What are the pros and cons of having test scores as the sole factor in admissions?
For example, in New York, there are 8 specialized high schools and entry to these high schools are guaranteed as long as a student earns a score above a respective school’s cutoff. NO GRADES, NO TEACHER’S REC, NOTHING. Just the test scores.
What are your opinions on this?
In my opinion:
Pro: It’s objective.
Con: Large class sizes. Top scoring students would be guaranteed admission and there would be thousands of them. (Ex. Stuyvesant, which is believed to be the best specialized school in New York, has a student to teacher ratio of 22:1)
I assume schools might institute a lottery for students with scores above a certain point. Or move the cutoff as needed to maintain a fairly consistent class size.
In many countries, college admission works this way too. It puts a lot of pressure on students to do well on that ONE test. In most of those countries, the schools just offer the academics. If you want to play sports, you do it in a city league. Students may not even live on a campus but in the city where the uni is. It is certainly an alternative. As you may guess, students prep for those tests!
As you probably know, there are kids who test into those schools in NYC and decide to stay in private schools because they want a different environment. But those schools are free and geared to high achieving students, so are a really valuable option to many.
I agree. More than 60% of the student body at those schools come from low income communities. An education at those schools provides great opportunities out of poverty.
The assignment of any measurement is far more difficult than the assignment of a number. A number does not sanctify a result. It is important to know what the test is actually measuring. By way of example, does a high SAT result favor speed over a slower and possibly more creative process. Relatively speaking, Einstein was not an outstanding math student, but his thought experiments were very insightful and opened the door to new perspectives. Creativity seems to require the right questions. The numbers are just mechanics and we do have computers. How do we measure creative dimensions? Is one of these metrics more important than the other?
India and China are very test driven with incredibly competitive university admission. How many Einsteins don’t get to attend?
The much broader US system with so many options may actually have some advantages, but both money and testing limit options.
Reminds me of the classic article “On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B”.
Reward high test scores with admission and you get…good test takers…period. A college does not necessary get what it was hoping for…intelligent, hard-working, empathetic, charitable, community oriented individuals and future thinkers, doers and leaders. Those things come from a more holistic approach.
However, there is good evidence to suggest that an objective, quantitative approach IS better than just eyeballing applications (including essays) and conducting interviews. Not just standardized test scores, but a scorecard that quantifies other characteristics that are important and currently only considered in a qualitative manner.
@retiredfarmer I said that it’s objective because it’s a standardized test. Students are tested on a standard. This is opposed to what boarding school and college admissions does. They are more subjective. Admissions officers select students based on how they feel about the student.
The SHSAT ( Specialized High School Admissions Test ) doesn’t necessarily test a student’s creativity. But then again, that’s not what the tests were made for.
^in most cases, these schools know that you will need the kinds of skills their test tests to be successful. It doesn’t mean smartest, most creative, hardest working. But it does, for the most part, fill the school with kids who have what it will take to succeed there. Does it miss a few (either way)? Probably.
The measure of success in college is generally accepted as completion of the program. Using simple linear regressions on a college population we can test the relationship between the standardized test score and the college GPA. The variance in the collective entrance exam test score should correlate with the variance in the college GPA. We used to call these validity test.
My recollection was that the standardized test relationship was best in year one, weaker in year two and irrelevant by year three. The relationship between secondary school GPA variance and college GPA variance did not drop out as a predictor. Is it possible that a significant population of motivated students are learning how to learn? That is why colleges are looking for other ways to identify the motivation that leads to successful completion of their program. The standardized test scores are not supplying a sufficient answer.
At Harvard & Co, there is no variance so they can’t even run a test.
@YoungThriver - isn’t NYC’s High School of Performing Arts admissions based on an audition, as well? High School of Performing Arts (The “Fame” school”) is all about creativity. That is one of the highly selective schools - some could say that it discriminates against untalented students.
I actually go to one of these NYC specialized high schools (not gonna mention here but not hard to figure out by digging through my profile) and this topic actually came up during one of my interviews. 99% of students are intelligent. Of course you have those one or two kids per grade that don’t care at all, but they are nationally recognized schools for a reason. In addition, teachers are some of the best as well. Class size is indeed huge, at 34 kids in each class (most a NYC DOE teacher is legally allowed to teach under contract). Big difference I noticed, as a student of a specialized high school and one applying to Boarding school, is that students in specialized high schools are often times one dimensional (aka no personality). They seek to get high grades and basically just do something for the sake of putting it on their college app. I’m sure there are some kids like this at BS, but I feel like there are probably a lot less due to both the admissions process and the facilities a BS can provide. One of the reasons I am applying to BS is bc I feel like I do not fit this one dimensional mold at my specialized high school and could do so much more with my time and personality at BS. Feel free to ask any questions.
In addition, take this the way you want, but specialized hs average SAT and matriculations rival those of top BS such as Andover and Exeter. Stuy and Bronx Science average SAT’s are 1470 and 1410 respectively, while Andover’s is 1460 and Exeter’s is 1430 (retrieved from Niche)
Just because Niche (or prepscholar or fill-in-the-blank) says it does not make it accurate. Neither Andover nor Exeter reports an average SAT on a 1600 scale; they both report an average EBRW and average math and you can’t just add them together. Stuyvesant reports a middle 50% as 1470-1540 and you cant just average those 2 numbers. Bx Science I cold not quickly find. But bottom line, niche is assuming facts not in evidence.
@ThomasBr I’ve read many articles about Stuyvesant, which is hailed to be the best. Why is supposedly the best? Is it because they have the highest cutoff score?
According to an article, many students at Stuyvesant are hell-bent on receiving top marks to the point where they’d resort to cheating. Have you found this to be the case at your school?
Has any of the students at your school express concerns about the possibility SHSAT being removed as the sole determining factor into these schools? What is the student body’s overall attitude of this?
@skieurope where’d you find those scores for Stuy? They seem pretty high. Also, I know Niche is not accurate, I was just using it as a general baseline.
@YoungThriver Stuy is hailed to be the best, mostly because of the highest cutoff score. It is usually what most students see as the holy grail of NYC high schools (of course, this is very generalized). Stuy usually has more kids put it as their first choice, due to factors such as higher cutoff score (which students and parents often believe means a better school) and location (downtown Manhattan vs Bronx Science which is in a pretty remote part of the Bronx). I myself go to Bronx Science (don’t feel the need to conceal it anymore, it’s already out in the open anyway). Cheating is definitely a normal occurrence at BxSci, but not to the extent that Stuy was in the papers for a few years ago. It’s more of a light tap to your friend who sits next you asking them to see what the answer to #14 on the test was when the teacher isn’t looking, not a massive ring.
If there’s one thing the student body is generally united on, it’s Mayor DeBlasio’s approach to get rid of the SHSAT. It’s not so much the fact that it’s the only admission standard, but moreso what he wants to replace it with. DeBlasio wants to make it so that URMs with scores below the cutoff will be admitted. Students work hard to achieve the scores they do, and it shows. The way to get more URM representment is not to make the test easier for them. Should DeBlasio have proposed to fund low cost or free SHSAT prep for low-income middle schools, I’m sure he would not receive this backlash. If students who scored below the cutoff are admitted based solely on their race, this would take spots from those who did score high enough.
In regards to your last question, I did not take the SSAT, I used PSAT for both years I applied to BS.
I think test-in public magnets really appeal to immigrants, too. Other countries don’t have “holistic” admissions. Their universities admit students based on academic qualifications alone and don’t care if you also play volleyball and sing madrigals at a retirement home. There is also the appeal of knowing exactly what it takes to be admitted (high scores!) and being able to prepare for that… and knowing that you can’t be discriminated against based on race or national origin as long as you ace the test.
Also good if you can’t afford to participate in a bunch of pricey ECs. I realize test prep can get expensive but from our experience the lower cost method was more effective anyway.