These colleges may graduate them, but only in majors that are designed for them. We’re already hearing complaints (and yes, studies) about some colleges setting up barriers (e.g. minimum GPA) to declare certain majors. The studies found those barriers discriminatory.
2 Likes
I think you make some extremely thought provoking and valid points. I would highlight that the most elite schools tend to have the highest graduation rates contrary to claims of becoming “Cool Kid’s Club of privileged prep school grads”.
The current vetting process does seem to ensure the students are both academically viable and economically supported even as the student populations have become more diverse at the upper most tier of schools. The system is flawed in many ways but does work in this regard.
In this extremely limited sample, SAT scores increased by a similar median rate at test optional and test required colleges, as the colleges become more selective. And that rate of score increase was not far from the concordance adjustments listed at the CollegeBoard. For example, you mentioned 1400, so I’ll use that score as an example. According to the concordance table at https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/higher-ed-brief-sat-concordance.pdf at 1340 on the old SAT corresponds to a 1400 on the new SAT – a 60 point increase just for taking the new format test. You think this is exactly what “test proponents” said was going to happen?
1 Like
How did this start in the first place? And why were they seen to be necessary to introduce?
This is precisely the argument that those who oppose reliance of standardized test scores have been making for years. The only difference is one of tense.
- Elite colleges have always been “a Cool Kid’s Club of privileged prep school grads.”
- There has always been hypocrisy in “a process that claims to be about merit but is really about who has the resources to better play the system.”
- Elite colleges have always had a process “a process steeped in privilege” while implying “that those rejected weren’t good enough.”
Test scores are the core of all of the above. There is ample evidence that
- Test scores heavily favor “privileged prep school grads.”
- Test scores heavily favor those who “have the resources to better play the system.”
- Test scores are a core element of “a process steeped in privilege” which draws dubious distinctions between those who have the resources to succeed and those who do not.
It is a fox in the henhouse scenario. Test scores not only fail to protect the under-privileged, test scores devour the under-privileged. The more weight test scores are given in admissions, the more the privileged will continue to dominate in admissions.
2 Likes
I am just curious how these arguments will apply to immigrants like me. On one hand I completely understand luck/less of opportunities and inability to compete with wealthy counterparts for underprivileged kids. On the other hand, we are first generation of immigrants. Did not even know the language when moving to this country. Did not have any support system. Built everything from scratch. Our kid got ACT score 36 on her test from the first try. Our income currently doesn’t qualify us for any Fin Aid (full pay). From any statistic and arguments presented in this thread, my kid is privileged and her scores are not representing her abilities but rather her privilege. Removing tests as means of accessing kids abilities will certainly not benefit her from my personal perspective. So are we taking kids of immigrants out of the conversation? By personal anecdotes I am witnessing in immigrants community, kids tend to do better on these test due to heavy emphasis on education, regardless of level of education of parents or bank account. How do we account for that in admissions process then?
8 Likes
That’s what I was trying to capture in my post above (number 378 on this thread).
Under the system I envisioned, your child would both be able to submit her high one-time test score for consideration and her teachers could highlight that she overcame challenges as an immigrant. (That could be one of the categories on the survey: overcoming challenges, such as immigrant experience, disability, low household income, etc.)
They make people feel good, they’re addictive, and most importantly, they help make a lot more money for the testing companies, not unlike other addictive substances. Are they necessary? No.
1 Like
Admissions criteria that favor privilege, in order of favoring privilege:
- Quality of high school
- ECs
- Number of APs and Honors classes available to students
- GPA inflation
- Test scores
There is literally no way for a middle or working class kid from a middle or working class town to overcome the disadvantages of 1 through 4 in my list above except with 5. Well, I guess soon there will be no way at all.
3 Likes
My child did not overcome any challenges. My husband and I did. She always had shelter, food, water and educational opportunities. Without her last name that can indicate her being a child of immigrants nothing else does and one might assume she got her scores because she was brought up in wealthy environment and had the opportunities of top 10%. The fact that we are immigrants with currently high income was brought in to try to illustrate the fact that level of income does not actually provides full picture of kid’s circumstances and should not invalidate individual kid’s accomplishments on tests based solely on income levels. While I am in complete awareness of privileges that exist based on parental income, I am against blanket rejection of the test scores. This is why you have multiple quantitative measurements you have to submit to colleges when applying. But I am also against any subjective measurements added to the college admission process (like teachers recommendations, essays) as well as volunteering, athletic accomplishments, etc. not directly related to academics of each kid. I believe this will free up kids to do what they enjoy and not what they perceive they need to do to get to certain college. But again, I grew up in a different environment so I have different ideas about goals of education.
3 Likes
I’d put letters of recommendation up above test scores too.
1 Like
When we went to the information session at Bowdoin they said that.
1 Like
First, congratulations to your family on making the most of your situation and to your daughter for her excellent test score. I agree that a deemphasis of test scores obviously wouldn’t help your daughter in particular, but hopefully the rest of her application is of equal excellence to her score, and there will be plenty of great schools who will recognize her potential regardless of whether they are test optional, test blind, or test mandatory.
Second, to clarify, I agree with you that we should not negate students’ individual accomplishments based solely on their parents’ income level. Your daughter’s accomplishments are real, whether or not she might be considered “privileged." Same goes for a student from an extremely wealthy family attending the toniest boarding school. That said, individual accomplishments may be of limited value when directly comparing students who had strikingly different access, opportunities, cultural pressures, etc.
And it is in this regard where the use of test scores gets tricky. Standardized test scores aren’t just considered “individual accomplishments” like winning a math contest or a fencing tournament, they are considered a standardized mechanism by which students from strikingly different circumstances can be compared. I think new TO/TB policies represent the colleges pushing back against this notion, with test optional schools are trying to move standardized test scores into the "individual accomplishment” category, whereas test blind schools apparently believe that even making these tests optional will do more harm than good.
Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking posts and good luck to your daughter.
4 Likes
- Colleges routinely control for the first four by viewing those applicants in context of their school.
- This doesn’t work with test scores, because when test scores are required, potentially qualified students with relatively low test scores aren’t even applying.
Also, can you provide some support for your ordering here? It is contrary to the statistics that @Data10 and others have repeatedly posted.
3 Likes
I agree. I want to also point out that ECs include things like babysitting siblings or caring for other family members, as well as jobs. Those are desirable ECs in the eyes of AOs and many low SES students do have ECs like those.
1 Like
The focus is typically on graduation rate, rather than 1st/2nd year retention. In general test optional admits and test submitter admits show approximately the same graduation rate, in spite of test optional admits averaging greater financial need and being more likely to fail to graduate for financial reasons. A summary is below from the NACAC study
2014 Sample: Average Over 20 Colleges:
Submitters: HS GPA = 3.52, SAT = 1231 ,5-year Graduation Rate = 77.1%
Non-submitters: HS GPA = 3.50, SAT = 1085, 5-year Graduation Rate = 78.8%
2018 Sample: Average Over 13 Colleges:
Submitters: HS GPA = 3.64, SAT = 1234, 5-year Graduation Rate = 82.0%
Non-submitters: HS GPA = 3.63, SAT = 1108, 5-year Graduation Rate = 82.8%
1 Like
But retention rate and graduation rate only measures students who stay at that school, right? I don’t think it differentiates between students who transfer to another school and end up completing a degree at the new school and students who drop out and don’t complete a degree.
1 Like
These sound like just personal guesses about having a higher correlation with income than scores, without any kind of supporting information. If you look at the often limited information that is available that is available, it often points to a different conclusion.
For example, LORs were mentioned. According the Harvard reader guidelines for class of 2023, Harvard rates LORs on the following scale. Kids who are accepted usually get a 1 or 2 rating. The 1 or 2 ratings associated with admission all involve a comparison to other members of the class. For example, “one of the best in many years” or “the best this year.” Attending a highly selective prep HS with a high concentration of high achieving and gifted kids often doesn’t make it easier to get a “the best this year” type LOR. Consistent with this, LORs appeared to be a relative weak point among LDC applicants to Harvard. I expect this LDC group is well correlated with income and resources.
Harvard LOR Ratings
1 . Strikingly unusual support. "The best of a career,” “one of the best in many years,”
truly over the top.
2. Very strong support. “One of the best” or “the best this year.”
3+ Well above average, consistently positive
3. Generally positive, perhaps somewhat neutral or generic
3- Somewhat neutral or slightly negative.
4. Negative or worrisome report.
2 Likes
This particular data set posits that by submitting a test score, a student is less likely to graduate from college.
Really?
How do you know that not submitting the score was the root cause for the slightly (not significantly different in 2018 sample) higher graduation rate, rather than things like colleges focusing on other non-score metrics to evaluate qualifications when scores are not available and/or differences in major distributions?
This is far from the only group of studies that shows similar graduation rates between submitters and non-submitters. For example, the Bates 25 years of test optional study reports the follow:
Average Grad Rate for Submitters – 89%
Average Grad Rate for SAT I Non-Submitters – 89%
Average Grad Rate for SAT I + SAT II Non-Submitters – 88%
Stonehill + Providence reports the following 2nd Year Retention Rates (didn’t see grad rate)
Average 2nd Year Retention for Submitters = 88%
Average 2nd Year Retention for Non-Submitters = 88%
Dickinson reports the following 2nd Year Retention Rates (didn’t see grad rates)
Average 2nd Year Retention for Submitters = 87%
Average 2nd Year Retention for Non-Submitters = 89%
3 Likes