enrollment, the schools have to deny someone to make room for the non-test applicants who are admitted. Those students that are harmed are most likely the low GPA high Test Score applicants in my opinion.</p>
<p>@Mayihelp I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment that Temple “already admits well over 60% of the students who apply.” That is the real reason why Temple is going test optional so it can lower the admit rate. </p>
<p>Qualifier. I’m not from Philly. I just can’t see a school like Temple caring all that much about their admission rate. I think it’s much more politically driven. You have a public institution in a city that is 44% black yet the enrollment for black students at the largest public school in the area is 11%. If your Temple does it not behoove you to reach out the best way you can to the community you reside within. Why not do something to increase the involvement of the community you exist in and possibly increase your options in the selection process. They will get kids with high grades and low scores who would have not have even applied in the previously year. </p>
<p>@Mayihelp That’s why I suggest that in lieu of going test optional, Temple should give Philly students preferential admission status, this would address your concerns and actually help Philly kids. But the Test Optional policy is just taking away from one high scoring deserving student to give to another high GPA deserving student. Under old policy the high scoring student get accepted and under new policy she does not to make room for high GPA student with low scores.</p>
<p>I disagree with your statement that “I just can’t see a school like Temple caring all that much about their admission rate.” Admission rate is a perceived indicator for selectivity, prestige and even quality of education. In the real world, high admission rates are bad and low admission rates are good. </p>
<p>Let’s take Harvard University. It has an acceptance rate of 5%, what do you think the perception of Harvard would be if its acceptance rate was 60%+ like Temple’s. </p>
<p>Contrary to your assertion, Temple wants to increase its ranking and prestige. Why do you think it is willing to give such large amounts of non-need based merit scholarship money to students with high test scores. Basic formula for prestige is enroll students with high test scores and have low admission rates. That formula doesn’t hurt the rankings as well. </p>
<p>If improving prestige and rankings were not important to Temple then it would only offer need-based awards.</p>
<p>I can definitely see the merit of some of your points. In either equation whether you just do Philly kids or test optional there’s going to be some change in who gets in and who doesn’t. I don’t think it will be substantial but as was said earlier unless you add more seats. Your right Temple does care but this policy is not going to have a monumental shift n that number there’s no way they’ll ever get to even 55% just looking at their enrollment and yield. The preponderance of state schools have merit money scholarships akin to Temple. That’s nothing special. For a school to shift it’s ranking something unique has to happen. Temple is a middle of the road solid state school but this policy will not tip the scale. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Actually it is a smaller correlation than the effect of income on grades - so the test optional schools are actually hurting the poor and URM. Grades are MORE not less correlated with money/socioeconomic status than test scores. The TED talk referenced above noted this (test scores are not as highly correlated with SES as other measures used by college admissions). See <a href=“http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/liufall2013/files/2013/10/New_Perspectives.pdf”>http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/liufall2013/files/2013/10/New_Perspectives.pdf</a> for a more detailed analysis of why test scores are better than grades in working around differences in socioeconomic status among applicants. The news sometimes forgets to mention that grades are not very useful (without adjusting for family income and parent’s education), when they are covering SAT/ACT complaints.</p>
<p>“When pooled within-school analyses are used, high school grades and class rank have larger correlations with family income and education than is evident in the results of typical analyses, and SAT scores have smaller associations with socioeconomic factors.”</p>
<p>Using tests AND considering challenging circumstances in the applicants background is fairer than relying on the applicants grades (which are affected more by their family income and less useful for evaluating applications from the poor). The bigger problem appears to be what to do with the high scoring low income students. Quoting the NY Times: “There is a substantial body of evidence the system is failing to reward students with high test scores who come from low-income families.” [1/2 as many of the high test scoring low income students graduate, as the similar high test scoring students from the top quartile of income].</p>
<p>@Mayihelp My guess is that Temple will see admit rates drop to under 50% under the test optional policy but I agree with you that Temple’s overall freshman profile will not change substantially and the Philly kids that Temple “wants to attract” wont be admitted in groves. If Temple wanted to do that it would have done so with or without the test optional policy.</p>
<p>As to your belief that “preponderance of state schools have merit money scholarships akin to Temple” is correct if you are talking about lower ranked public schools. The high ranking public schools give little to no non-need based merit aid. </p>
<p>Non-need merit scholarships are to lure high achieving students. If a school has an abundance of high achieving students applying then there is no need to give them merit money. </p>
<p>
Many peer reviewed studies have come to the conclusion that test scores are far more correlated with income than grades. One of many possible examples is the study at <a href=“http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502858.pdf”>http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502858.pdf</a> , which found the following correlations with family income among ~80,000 students in the UC system:</p>
<p>SAT Verbal – 0.32
SAT Math – 0.24
HS GPA – 0.04</p>
<p>The studies I were referencing were comparing grades within the same high school (and aggregating across various high schools), which are highly correlated with family income. The admitted students at UC are a biased sample since they did not select the high school students randomly nor from the same high school. When comparing grades of two students at the same high school, the correlation with income is higher - the UC data is also discussed at length in the referenced paper from UC Santa Barbara professors Zweik and Green.</p>
<p>It is also intuitive why High School GPA also correlates with family income not just test scores (higher income, better educated parents can afford tutors, they have more time to help their children with school work, they have more positive academic examples to follow, they may have higher expectations, miss fewer class days due to family problems etc.).</p>
<p>In any case - BOTH test scores and GPA correlate with income and there is clear data indicating that the brightest low income students are at a relative disadvantage despite high test scores.</p>
<p>
The actual numbers from the study you referenced are below:</p>
<p>Correlations With Family Income Across Multiple HSs
SAT Verbal – 0.37
SAT Math – 0.36
HS GPA – 0.17</p>
<p>Correlations With Family Income Within Same HS
SAT Verbal – 0.22
SAT Math – 0.21
HS GPA – 0.12</p>
<p>The study you referenced indicates that SAT I is more correlated with income than HS GPA both across multiple HSs and within the same HS. SAT correlation was ~2.2x the HS GPA correlation across multiple HSs vs ~1.8x across the same HS. Okay, this is a slight difference, but it doesn’t change the conclusion that SAT has the greater correlation with family income. When he analyzes genders and races separately, SAT remains more correlated with income than grades for all genders and races, both across multiple HSs and within the same HS. </p>
<p>The bottom line is both test scores and grades are impacted by income and resources. I can definitely see if your working out of one high school the kids with the most resources will have the higher grades. I do not doubt that. However admission at colleges cross a lot of different areas. You can have a 4.0 at southern high school an inner city public in Philly and a 4.0 at Germantown academy in a Philly suburb. They’ll both be 4.0s but I would bet 9 out of 10 times the higher test score will be from Germantown. I see it with my own kids I was a full need kid at an Ivy League school I worked in HS and was an athlete. My kids are upper middle class and have had access to resources academically I would never dream of. They had much better portfolios than me in every aspect of their apps. Resources matter in all factors of the admission process. Thus the better off you are the more you can provide those resources. </p>
<p>The National Bureau of Education Resource recent analysis of this problem was depressing: </p>
<p>“We show that the vast majority of very high-achieving students who are low-income do not apply to any selective college or university. This is despite the fact that selective institutions would often cost them less”</p>
<p>See <a href=“The Missing "One-Offs": The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students | NBER”>http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586</a></p>
<p>See also the research paper at <a href=“http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/projects/bpea/spring%202013/2013a_hoxby.pdf”>http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/projects/bpea/spring%202013/2013a_hoxby.pdf</a> in particular page 14. 17% of the “high achieving” (top 10% on ACT/SAT) are from the poorest 25% (far higher percentage than I had expected) but … most of these have poorer college educational outcomes (compared to the wealthier) in large part because the colleges can’t find them.</p>
<p>"Probably unintentionally, colleges end up looking for low-income students
where the college is, instead of looking for low-income students where
the students are. Thus, they recruit the low-income students “under the
lamppost” but fail to identify the vast majority of others. "</p>
<p>Ironically, these students fare better when coming from the much maligned big cities (presumably because they are easier to find):</p>
<p>“We show that traditional recruiting methods are likely to work better in
large, dense urban areas and in the immediate vicinity of the college itself.”</p>
<p>Great point Rice parent. This is a big reason why you need to have affirmative action. Most people think of AA as only being part of the admission process in a very finite manner. In reality it starts with recruiting identifying students who would be viable options. Explaining financial aid, getting kids who have not been exposed to understand their options. The college board started a project thus past year where they sent to a large group of URMs 8 free application waivers along with detailed information on elite schools that these students could gain admission to based on their testing. It basically was a common data set gorgeous the top schools in the country. It also had a section on financial aid. My daughter received one and though she could not use the waivers it was easy to see how if a family did not gave great knowledge of the admissions process that this program would be a great jumping off point. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Wish they had a way to do this based on income - the waiver idea sounds like a great idea which benefits the elite colleges with big endowments and also the low income students. My son received waivers (presumably based on some big data analysis crunching by colleges of test scores and …??) from multiple colleges, but none from top 40 colleges (those with huge endowments), and only three from next tier schools. The application fees were not a big issue for us - but it could be prohibitive for the very students that those top 40 schools most want to recruit. Ironically, AA is not so much needed in the admission process - but as you imply in the application process (waving application fees, advertising, outreach, explaining options) and in the college visitation process (where Rice seems to do a very good job with the subsidies for travel to Owl Days for the poor). There are plenty of high scoring poor students - if the elite colleges (where they would attend for free) can get them to apply.</p>
<p>Agreed I was one of those kids</p>
<p>@2018RiceParent Another thing I have to commend Rice for is giving fee waivers based on high SAT II scores (to everyone, since I don’t think I’ll count as poor until I graduate from CMU). Rice just seems to be handling all of this very well.</p>
<p>Apparently 800/760 weren’t high enough for a waiver this last year :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Students from low income and first generation college backgrounds, and those in high schools where going to a selective four year college is unusual, may not realize the need to take the SAT or ACT, or know even the basics of optimal test scheduling and test taking strategy. [This</a> student](<a href=“Berkeley News | Berkeley”>Berkeley News | Berkeley) is an example of one whose frosh entry to a four year college was blocked due to misunderstanding of the importance of the SAT or ACT, though he did eventually become successful starting at community college and transferring (and later going on to [PhD</a> study](<a href=“http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/people/aaron-benavidez]PhD”>Aaron Benavidez | Department of Sociology)).</p>
<p>Note that some schools which require the SAT (reasoning) or ACT have changed the SAT subject tests from required to recommended or optional for this reason – while they still want to see some standardized testing, and prefer to see SAT subject tests, they do not want to automatically screen out those from underprivileged backgrounds who may not know in time to take them. (The schools in question may actually prefer the SAT subject tests over the SAT (reasoning) and ACT, but the incumbency advantage of the SAT (reasoning) and ACT means that requiring just the SAT subject tests would still be the kind of barrier that they are trying to remove.)</p>
<p>@Data10 One reason why the study @2018RiceParent discusses doesn’t show as a high a correlation for HSGPA is that the HSGPAs are not weighted by some common method. @Sue22 commented on this because she believed that this would better allow colleges to have a clearer understanding of the true value of a student’s HSGPA.</p>
<p>Kids from high income families tend to take the more difficult courses compared to those from lower incomes. So in the referenced study, a student who gets a “B” in AP Calculus is considered the same as a student who gets a “B” in Beginning Algebra. Clearly the two students should not be equated as having the same HSGPA but in the referenced study the students are treated as having equal HSGPA. </p>
<p>Colleges that will be comparing these students for admission will take this fact into consideration and @2018RiceParent prediction that low income students will be harmed will become a reality in the test optional admission process.</p>
<p>Had the study weighted the HSGPA of those same students, I am sure that the correlation with weighted HSGPA and income would be at least as high or higher than the SAT to income correlation. </p>
<p>BTW one reason why the UC study came to near zero correlation of HSGPA to income was the result of SES. Kids from a SES are going to school together and the grade distribution will be similar for every high school. So the average HSGPA of a low income high school will be about the same as one from a high income high school. Thus you get this near zero correlation.</p>
<p>Check out your local high schools, rich kids go to rich high schools, low income kids attend high school with other low income kids. That is why there was a correlation for income to HSGPA in @2018RiceParent study that focused on income within the same high school and not the UC study.</p>