<p>Apologizing in advance for a long post, but this has been on my mind for a long time.</p>
<p>I often read here on CC that test-optional policies are simply transparent efforts by schools to boost their USNWR rankings. The thinking goes that by allowing applicants not to report weak scores schools are able to report a higher average SAT/ACT score, thus improving their ratings on that subset of the USNWR rankings, and as a result, their overall rankings.</p>
<p>Let’s test that assumption. </p>
<p>If test-optional policies do not affect the quality of the incoming class then it’s hard to quibble with them because it means the test optional schools are right-they are able to choose a high quality class without the use of standardized test scores. But let’s assume that schools are simply trying to boost their USNWR rankings. What would we expect to suffer?</p>
<p>Certainly graduation rates. After all, if the non-submitters are less capable they should be doing more poorly in their classes. Considering that low-income and minority candidates tend to be over-represented in the ranks of non-submitters you would expect this to be a particularly stark contrast as these groups tend to have lower graduation rates to begin with.</p>
<p>USNWR weights the following factors (in percentages):</p>
<p>graduation rate 18</p>
<p>graduation rate performance (how much a school over or underperforms relative to expected grad rate) 7.5</p>
<p>freshman retention 4.5</p>
<p>total: 30 percent of overall ranking</p>
<p>One would also expect a school’s peer rankings to suffer, although perhaps to a lesser extent. The CC sages can’t be the only ones to recognize the test-optional schools’ Machiavellian scheme to boost their ratings, right? So that’s:</p>
<p>peer rating 15 </p>
<p>high school counselor 7.5</p>
<p>total 22.5 percent of overall ranking</p>
<p>Conversely, the rankings that could conceivably be boosted by allowing applicants not to submit scores:</p>
<p>SAT/ACT 8.125.</p>
<p>acceptance rate (assuming an increase in applicants) 2.25 </p>
<p>total: 10.375 percent of overall ranking</p>
<p>So in order to improve their performance on 10.375 percent of the weighted ranking we’re positing that schools are willing to risk between 30 and 52.5 percent of their ranking. Does this make sense?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/best-colleges-ranking-criteria-and-weights”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/best-colleges-ranking-criteria-and-weights</a>
*Note. The table is a bit hard to read, at least on my computer, as the columns are shifted. The numbers do add up but aren’t properly aligned.</p>
<p>Aside from the USNWR rankings, we would expect to see an impact on other outcome measures, such as Ph.D. production and graduate school acceptance rates.</p>
<p>Frankly, if a school wanted to boost their rankings it would be a whole lot easier to loosen their graduation requirements. Has Bates done this? Let’s compare the GPA requirements for graduation at Bates with that for Harvard (not picking on Harvard, it’s just the first school I checked).</p>
<p>Bates
Each candidate for graduation must complete the following requirements:</p>
<ol>
<li>Either (a) thirty-four course credits, two of which must be Short Term course credits, and sixty-eight quality points. No more than two Short Term courses may be applied toward the thirty-four course credit requirements; or, (b) thirty-three course credits, three of which must be Short Term courses, and sixty-six quality points. No more than three Short Term courses may be applied toward the thirty-three course credit requirement. Option (b) is available only to students who graduate in the three-year program. The following values are used in the computation of quality points:</li>
</ol>
<p>GPA Table
A+ = 4.0 B+ = 3.3 C+ = 2.3 D+ = 1.3 F = 0 ON = 0
A = 4.0 B = 3.0 C = 2.0 D = 1.0 F# = 0 W = 0
A- = 3.7 B- = 2.7 C- = 1.7 D- = 0.7 DEF = 0 P = 2</p>
<p>Harvard
All candidates for the Bachelor of Arts or the Bachelor of Science degree must pass 16.0 full courses and receive letter grades of C– or higher in at least 10.5 of them (at least 12.0 to be eligible for a degree with honors). The only non-letter grade that counts toward the requirement of 10.5 satisfactory letter-graded courses is Satisfactory (SAT); only one full senior tutorial course graded Satisfactory may be so counted. SAT grades are given to Freshman Seminars and certain tutorial courses.</p>
<p>So it seems that Bates requires a 2.0 average, while Harvard requires that roughly 2/3 of grades be C-'s or better. Bates requires every student to complete a senior thesis and, like Harvard, has gen ed requirements, including lab sciences, writing and math.</p>
<p>But perhaps Bates is simply getting away with giving everyone A’s to make sure they pass? Not according to UC Berkeley Law.<br>
<a href=“Toughest Schools to Get an "A" - Oberlin College - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/oberlin-college/934935-toughest-schools-to-get-an-a.html</a></p>
<p>Bates was rated as hard a school as MIT to get an A at and harder than Stanford, Yale, Brown, Columbia, Georgetown, Emory, Wash U., Northwestern, CMC, Berkeley, Vassar, Tufts, Reed, and a host of other schools.
The study is from 1997, hardly recent, but more than 10 years after Bates went test-optional. If anyone has more recent comparative stats on grades and grade inflation at various schools I’d welcome them.</p>
<p>Fire away. ;)</p>