<p>
[quote]
USNWR is going to make them up and put a lower number on them than SLC students have had in the past.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK. You've convinced me. No making up numbers. Just give them zero points for that criterion.</p>
<p>"Just give them zero points for that criterion."</p>
<p>And put them in a new listing category (with the other schools that don't follow USNews' criteria): </p>
<p>COULD NOT RANK</p>
<p>"COULD NOT RANK"</p>
<p>I like that category.</p>
<p>With all the schools stating they don't like the rankings, I wonder if that would eventually become the largest category.</p>
<p>Or are the schools full of it?</p>
<p>They could have coffee with the deans at Grand Canyon and Florida Metropolitan Universities, ask them for their considered opinions of SLC, and use that as the peer assessment. ;)</p>
<p>I think that there is more nuance to this dispute than either side lets on. [Morse in the quote below is the USN spokesman, Myers, of course, the president of SL.]</p>
<p>
[quote]
On Sunday, Morse said that he was reluctant to talk about Sarah Lawrence’s complaints until he could confer with the top editors at U.S. News. But pressed, he said that Myers had left out “a key fact” from her op-ed in not saying that he had told her U.S. News was considering approaches besides just assigning the college a lower SAT average based on no real data.</p>
<p>Morse said he had told Myers that the approach of cutting the SAT score a standard deviation from the peer group average was “what we were going to do,” but he said he added that a new approach might also be considered. He said that as of today, no other approach had been determined, and that the plan remains the same, but that the discussions were “a process still going on.”</p>
<p>Morse said that he regularly speaks to groups of institutional researchers about the U.S. News methodology, including how the magazine handles situations where colleges do not provide some of the data the magazine seeks. He said that the magazine doesn’t always use the approach of just lowering estimates by a standard deviation, and that the approach varies from category to category. “There are various procedures, and we’ve been very transparent,” he said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If Morse's claims are true, many of the issues seem a little more mundane:</p>
<p>SLC surely knew that there would be penalties for not submitting SAT scores down the line. If they didn't foresee this, they frankly did not do a thorough review of the implications of their policy change.</p>
<p>SLC does not want to opt out of the system right now, as Reed did, and that puts them in good company. No one should blame them for that. But they want be treated equitably, and are standing up for their belief. Good for them! </p>
<p>USNews needs to do some sort of extrapolation of SLC's scores and they seem open to alternate solutions to SLC's unique situation. (The dstark-Cur solution seems to to fit the equita-bill nicely.) On this count, we have to wait and see.</p>
<p><a href="The%20dstark-Cur%20solution%20seems%20to%20to%20fit%20the%20equita-bill%20nicely.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that's stilll a "made-up" number, right?</p>
<p>SLC has a big problem--or better a small problem. Their endowment is miniscule compared with many of the schools they would like to compete with. Here's a little study they did a few years ago that highlights the problem. So they have to get creative to keep that sky high tuition from scaring away applicants. Presto--No SAT.</p>
<p>Endowment per Student </p>
<p>Swarthmore</p>
<p>$ 630,334</p>
<p>Williams</p>
<p>$ 549,130</p>
<p>Amherst</p>
<p>$ 540,784</p>
<p>Wellesley</p>
<p>$ 464,800</p>
<p>Smith </p>
<p>$ 305,154</p>
<p>Vassar </p>
<p>$ 224,950</p>
<p>Oberlin</p>
<p>$ 190,429</p>
<p>Mt. Holyoke</p>
<p>$ 168,411</p>
<p>Wesleyan </p>
<p>$ 157,312</p>
<p>Connecticut College </p>
<p>$ 72,201</p>
<p>Barnard </p>
<p>$ 56,965</p>
<p>Sarah Lawrence </p>
<p>$ 27,530</p>
<p>So Barrons, do you think SLC should require the SAT?</p>
<p>"The true unfair thing though is that if you have money, you can pay to take SAT prep courses."</p>
<p>Well I have bad news for you. When you go to apply to graduate school or Med school or especially Law school the standardized test are going to be even more important, more important even than your grades so you might as well get used to it if you plan to go beyong your BA or BS. And once you get out in the real world you will really find out that life is not fair.</p>
<p>No, I think they can do whatever they want but don't cry about it. I would collect the info and not use it for admits if that's what they want. After a few years they could show USNews the results and go from there.</p>
<p>More recent endowment data SLC pretty well down the list with $62 Million or so.</p>
<p>When we visited Sarah Lawrence in April, the front-page article in the student newspaper was all about the school's financial troubles. I don't remember the details. The school is beautiful and its philosophy intriguing, but I was concerned about its high tuition, low endowment and other financial issues. I was somewhat relieved when my daughter decided not to apply.</p>
<p>I like the category "Could not rank" as long as other numbers were included. It's like movies that decline to get a rating.</p>
<p>I still find it somewhat suspect that SLC doesn't ask accepted students who have SAT scores to submit them after admission, particularly in the first years of a new policy and in light of the de-emphasis on grades at SL. (I find this amazing quite apart from the fact that this would get them off the horns of the USNews dilemma, since they, like virtually everyone else, would almost surely meet the 50% cutoff point.) </p>
<p>Asking for scores post-admission is standard practice for institutional research at many selective SAT-optional schools. I can't imagine not wanting to run the numbers for at least a few years, to see if, in fact, an "SAT-blind" policy has changed the types of student admitted; and for all their faults, I'd want standardized test scores (particularly the writing prompts, the only bit of writing that students have to do unaided) as at least one metric in putting together that picture. It's interesting to read what Michele Myers cites as "evidence" that the policy has not changed the caliber of student:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our two years' experience with this practice has been very good. Faculty members report that our students continue to be terrific. Their average high school grades, high school ranks and grades in Advanced Placement courses have not changed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems to me that now--since students for whom good test scores provided that extra tip in an otherwise borderline decision are not as likely to be admitted to SLC--high school grades, ranks, etc. should track higher. </p>
<p>I was infuriated at USNews when I saw Myers's op-ed piece, but now, it seems that she was less than aforthright about USNew's somewhat flexible stand; SLC seems to have been blindsided by a response from USNews that they should have forseen years ago, when they formulated the policy; and the president's remarks suggest that the policy has no formal evaluation procedure in place to see if "SAT-blind" is working. I'm just not as sympathetic now; there's enough blame to go all around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SLC seems to have been blindsided by a response from USNews that they should have forseen years ago
[/quote]
By response, you mean the 200 point drop in reported SAT scores USNew plans? How would anyone reasonable have anticipated that? This furor will dissipate when USNews chooses a more reasonable number to report.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Spade, and others in the field, have a big problem with knock-offs. When police raided a huge cache of Spade bag knock-offs the inventory was all sent to Spade after trial. The Spade employees were apparently very impressed with ... the quality ...of the ... knock-offs.
[/quote]
This handbag analogy highlights for me what is one of the most pernicious effects of the rankings.</p>
<p>The colleges ranked 50, 80, 120, even 300+ can and do offer quality educations. But the USN&WR rankings, in offering a convenient <em>sorting</em> mechanism, feed (cause?) the tendency to relegate any but the top 25 or so to "knock-off" status as though they are somehow bogus, wanna-be, counterfeits of the Real Thing, a quality education which can only be delivered by the sacred and holy few.</p>
<p>Other handy guidebooks avoid this to a great extent. Princeton's top 361 (or whatever #), Ruggs, etc. All offer the convenient thumbnail sketches, shorthand info on selectivity, sorts by programs offered... Sure they have their flaws. BUT: They don't have the chutzpah to claim the ability to distinguish the 4th best from the 9th best or the 43rd best from the 56th best.</p>
<p>Sure USN&WR footnotes, disclaims and reveals their "methodology." The methodology is an afterthought. A post-hoc effort to document the "science" involved. For all we know, they jigger with the weights until they get the results they want. </p>
<p>True, the buyer should beware. And "if they don't like the rankings, don't use them." But the rankings are a major, if the not the only, player in creating the monster that is college admissions stress today with colleges and universities begging our kids to apply in huge numbers so they can reject them and have higher selectivity ratings.</p>
<p>Thanks Sly for backing my theory. Always look to money as the first reason and figure the likely motives. You will be right more often than not. In the words of a tv show--Myth Busted.</p>
<p>Okay. SLC does not want to use SAT scores. Fair enough.
It does not want to be dropped from the USN&WR rankings because it wants to maintain visibility. Fair enough.
It does not want USN&WR ro report SAT scores 200 points below the reported scores of SLC's peer group. This is fair enough, too, except that a peer group implies some sort of rankings.</p>
<p>So where would SLC like to be ranked? And based on what criteria? What is SLC's peer group?</p>
<p>Why isn't SLC's peer group the same as it was before they stopped using SAT scores?</p>
<p>Marite, look at Bates. Only 50.4% of the students used SAT scores in their applications (fall 2006 matriculants). Is USNWR going to take 200 points off the average SAT score for the people that didn't report scores; thereby, cutting Bates' average SAT scores by 100 points. Bates would probably drop in the rankings. For those that like to use SAT scores, Bates wouldn't look as good. </p>
<p>Why not?</p>
<p>
[quote]
By response, you mean the 200 point drop in reported SAT scores USNew plans? How would anyone reasonable have anticipated that? This furor will dissipate when USNews chooses a more reasonable number to report.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The methodology staff of USNews meet regularly with institutional research officers from colleges and universities, and the colleges get much more info about the methodology than USNews publishes for the average consumer. Anyone competent in higher ed knows that there is a penalty for data lines that are not reported.</p>