<p>I can only report my own experience and what the school told me. Without getting too personal here, my oldest (a junior at SLC, class of 2008) applied to SLC in the winter of 2003. In November of that year SLC announce it would no longer require SATs starting in the next year's application cycle, and at the time that was proposed as a reaction to the "new" SAT and its writing component. In spring of 2004 my D was waiting-listed at SLC. The GC from her HS call to find out if there was anything she could do to increase her chances and to find out why she had not been accepted. The point was made that for a "writers' school" to not accept a student with an 800 SAT-II Writing seemed a bit odd. The answer was "we don't use SATs for evaluating our applicants." When asked what they did with them if the applicant sent them, the reply was, "We don't even look at them."</p>
<p>This seemed odd to me at the time for many reasons. One, in that the College Board offered (and still does) to send scores to SLC, and two, that SLC awarded a school-sponsored NMSQT scholarship which is based solely on (P)SAT scores. But that's what they said in 2004 and they're now on their third entering class since then if you include the current applicant pool. The 2003 edition of Peterson's (publication date 2002) says SATs are required for applicants. In 2004 they told me they didn't use them. To me that looks like they've got three years of students who were admitted without using SAT information and at least two (not counting this year) where no data was collected. Maybe they only stopped asking for them in 2004-05 application year but this is 2007 and my experience says this is the fourth year of no SATs being used in the selection process.</p>
<p>O.K., I see the progression now. As reported by Inside Higher Ed, "The U.S. News rankings that will appear this fall would be the first in which Sarah Lawrence will no longer have any SAT data to report." So USNews has relied on the SAT data from the upperclassmen. They're graduating & now SL can't provide any data on current students or new admits. USNews alerts them of how the data hole will be filled. SL's president, while claiming that SATs & quantitative measurements are irrelevant in a writing based school, balks that her school will fall in the rankings. Rankings are quantitative by definition! She claims she's not gong to "play that game," and then proceeds to play a game of her own in the media. </p>
<p>Sarah Lawrence claims to be different. And they certainly are. So why can't they just opt out of a system that really is not designed to accomodate them, but is useful in varrying degrees to many readers & a wide variety of institutions?</p>
<p>Why can't USNews be honest about how they made a determination for SLC? What have they been doing the past two years? Using the same data as portions of it go away? Does USNews use average SATs for several years or the last incoming class? If the latter, they haven't been honest about SLC for two years now. I can't find a clear-cut explanation of their methodology and when I've asked the academia aplologists here who support USNews to provide just that, and show how that information is disseminated to ranking users, they've gone silent. I have no problem with USNews as a data collector and distributor. They just need to be honest about what is real and what they're making up. SLC isn't the only school that doesn't have SAT data to report. Others don't use it or make it optional, too. They're just the first to speak out about the hypocrisy of USNews using false, fake, manipulated data and calling it facts.</p>
<p>Are making assumptions and falsifying data the same thing? USNWR would list SLC's test scores as one standard deviation below the average. In the recent past, weren't SLC's test scores above the average?</p>
<p>Even if you like USNWR, what kind of assumption is this?</p>
<p>This is one way to solve the problem. Assume that SLC's numbers would be similar to the one's the school had in the recent past, with adjustments made according to how students test, now and in the future. If students generally do better in the future, adjust SLC's scores up. If students start doing worse on the SAT, adjust SLC's scores down.</p>
<p>This isn't a perfect solution, but it is better than the solution USNWR is offering SLC.</p>
<p>If a form of adverse selection sets in, as it usually does, you will see a flight of high SAT scorers from SLC and an attraction of low scorers with high grades to it. At least that is a reasonable assumption and it is up to USNews to decide how to address it.</p>
<p>I really do not understand about all the fuss. The SLC president says SAT is not a good admission criteria, and then goes on to complaint that their SAT score is being marked down by USNWR. If you do not care about the SAT, why worry about what others think your SAT score is. The OP says we should not be ruled by the tyranny of the rankings, then complaint that St. Johns got a low ranking. If you do not care about ranking, why worry what your ranking is.</p>
<p>I think you'd better go back to the beginning and read the whole thread. It's about dishonesty and fakes figures, really. SLC accepts the reality that is USNews, it just doesn't want itself represented by falsified figures. Get it?</p>
<p>I applied to Sarah Lawrence and I really like the fact that they didn't require SATs. Although I took them and my scores were high, I realized the unfair bias of standardized testing. All it really shows is who is good at taking the SATs. Although I studied very little (I flipped through my SAT book the night before and memorized a few SAT words) I got a high score even in math, which is not my forte. I'm just good at standardized testing. Then there is a girl in my math class who is obviously much better at math than me. When I am struggling with a problem she's the person who explains it to me. She hates standardized tests and gets really nervous whenever she takes them. Because of this, she took at 200 dollar SAT course and worked really hard. Still her math score was 20 points lower than mine. It doesn't make any sense.</p>
<p>The true unfair thing though is that if you have money, you can pay to take SAT prep courses. I'm glad and proud Sarah Lawrence has decided to take this kind of a stand and I think it's unfair that the US news can't simply find another way to measure them.</p>
<p>SLC wants to set the rules to suit its own ends and attract more applicants in a tough market. Then they complain when the rules are plain and there is little basis to assume scores won't change due to adverse selection.</p>
<p>I would be upset too if my product was being purposely misrepresented to my prime audience. (I don't know if it amounts to libel...I'll leave that to the lawyers.)</p>
That doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say and how does it relate to the facts as we know them and have endlessly discussed them here?</p>
<p>One can't blame US News for anything. It's those of you who purchase the magazine that are to blame. If no one bought it, this wouldn't be an issue.</p>
<p>The rankings are silly and meaningless. The criteria US News uses in its rankings may have little or nothing to do with what the student is looking for in a college. </p>
<p>Over thirty years, I advised thousands of students and parents in the college selection process. I never used US News rankings, and never look at them.</p>
<p>"it just doesn't want itself represented by falsified figures"</p>
<p>Then the solution is simple just put your SAT scores in the Comon Data Set. SLC is trying to have it both ways. It basically wants to be ranked on the data it wants to give and none other. I see no real merit in their position even while I can see much wrong with the USNWR rankings starting with the fact that none of the data in the CDS is audited and I would not trust most of these schools farther than I can a telephone poll.</p>
<p>Higherlead, I think you missed something. There aren't any SAT scores to put in CDS. SLC doesn't accept SAT scores. There aren't any scores, so USNWR is going to make them up. USNWR is going to make them up and put a lower number on them than SLC students have had in the past. </p>
<p>Barrons, what are you talking about, rules? What rules? Making stuff up is OK?
What is this real estate, where income levels of buyers are fudged constantly.
We're about to see how that works.</p>