For most public universities, the weight that was given to test scores is likely to be shifted to grades, as they aren’t equipped to be as holistic as the top privates, simply because the amount of resources they have relative to the large number of applications they receive. Even for the most highly resourced privates, it’s inconceivable that the weight that was given to test scores will be entirely shifted to ECs, LoRs, etc. with no additional weight given to grades. So in all cases, grades will play a much bigger role.
3 Likes
1 Like
Are you saying prep school kids should have an advantage in college admissions?
Which privilege deserves a greater advantage in admissions: the wealthy suburban school, or the prep?
Happy to answer your questions right after you show me a specific school profile of a prep school giving away As “like turkey sandwiches” such that you keep referencing to be the norm.
Rampant grade inflation and easy As at prep schools is a foundational and recurring theme in your posts but I still haven’t seen an actual example from you. Thanks.
3 Likes
I think think there will be two tracks in the future. I don’t think the big state schools can assemble a class of the caliber they want without test schools. GPA by itself will not be enough to work with in a grade inflation environment where all the applicants have 3.5 or better GPA and 5+ APs. These schools are admitting 8 to 12 thousand a year. Those schools are also more STEM and “trade” oriented in fields like business, and the schools just can’t take the risk that students don’t have the math background they need without using tests. They may remain TO, but a clear preference will exist for those that provide tests. I think the U of Cal system will revisit their test blind decision within 5 years.
Smaller private schools can pull off TO because they are assembling smaller classes and they can just lean into privilege, sprinkling in a bit of diversity to throw off our scent, although I expect the more STEM focused schools like Carnegie Mellon to continue to prefer tests as a check.
Do first gen candidates deserve an admissions advantage over children of teachers, cops or civil servants, who went into fields that require or prefer college degrees, but don’t generally enable those in the field to generate a significant net worth?
2 Likes
I agree with this 100%.
If I wanted my kids to spend their formative years hanging out with a bunch of kids of privilege, I would have joined a country club.
I went to a top business school, and there is no way I would have quit my job and paid the equivalent of two years salary at the time to attend the school, if I was not convinced that the student body met demanding standards and I would get a great experience from going to the school.
Test optional at selective LACs is not a new concept. According to Fairtest.org tracking, half of the USNWR top 100 LACs were test optional in 2016. A few have been test optional for decades. So we can compare how much reported test scores increased at test optional LACs to peer LACs that were test required.
I selected the following test optional colleges as a sample. I chose the following top ~35 USNWR ranked colleges that were test optional (not test flexible) throughout the past >15 years., are co-ed, and are not especially religious or specialty schools – Bowdoin, Bates, Mount Holyoke, and Pitzer. I compared with the LACs ranked as close as possible in USNWR that were test required prior to COVID, which is Wellesley, Macalster, Kenyon, and Bucknell. During the 10 year period from 2009 to 2019, the median test score increase was near identical between these test optional and test required colleges. There were some outliers, such as Pitzer, which had an extremely rapid score increase. I’m guessing the rapid score increase involves a change in institutional priorities. And at the other end of the spectrum, the oldest test optional college (Bowdoin) was the one with least score change over the 10 year period – only 10-20 points.
I’m sure you could find a different group of colleges that had smaller or larger increases, but the point is, I don’t see evidence of test scores tending to spiral out of control at colleges that have been test optional for >15 years. Instead it looks more like the test optional colleges tend to have a similar type of score range and similar degree of score increase as the test required colleges, in this limited sample. Total portion reporting in scores in CDS also didn’t generally have large changes over this period, although many colleges had a switch from submitting SAT to ACT.
2009-> 2019 SAT Scores at Not Recently Test Optional Colleges
Bowdoin – 1320/1500 → 1330/1520
Bates – 1260/1410 → 1270/1480
Mount Holyoke – 1210/1450 → 1270/1490
Pitzer (2012) – 1170/1390 → 1348/1480
Median Increase = +35 / +55
2009-> 2019 SAT Scores at Formerly Test Required Colleges
Wellesley – 1280/1470 → 1360/1530
Macalaseter – 1290/1450 → 1320/1510
Kenyon – 1230/1400 → 1270/1460
Bucknell – 1230/1400 → 1255/1430
Median Increase = +35 / +60
2 Likes
Did you all see this thread on Twitter in which Connecticut College contacted an applicant who submitted a 1320 SAT and suggested that he withdraw the score from his application? The Dean of Admission/Fin Aid confirmed that they were doing this to “maximize their chances of admission and scholarship.”
https://twitter.com/ConnCollAndy/status/1470430913934675976
I have no idea what the test score data from this year is going to mean.
1 Like
Hmmm, while I’m not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, I’ll take a shot . . . my understanding is that focusing on first generation students isn’t just aimed at families who face financial hardships, it is also aimed at breaking through into demographics where there are significant social, cultural, and educational barriers which are somewhat unique to families and communities where few if any have gone to college in the past.
With regard to children of teachers, police officers, civil servants, it seems that while they may be in need of (and deserve) financial support, they don’t necessarily face the same sort of cultural, social, and educational barriers. But maybe I am mistaken. Are there studies out there that show that children of teachers, civil servants, and law enforcement are unlikely to even seriously consider college? Do they face the same sort of hurdles, other than the financial hurdles?
As for who “deserves” what, that’s up to the colleges, isn’t it?
Not sure I understand this comment? If avoiding kids of privilege was a guiding principle what did you do besides not joining a country club and how does this relate to test optional admissions?
The increase in first gen students being accepted to colleges is a specific data point cited as a benefit of TO policies. While I think that is a correlation without causation, the fact that it is cited as a benefit itself is a bit puzzling. While admitting first gen students seems like a noble goal by itself, college admissions is a zero sum game. If those first gen students are getting let in, some other students are getting kept out. The most likely to be kept out from these targeting policies are the children of middle and working class who do not fit into a selected category of students such as first gen.
If you break down most “barriers” to success in our society, they are primarily economic. There are plenty of children who do not qualify as first gen who are certainly not the product of privilege, and have significant barriers to accessing top universities, no matter how capable these young people are. Which is why I think the fact that the test opponents cite a category such “first gen” as evidence of the wonderfulness of eliminating testing to be a disingenuous statement. Why is this a benefit of TO at all? And if the benefit of this particular program may seem like a good thing but actually is of questionable value, why do test opponents always cite it?
While not in marketing, I have spent quite a bit of my career around marketing, and I am familiar with a lot of the standard tactics of that field. Citing a benefit that is maybe not a benefit as supporting evidence for whatever the marketer is trying to sell has been done since the beginning of time.
1 Like
This is a “drop the mic” kind of tweet, isn’t it? It basically burns every single TO argument right to the ground. The school is blatantly trying to game the rankings and its own marketing message, and doesn’t want to have to include relatively “weak” test scores. If they did this to one applicant, than they have probably done it to many more. I think we have the true rationale for TO.
This is more disappointing than anything, and really shows how far higher education has moved from truly educating our young people, and towards a cycle of self-aggrandizement among the more “exclusive” colleges.
1 Like
Those are significant increases at colleges, particularly given how far to the right end of the distribution curve these schools started. if you set the benchmark as 1400, then a 60 point move is over 25%. Even your own unsourced data shows exactly what test proponents said was going to happen is already happening.
Putting aside the TO argument, high test scores have been proliferating for years. In the last decade the number of SAT/ACT test takers scoring a 1400+ or 31+ has doubled - meanwhile the average test score hasn’t budged. What that suggests to me is that the proliferation of test prep (including private tutoring), super scoring and kids taking the test 3,4, 5 times is having an impact. Like with grade inflation, it makes it harder to stand out in a sea of very high scores.
3 Likes
College admissions in total is not a zero sum game as most colleges accept most applicants, there is plenty of excess capacity. Of course, it is a zero sum game at selective institutions (which again are not most schools).
How so? Test scores are only 5% of USNWR rankings (and test scores are not a factor in some other rankings). Further, if less than 50% of matriculants applied TO, USNWR assesses a 15% penalty: “ if the combined percentage of the fall 2020 entering class submitting test scores was less than 50% of all new entrants, its combined SAT/ACT percentile distribution value used in the rankings was discounted by 15%.”
I am not supporting Andy Strickler’s practices, and he is taking it on the chin right now in the admissions and college counseling worlds.
This student is the same student with or without test scores. And to tie merit, and higher merit at that, to not reporting a test score is beyond ridiculous. Said differently, this applicant if accepted would be penalized monetarily for reporting a score. I expect Conn College to change their practices by next year. Maybe today even.
This deserves a separate reply. If the colleges want to become a Cool Kid’s Club of privileged prep school grads, then they should feel free to do so. My issue is the hypocrisy of a process that claims to be about merit but is really about who has the resources to better play the system. Schools that create a process steeped in privilege, then imply that those rejected weren’t good enough, are begging to be knocked down a few pegs.
I have spent my career in markets, and I have a lot of faith and confidence in markets to discipline entities that are dishonest, overpriced, and/or selling inferior products. Many institutions in higher education are doing a lot of all of those things, and many of these schools are poised to be taken down a few pegs. The schools that continue to truly educate their customers will continue to succeed. The ones that are hiding an increasingly archaic educational product behind reputation and tradition will eventually be exposed.
I said:
That is different than what was quoted. The statement stands on its own and does not need further explanation.
Mr. Strickler committed the unpardonable crime of getting caught. The fact that he is taking it on the chin for doing something most selective colleges, particularly the smaller ones, are doing is a second or third derivative level of hypocrisy that makes it even more entertaining.
Do you have a source for this statement?
IME, many people have never seen an applicant asked to change their status from ‘consider my test’ to TO in order to qualify for for merit/discount.