Those sources say test optional (not test blind!) which is what has been often stated…which is very different from test blind.
City libaries have internet access. I suspect the school library does too. I am not saying it is as easy, but it can be done.
The short answer is that this is pretty much inevitable. Here is the more complete answer:
- Intelligent people tend to make more money. The estimated correlations are not particularly high (around 0.3), but the trendline is clear.
- Intelligence is significantly hereditary. In other words, smart parents tend to have smart kids. The correlation on this is estimated at 0.8.
- Given 1 and 2 above, statistics makes it highly likely that a high income school district will have higher AVERAGE test scores than a lower income school district.
Note I am not saying there are no intelligent people in less wealthy school district. Nor am I saying all the students in the richer school district are intelligent. The average can mask a great deal of variation.
Because GPA and test scores reveal different information. Test scores provide a common framework for comparison but say nothing about a student’s grit or other personal skills that can set them up for success. The GPA tells about how a student did in their particular school system, but says nothing about how rigorous the high school actually is.
I contend that standardized tests are actually most useful for school systems that are not well known. Every college knows Lexington High School in Massachusetts, and a student’s courses and GPA will tell them everything they need to know about whether the student is ready for UChicago. In contrast, a 4.0 unweighted GPA from Podunk High School may not reveal much, particularly if coupled with a lack of APs.
O.K. Here’s another anecdote: My son-in-law worked as a test-prep instructor once upon a time for one of the major companies. He’s a very skeptical guy in general and had no love for that employer in particular. Nevertheless, he saw the effects of the disciplines and tricks he taught in that course. They went well beyond what could be found in standard do-it-yourself manuals.
My take on this is that anyone who can do well without learning those tricks is very much to be congratulated. However, it doesn’t follow that others haven’t achieved the same results due to having learned tricks in an expensive course. That they are able to do this is unfair not only to the kids who do well without taking such a course but, of course, also to those who don’t have the financial wherewithal or parental support to do that. I would add that there is something intellectually if not morally offensive about the whole business.
Colleges are clearly already admitting students with low test scores (uChicago with 1050 sat?).
They have to assume that the only kids who are going to opt out of sending in scores are the kids who don’t get high scores. SO an application without scores = a low scoring kid.
The only reason to go TO is to raise your average test score and look better on rankings or appeal to students who have low scores.
When UChicago starts accepting a large percentage of their students TO with TO applicants having the same or better admit odds as compared to those who submit testing, I’ll believe it is a game changer.
Until then, TO applied to a single digit slice of admitted students at an “elite” school is a nice virtue signalling gimmick, not a game changer.
A couple side notes:
- This article describes UChicago as "the Midwest’s closest equivalent to an Ivy League school." While others have questioned my characterization of Chicago as the "Academic Ivy," it looks like at least some reporters view Chicago as quite ivy-like! (No doubt, Chicago's administration would be happy with such a description.)
- Chicago is too tight-lipped about the actual data, and too invested in self-promotion for us to actually tell how influential TO is. Are there 20 TO students in the class? 100? 400? Who knows. Other U.s provide a range of data (% first gen, % legacy, etc.). Chicago provides almost nothing.
Until we know how influential TO actually is at Chicago, these articles read like fluff pieces.
- Along with offering TO, what sort of specialized resources does Chicago actually offer students from more meager backgrounds? Enhanced advising? Additional tutoring? Free summer classes? Subsidized travel to and from home? The policy change is nice - but what sort of support are such students actually getting?
In comparison to its peers, Chicago has modest means. How much can it offer students who may need such support?
- Connections to prestige pathways -- @marlowe1 may remember this, as I do: For many years, Chicago recruited and retained lots of students from rural areas, students "off the beaten path." These students often flourished at Chicago, and I remember many of them had a work ethic and toughness I certainly couldn't match. This constitution prepared them well for a Chicago education.
This constitution did NOT prepare them well for what Chicago now seems to covet: pathways to prestige/high paying outcomes for its college grads. The rural low SES folks I mentioned at Chicago were great, but they often weren’t hawks about their GPA, and they rarely showed interest in the pathways Chicago promotes on its glossy fluffy outcomes literature (Goldman Sachs! Merrill Lynch! T15 Law School!)
How are the current crop of such students interacting with Chicago’s new institutional drivers? There seems to be some tension between recruiting from such areas on one end, and having certain expectations for outcomes on the other.
My own hunch here is that many of Chicago’s admin goals are working in sync with one another. For instance:
- If you expand the class size to match Harvard's (read: around 1700 a year), that leaves a lot of wiggle room to recruit a larger number of "types" of students (read: a certain number of prepsters who may easily fall into prestige exit outcomes, more rural students, more first gen students, more legacies, etc.)
- I expect, then, that Chicago's numbers on so many fronts (accept rate, yield rate, % going to top law schools, % seeking professional careers, % athletes, etc.) will more closely resemble it's ivy-brethren.
Put another way, Chicago is sticking true to what the reporter in this article said: UChicago is the Midwest’s closest equivalent to an Ivy League school.
The Academic Ivy! Now with TO and a pipeline to Goldman Sachs and Columbia Law!
The announced percentage of TO applicants and admittees last year was 15 percent. Whether this was a “game-changer” in the Admissions world is of less interest to me than whether it achieved or was part of the Chicago Initiative that achieved the objective of identifying and admitting more Chicago-type kids from unconventional categories - first-gen, URM, rural, veterans, children of police and firefighters. Someone will know the statistics on this, but I believe that significant increases in all those categories were achieved.
Rather than virtue-signalling this may be the thing itself. It also addresses a criticism that we had been previously hearing - that Chicago was lagging its peers in recruiting kids from this demographic and, contrary to its history, had turned or was turning into a school exclusively of the rich and privileged. That stung, coming as it did from HYP boosters.
I myself have concerns that the newly enriched numbers from these non-traditional demographics will be able to sustain the level and pace of work that will be required of them at this school. That bears watching. I am betting on those kids, however.
My close friend (white female) applied TO in the ED round and was outright denied. She is devastated. TO only seems to work for some applicants. If your background seems privileged then I think it would be very hard to play the TO card successfully
UChicago won’t know how influential TO is for several years. The first group still has 3 years, 2 quarters before Commencement. Also, the jump in early TO applicants was 20% per the article. So word is out, now we just have to see how many apply and how many are admitted.
UChicago purportedly DOES have improved resources to direct to these students if they need it, and they’ve had decent success with their Odyssey group so aren’t going into this venture green. Futhermore, they tested Empower in the Chicago area for something like nine or 10 years first before going national (not sure they employed TO but they absolutely tracked test scores and performance of those kids).
It’s tempting to view TO as yet another rabbit that the Great Nondorfini has pulled out of his hat, but he couldn’t have implemented this without the approval of his colleagues in the President’s Office - or the board. Trott (among others) has been pushing better access to rural kids because he himself was a high achieving rural kid whose time at UChicago opened doors that weren’t there before. Let those who have walked the walk do the talking on this issue, would be my take. Furthermore, they have the internal stats and the internal academic studies - from competent authorities, no less - to do this intelligently. I’m witholding judgement till I know how it plays out. I’m enthusiastic about neither Test Optional NOR paid prep so I’m prepared to sit back and watch the experiment unfold.
I think rather than the suggested virtue-signaling that some perceive this move to be, the press releases might be devised to put pressure on other elite schools to do the same. UChicago has no qualms about this move and they think it’s the right thing to do at this time. They no longer perceive the SAT/ACT as the equalizer that it was in Hebe’s day - or my day. Given the devolution into “superscoring” and score choice etc, I can see their point.
@JBStillFlying - how are the resources for traditionally under-resourced students? The Odyssey scholarship launched in 2006 or 2007, and event 6 or 7 years in, there were lots of complaints about the sense of inclusion at Chicago:
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2013/5/7/uncommon-interview-clarence-okoh/
Have things gotten better?
Traditionally, Chicago was a fairly awful, unforgiving place for diverse students. I don’t mean this just from a numerical perspective - more that there was a “dominant” strain of thought on campus, and it was not a welcoming place.
I found the people best suited to deal with it were the rural, tough kids, or the exeter/andover crowd, who were comfortable in an academically rigorous environment.
@Cue7 - a sense of exclusion has also been a prominent complaint by under-represented groups on other elite campuses. have no idea whether things at UChicago have “improved” - perhaps a more recent Maroon article or survey will give you insight there. I’m talking about resources such as tutors, advisors (including peer advisors), special career counseling, reserved Metcalf internships, etc. that the Odyssey kids have access to. So let’s see what happens under Empower.
One of my son’s close friends at UChicago is an Odyssey scholar from a rural area. Since I grew up poor and put myself through college, I was very concerned about how students without pocket money navigated things like the dining halls not serving food on Saturday nights, school supplies and computers needed, prep or help for classes. From my son’s description the scholars are given plenty of spending money to be able to afford to do outings with the other students, buy computers, eat out on Saturdays, etc. My son also laughed at the idea that his friend was any less prepared or able to compete - this kid is kicking ass and apparently doesn’t need any help with the scholarly work.
D was a little concerned that the drop down curve-busters would impact her grade in 151. I tried to talk her into taking 131, but she chose to stay in 151 because she wanted to take 4 classes without having the extra math sessions. She pulled off an A in that class, and she’s glad she stayed. She sought out extra help when necessary and attended all additional study sessions that were held as well. We’ll see how 152 goes this quarter.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the high school profile of the student mentioned in the TO link (there’s one high school in Swainsboro). Only 25% of the students in her high school are proficient in math, the graduation rate is roughly 77%, and 87% are on the free and reduced lunch program. The highest math class offered at her school is pre-calculus. Although she attended community college while enrolled in HS, the article doesn’t mention her coursework. As the top performer in her high school, I hope she finds great success at UC, and is able to manage her course load well.
@PepperJo so glad your D had a successful quarter with Calculus!
Unless my son’s summer advisor was just plain wrong, everyone was expected at least to start in their placement, so any 152’s or higher wouldn’t have been able to register in 151. This is what he was told, at any rate. I’m sure people dropped down as the quarter went on and true difficulties emerged but it’s not like the old system where you could register at your placement or lower. Like your D, my son attended all the problem sessions and office hours regularly. He also really loved his instructor. It sounded like those who made use of the available resources did significantly better than those who didn’t (no surprise there). My son found 152 to be challenging but thoroughly enjoyable. And now he’s done with Core Math 
Those invited to honors should have placed higher than 151 to begin with. They can drop back if it doesn’t work, but it’s doubtful they would land in 151.
Not any more. Caltech just dropped the subject test requirement.
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-eliminate-requirement-sat-subject-test-scores-admissions
Looks like more schools are wising up to the fact that scores, especially SAT subjects tests correllate well with the opportunities students have growing up. Those with less opportunity have always had an uphill battle and the playing field is far from level for them.
1 Like
replied too late