<p>ProudDad, I really think you are too invested in this topic & are not thinking rationally. You seem to be interpreting criticism of Myers as a criticism of your D. I don't know how else to explain your failure to comprehend this quote from 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." </p>
<p>Of course it is a proposal:
[quote]
He said he could not think of another institution where he had to propose this approach because around two-thirds of applicants at SAT-optional colleges submit scores and U.S. News will count that average as long as the percentage exceeds 50 percent.
[/quote]
SL's refusal to offer data is triggering the proposal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...do you do what makes educational sense at the cost of endangering your yield, bond ratings, alumni relations, et al.?
[/quote]
I don't think anyone who is annoyed at Myers is claiming that SL isn't unique. Nor is anyone claiming their admissions criteria should be changed to fit any other philosophy except their own. If they want the benefit of being put on the map by USNews, they should collect the SAT data to be reported AFTER the class matriculates. They won't because they fear their no-SAT policy will be shown to create a weker class when measured by SAT scores. If they truly believe SATs are not predictive, then the rank derived in part by SAT scores is meaningless. So why all the grandstanding?</p>
<p>
[quote]
do you do what makes educational sense at the cost of endangering your yield, bond ratings, alumni relations, et al.?
[/quote]
That's exactly the issue in a nutshell. </p>
<p>I think SLC will follow the route that makes educational sense: it is more important for them to pull in the type of engaged, independent-minded students who make their program work -- and standardized testing is not only useless in their admission process, but it probably deters some of the best-fit candidates from applying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...standardized testing is not only useless in their admission process, but it probably deters some of the best-fit candidates from applying.
[/quote]
I'd agree that the best-fit kids might be scared off by SATs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If they want the benefit of being put on the map by USNews, they should collect the SAT data to be reported AFTER the class matriculates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's equally possible to believe that USNews, faced with a new admissions practice, should rethink its selectivity methodology so that it fairly reflects that practice; it seems backward that the onus is on colleges to rethink their practices so that they reflect the rankings methodology. (Of course the power of the rankings makes the latter the reality on the ground for a lot more than just admissions policies, and that's the root problem.)</p>
<p>I'd concede that Myers's overblown rhetoric of "made up" numbers and falsified data was not a constructive way to frame the issue. I'd also admit that I find it ill-advised that SLC does not want to collect standardized test data for institutional research purposes, at least for a few years, so that they can assess their policy, but that's not the issue here.</p>
Certainly your opinion and it doesn't surprise me you still don't get it. SLC hasn't had SAT information on its current freshmen, sophomores, or juniors. My question was what have they been using for the past three years? I'm not less than objective because of my ties; more so if anything. My D was turned down by SLC despite SAT scores high enough for NMSQT Finalist honors and admission to three of USNews' top twenty-five colleges and universities. The fact that she goes there now, thrives there, and loves the Kool-aid Myers is serving up as SLC's philosophy of eduction is simply anecdotal information that refutes much of you and others say in your defamatory comments on SLC and its applicants and students that you can't support with fact or stats. </p>
<p>The simple question that still goes unanswered that seems to infuriate you about me is what was USNews using for data in the last three years? Data only from the class of 2007? That was my point. Myers said "no data". Previous to that they only had old data. So what's USNews been using? I think MarathonMan came closest to a rational assumption. </p>
<p>SLC can defend itself through its graduates. If you don't like that kind of eduction, don't go there. But to simply assume those who are intrigued or excited by the conference style, no major requirements, and thoughtful assessments instead of A-B-Cs are always those who perform at a lower level on standardized tests is unproven, disingenuous, and has little basis in fact. I propose those of you so locked into SAT performance are the ones who can't deal with this thread objectively enough to be "rational". I've experience both sides. My opinion and questions are at least as important on this thread as yours.</p>
<p>ProudDad -- What defamatory comments on SLC??? I've only criticized Myers, not SL. </p>
<p>
[quote]
...are always those who perform at a lower level on standardized tests...
[/quote]
Who said always? We're talking about average scores. Do you not understand that? Your D is one data point. One anecdote. Her scores don't refute ANYTHING! </p>
<p>
[quote]
I propose those of you so locked into SAT performance are the ones who can't deal with this thread objectively enough to be "rational".
[/quote]
This thread has nothing to do with my opinion of the value of SATs. (I've never stated it, by the way, so you have no idea what it is.) Or any other poster's opinion on SATs. It is clearly about the disingenuous tactics of Myers, who is threatened by the USNews ranking methodology because SL does not fit that mold. She simply can't boast about the school's uniqueness, and then whine about a quantitatve ranking system, and expect the methodology to be adjusted to suit her.</p>
<p>You've missed the point again. Myers objects to fabricating scores to fill a data entry in the manner in which USNews has proposed. I still want to know what they've been using for SLC's SAT scores for the past three years where they have ranked them and no scores have been available. Pretty simple.</p>
<p>That presumes going on for a PhD really signifies anything. Many grads of the eilte LACs might prefer lucrative careers in law, banking, medical school, etc. One could say that getting a PhD is nearly irrational as it leads to lower income than many other graduate degrees.</p>
<p>Obviously. It's all about, "How do you spell SUCCESS?"
But then it has been those here other than yulsie who have proposed PhD rate as being of highest significance in "ranking" colleges. This is just another exception to disprove the assumption of tautology made by others.</p>
<p>To suggest that a PhD candidate is motivated by money is certainly irrational! :) They're more likely motivated by a desire to do cutting-edge research or to teach college students.</p>
<p>its fricken lame, some people actually study for the SATs, if you study for the SATs, then you miss time to study school work. If I never had to look at SATs, then I bet my GPA would be higher.</p>
<p>"and standardized testing is not only useless in their admission process, but it probably deters some of the best-fit candidates from applying."</p>
<p>The problem with the high-minded anti-SAT holistic approach is it makes it difficult to evaluate students from backgrounds that don't fit their mold -- like rural Southerners. Everything on SLC's approved list is mushy and subjective. The SAT/ACT score is not the be-all end-all, but it's perhaps the only halfway-reliable way for a student from West Fencepost, Kentuckiana to stand out. Grades are relative, AP isn't universal, and ECA opportunities can be limited. Optional SATs are fine. Ignoring them borders on an elitist smokescreen.</p>
<p>You don't know a darn thing about Sarah Lawrence, do you?</p>
<p>A rural Southerner who writes really well, and has good grades will probably get in. SLC doesn't care how the grades compare -- they have the grades, they have a graded writing sample so they can see a sample of what sort of work passes muster at the school, and they have the essays. If you are William Faulkner born again, you've got it made. </p>
<p>It's kind of like the selection process for getting a book published. The publisher wants to see a manuscript, not your SAT score. You can brag all you want about your SAT writing score, but neither the publisher nor the Sarah Lawrence ad com gives a rat's ass about what some outside company thinks of your writing ability -- they prefer to make the judgment themselves.</p>
<p>See, I'd tinker the system to rank colleges by percentage of graduates that go on to either graduate or professional school. Cover both sets of bases.</p>
<p>* You can brag all you want about your SAT writing score, but neither the publisher nor the Sarah Lawrence ad com gives a rat's ass about what some outside company thinks of your writing ability -- they prefer to make the judgment themselves. *</p>
<p>But they do care about what U. S. News is writing about them enough for the president of SLC to write an op-ed for the Post! </p>
<p>My point isn't that SLC's decision to end reliance on testing is "wrong", it's that refusing to even consider it as a data point at all ignores the fact that everything else on their list of acceptance materials can also be manipulated or subjectively interpreted. The defects in using test scores as a judgement basis have always been evident, that's why schools require transcripts and essays and interviews and all the other things SLC also does. It's just not trendy to bash, say, ECA lists (yet).</p>
<p>* I still want to know what they've been using for SLC's SAT scores for the past three years where they have ranked them and no scores have been available. Pretty simple *</p>
<p>An ACT range of 25-30. Footnote [4] in the USNews table says "Data reported to U.S. News in previous years." In other words, they assumed nothing had changed, which according to the president, it hasn't.</p>
<p>So we have three primary "ability" indicators:</p>
<ul>
<li>Application essays and graded writing samples</li>
<li>GPA</li>
<li>Standardized test scores</li>
</ul>
<p>Kids are different and schools are different; the kids just need to be matched with the right schools.</p>
<p>SLC may not pick up the 1600/2400 SAT student with a lowish GPA and good (not great) writing, but a school that values such a profile will, and there are such top schools.</p>
<p>Schools should cultivate different identities, including admission parameters; how boring if they were all alike and "different" students had no place to go.</p>