<p>Here is the New York Times follow-up story, on William Fitzsimmons presenting the study at the NACAC conference: </p>
<p>Fitzsimmons seems to be talking about the use of SAT's alot but I don't get the impression that Harvard will be going SAT optional anytime soon.</p>
<p>I don't get that impression either. Harvard's admission officers already say that they adjust for how they view SAT I scores based on what they know about the applicant's background from the application file. Harvard explicitly says it doesn't have a standardized test cut-off score for admission, but it does regard either the SAT I or the ACT with writing as part of each application file. It also requires three SAT Subject Tests and has long requested self-reported AP test scores as part of its application.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr. Fitzsimmons called on colleges and universities to be more transparent about how they use standardized admissions scores, and more collaborative in terms of sharing research on the scores.</p>
<p>The audience also applauded Mr. Fitzsimmons’s call for U.S. News & World Report to stop using SAT scores as part of its college rankings.</p>
<p>But he also affirmed what many of those present had been saying for years: that the SAT and other standardized admissions tests are “incredibly imprecise” when it comes to measuring academic ability and how well students will perform in college. He said colleges and universities needed to do much more research into how well the tests predict success at their individual institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With all respect to Mr. Fitzsimmons, who seems to be an extremely knowledgeable and well-meaning person, his presentation reeks of the same hyprocritical grandstanding we had to hear from Atkinson or the infamous Marilee Jones. In fact, Mr. Fitzsimmons was found guilty of the same sins when he penned a "call" to return the summers to the poor students who were "forced" to waste their summers and school years slaving to accumulate the right pedigree of grades and ECs ... all the while rewarding the students with extensive "resumes' filled with summer programs and dozens of AP with plenty of admissions. </p>
<p>Just as Marilee Jones was incredibly dishonest by advocating a position that her admissions results did NOT support, Mr. Fitzsimmons does not seem to understand the ridicule of Harvard pretending the SAT is imprecise when the school boosts the highest SAT (or close to) in the world. If it's so imprecise, why doesn't the SAT show a bigger variance? In this regard, Stanford seems to put his money where its mouth is! </p>
<p>Same thing for the "The audience also applauded Mr. Fitzsimmons’s call for U.S. News & World Report to stop using SAT scores as part of its college rankings." Is there anything that would stop Harvard from ceasing to release its SAT scores? Does Harvard fail to understand that THEY are the leaders and do NOT need to issue a call to USNews, but need to take ACTION! </p>
<p>And, while Mr. Fitzsimmons calls on "colleges and universities to be more transparent about how they use standardized admissions scores, and more collaborative in terms of sharing research on the scores" this simply echoes what the PUBLIC has been asking for years. Yes, we DO want transparency but not the type the incredibly pathetic NACAC has been seeking. Is there anything that precludes the august Harvard to release COMPLETE data about whom gets in and what the EXACT distribution of SAT is by race and SES status? The answer is nothing! However, astute readers also know that Harvard is one the dwindling number of schools that REFUSES to make its CDS form public. </p>
<p>In this case, this is a clear case of "Do as I say, but not as I do." Not Harvard's or Mr. Fitzsimmons finest moments!</p>
<p>
[quote]
There has been longstanding debate and concern about the impact of standardized testing on socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and the ballroom erupted in applause when Mr. Fitzsimmons called for an end to the use of “cut scores” to determine who qualifies for National Merit and other scholarships. The practice means that one student is rewarded while excluding another whose SAT score may be only a single point lower, Mr. Fitzsimmons said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, then how about coaches at universities stopping the use of "cut scores" for recruited athletes - in swimming, running, etc. ?? Don't some athletes grow-up in circumstances more supportive of their athletic development? Shouldn't college coaches take that into consideration when recruiting?</p>
<p>The NMSF is wonderful because it is utterly objective - one of the only such institutions left. Outrageous to even think of changing it's basic reliance on PSATs. There are many, many sources of financial aid given based on "holistic" evaluations. Please don't let them take away the Nationa Merit Scholar Competition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, then how about coaches at universities stopping the use of "cut scores" for recruited athletes - in swimming, running, etc. ?? Don't some athletes grow-up in circumstances more supportive of their athletic development? Shouldn't college coaches take that into consideration when recruiting?
[/quote]
Interesting. The "cut scores" in athletics actually function much like SATs -- they are viewed as an indicator of natural ability. Speed can't be coached, and if kids have it, coaches can work with them to develop the skill set needed to be a complete athlete in a given sport. So kids who haven't had the advantage of a great sports program can stand out with impressive speed stats, much like a high SAT achiever from a poor school system. Track coaches are very interested in how much mileage a kid puts on each week. If he's maxed out, he'll be less impressive than a kid who has decent times without the high mileage. Potential for growth is there. Football coaches always look at a kid's frame to estimate just how much muscle can be packed on. Again, looking to evaluate potential.</p>
<p>So I would think many schools view a high SAT as an indicator of potential in less privleged kids. Even Harvard, despite the claim of Mr Fitzsimmons that the test is incredibly imprecise.</p>