<p>The truth---no made-up figures---would be a good start. Why has no one answered the question about how they've been factoring SATs for SLC for the past three years?</p>
<p>
[quote]
what criteria should be used by USN&WR?
[/quote]
I think the question would be: What weighting of the criteria should be used by USN&WR? Would the "public" tolerate any criteria or weighting that did not put HYP and the other Ivies on top? Doesn't USN&WR have to do this to have any sales, to be believeable by the "public"?</p>
<p>ProudDad, we've discussed that already. USNews will drop a school's SAT score down one standard deviation within the peer group once they fail to submit SAT data for 50% of its students. Others have posted on this thread that studies of SAT scores at similar schools who are SAT optional show that the students who don't submit SAT scores for admission consideration actually ARE a standard deviation below those students who do submit scores. (Is anyone surprised by this? Could the USNews methodology be creating a truly representational score after all?) Some SAT optional schools do the right thing and submit SAT data on ALL their students to USNews, not just the data of those who chose to submit the scores during admissions because they would obviously show the candidate in a favorable light.</p>
<p>Here's my post #222:
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bottom line is this: SL could collect the data & store it in a mayonaise jar, not to be opened until admissions decisions are made, and THEN release it to USNews. They won't, because they know full well that the SAToptional policy has resulted in a student body with lower SAT scores. SL contends that SAT scores have no bearing on student quality & they are entitled to their opinion. USNews, and the thousands of families who buy it, feel differently.</p>
<p>Vossron:</p>
<p>good point. I'd subsumed weighting in the criteria.</p>
<p>"They won't, because they know full well that the SAToptional policy has resulted in a student body with lower SAT scores."</p>
<p>THEY DON'T HAVE AN SAT OPTIONAL POLICY.</p>
<p>Potato tomato. You know full well what the poster meant.</p>
<p>No, I don't, just as I can't imagine how they are to be expected to supply data that they don't have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
THEY DON'T HAVE AN SAT OPTIONAL POLICY.
[/quote]
I'm aware of that. No need to yell.</p>
<p>They did have the optional. Now they don't even collect it. A difference without a distinction for the purposes of the USNews ranking. If SL would benefit in any way by reporting the data, they would surely collect it. They know their rank would fall if the SATs were included, so instead they put on this sanctimonious front, bemoaning the policy that puts them at a disadvantage. Very sneaky. But very transparent.</p>
<p>This seems pretty clear cut. It is totally unacceptable to assign an arbitrary SAT score just because SLC refuses to compile the data which the school deems useless.</p>
<p>I believe Reed asked to be taken off the UsNews list but to no avail. Their arbitrary ranking went down several tiers due to make up numbers.</p>
<p>SLC could request the scores for statistical purposes after admission. There are several ways they could get the data--if they wanted but Sticker nails it.</p>
<p>Mount Holyoke, Bowdoin, Bates, etc. have optional policies, and USNEWS uses the SAT data they report. (By the way, Mt. Holyoke actually studied this question, and did NOT find that those they accepted without SAT scores actually had lower SAT scores than those they accepted - so the entire hypothesis is questionable, and there isn't necessarily anything sneaky about it.) But it isn't optional at SLC, and they don't have the data.</p>
<p>At my d's school, SATs aren't optional, though the school de-emphasized their use. The previous president had a committee of faculty, administration, and admissions study two questions: 1) Was there a correlation between SAT scores of students admitted and their subsequent performance; and 2) Did the use of SAT scores mitigate against the school's historic commitment to economic diversity? The report came back with a resounding "No" and "Yes". The result is that they now use the scores as a floor (to ensure students can do the work), and for the very few merit awards they give out (since they know they are competing against schools that use them the same way.) But a result is that this commitment has a price - they have between two and three times as many Pell Grant recipients as LACs in the same tier, and a higher number of middle quintile ($40k-$67k) students, the result being, you guessed it, lower USNWR ranking that takes account of neither. The pres. of the college says this is a price they are more than willing to pay.</p>
<p>But SLC is doing something very different.</p>
<p>"The pres. of the college says this is a price they are more than willing to pay."</p>
<p>but here we have a president who is not willing to pay the price.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why has no one answered the question about how they've been factoring SATs for SLC for the past three years?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is just a guess, but Myers's Op-Ed piece said that SLC has been NO-SAT for 2 years. The data in USNews is always at least 2 admissions cycles behind (2008 edition will contain data for the class admitted in spring of 2006, etc.), so this fall is probably only the second year that this has been an issue. For the 2007 edition, US News has a footnote explaining that they used data from a previous year, presumably 2004. Was SLC still test-optional for the entering class of 2004? </p>
<p>I have a related question: what was the policy before the "NO-SAT"? I was wondering why SLC, almost alone among Eastern LACs, reported ACT scores rather than SAT scores in the recent editions of USNews.</p>
<p>Before dispensing with the SATs, SLC went through a period of being test-optional as to the SAT I, but requiring the SAT II's. It is possible that they accepted ACT in lieu of SAT II during that period. </p>
<p>I had no problem in the last admission cycle pulling ACT data on a large number of east coast LAC's -- that would have been summer & fall of 2005. I think I would have used US News as my primary source of info, as they are the only ones that provide the info in a fairly easy to access chart form -- other sources would require me to look up the info one college at a time, which I am sure I did later on to fill in gaps in my own research. I've got a chart I made of colleges on my d's "long" list (the list I compiled of possible schools to give her as a starting point, based on her criteria and interests). The chart I made shows ACT scores for Williams, Middlebury, Amherst, Barnard, Wesleyan, Vassar, Colgate, Wesleyan, etc. - so whether US News now reports it or not, that data does exist for a large number of east coast LACs.</p>
<p>StickerShock, the problem with your rationale is that if a college is test-optional, there is an incentive for students to score above median for that college to submit their scores, and an equal incentive for applicants who score below median to withhold them. So the applicant pool is going to be made up of a wide range of scorers, with data weighted toward the upper end. </p>
<p>However, if a college does not consider or accept SAT scores, then there is no incentive or factors at all that influences the makeup of the applicant pool. The pool is going to continue to have a wide range of scorers -- but there is no reason for high scorers to submit scores, and a financial disincentive for them to do so. (Why pay CB to send scores to a school that won't look at it?) -- </p>
<p>No one is going to be deterred from applying to a college because scores are not considered, except perhaps students with very poor academic records who are resting their college admission hopes on the idea that they can impress an ad com with their high SAT scores. But if a kid has a 2300 on the SAT and wants Sarah Lawrence, the fact that SLC doesn't want their test scores isn't going to stop them from applying. No test-optional schools have seen any fall off in applications. </p>
<p>So the applicant pool is going to stay as broad as it was with a test-optional policy.</p>
<p>MarathonMan,</p>
<p>Thank you. I see StickerShock didn't really understand that my question had not been answered. Your answer sounds plausible with stats being two-cycles behind. It makes sense. What StickerShock claims as fact is the PROPOSAL from the College Board as to how to handle SATs for non-reporting schools next year. Nothing was said about how it has been done the past two (or three, as you see from some of my previously posted personal experiences).</p>
<p>"did NOT find that those they accepted without SAT scores actually had lower SAT scores than those they accepted -</p>
<p>"1) Was there a correlation between SAT scores of students admitted and their subsequent performance; "</p>
<p>I am a little confused here mini. If ignoring the SAT scores of admits results in admits with exactly the same SAT scores and there is not correlation between SAT scores and subsequent performance then it would appear they are making just as bad selections without SAT scores as they are with them since they are comming up with the same group of admits either way.</p>
<p>As this thread unfolds, I go back and forth. Right now I think that the SLC detractors have one thing right: as a matter of raw data, SLC probably is admitting entering classes with overall mean standardized test scores below their overlaps. </p>
<p>But I also think that their supporters have another key point right: SLC's educational approach is unique in a way that renders standardized testing far less relavant to predicting academic success than it would be at a more conventional institution. </p>
<p>The question that I now find myself pondering is this (okay, I admit it's rhetorical): is it a good thing for one ranking to have the power to skewer a superb educational institution on the horns of this dilemma: do you do what makes educational sense at the cost of endangering your yield, bond ratings, alumni relations, et al.?</p>
<p>You know what, kuddos to Sarah Lawrence for doing their own thing. That's all I can say. Anyone who completely and absolutely takes USWNR seriously doesn't get the college admissions process. USWNR doesn't determine what makes a good school -- the students, parents and the schools themselves do! Why do we have to conform to what some fruity little club says? No offense to USWNR, I'm sure they're a very nice fruity little club.</p>
<p>Sarah Lawrence is a GREAT school (my friend's sister goes there). I really hope some potential drop in rankings doesn't decrease the school's popularity.</p>
<p>Anybody notice the South Park reference?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No test-optional schools have seen any fall off in applications.
[/quote]
But they will have a different type of applicant. High scoring kids who value the SAT's predictive value will be less interested in the test-optional or no SATschools. They're looking for academic peers & challenge, and may question if that will be delivered by the test-optional school. Low scoring kids will view a test-optional/no SAT school as a better fit with a higher likelihood of admission. So while number of applicants may remain the same, the applicant make-up will change.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one is going to be deterred from applying to a college because scores are not considered...
[/quote]
Plenty of high scoring kids will be deterred. They will be afraid that the no SAT policy will draw a lower caliber group of students.</p>