<p>The only way it makes sense to use ACT to define high achievers if there is very high correlation among the different factors that UW considers in admissions (nearly +1).</p>
<p>But if there is, we should simply admit students based on ACT anyways because it predicts all the other desirable factors.</p>
<p>Something doesn’t add up.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/what_we_know.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/what_we_know.pdf</a></p>
<p>I am one of the people who picked an out of State school over WI. My school (Notre Dame) gave me financial aid that made it equivalent to Madison financially. Had Madison offered merit aid to make it free or even half cost I would have seriously considered Madison. In the class below me our Valedictorian who had a high ACT went to Minnesota because they threw money/honors program at him while Madison gave him zilch. Madison could be doing a lot better if it added a Bright Futures scholarship like Florida.</p>
<p>^No one doubts that throwing merit money at top students entices top students. The question is where a limited amount of money should go, and where this money should come from. Do high ACT scores (among admits) identify top students? Should top students be favored above the socioeconomic diversity that improved financial aid would provide? Should tuition be raised to fund more aid?</p>
<p>You’re right–UW would be best served by offering competitive aid to top student while offering great financial aid and keeping tuition costs low. Not all these goals are simultaneously feasible, largely because of UW’s many other missions to the state.</p>
<p>The original debate on this thread was whether high ACT scores among UW admits identifies top students that UW wants to attract. I still argue that it doesn’t. It is much easier to get admitted with a high ACT score, and it is much harder to get admitted with a low ACT score. Thus, due to UW’s selective admission process, the low ACT scorers will have exceptional GPA, ECs, and essays while the high ACT scorers will have a wide distribution of GPA, ECs and essays.</p>
<p>Barrons continues to miss the point by showing me summary stats representing the entire population of ACT scorers. This is not relevant when comparing UW admits. I wouldn’t expect most low ACT scorers with a weak high school gpa to ultimately have tremendous college success. However, UW does not admit most low ACT scorers. The ones it does admit are exceptional in other ways.</p>
<p>I don’t get the points in post #44. Seems like misuse of partial knowledge of data with mistaken conclusions. justtotalk many of your posts seem to lack valid interpretations of statistics/numbers.</p>
<p>Wisconsin ( the state) has a strong populist base that would never support giving financial aid based mostly on academics–especially if most of that ended up going to upper middle class background students. I do think enhanced aid for a closs of students such as class Vals or those in the top 1 of their class might snaeak through without attarcting too many claims of elitsm which is something all UW folks fear as much as they fear what the local papers might decide to make a Federal case out of next.</p>
<p>The Wisconsin Academic Excellence Scholarship ($2,250/semester for 8 semesters) is awarded to the top student(s) (number depends on size of school and is determined by GPA) from all Wisconsin public and private high schools who attend a participating college in Wisconsin. This dollar amount has been the same since 1996 when it was equal to about 80% of tuition at UW-Madison. Efforts by Rep. Joan Ballweg to increase the amount have failed to pass.</p>
<p>[HEAB</a> Student Financial Aid Programs](<a href=“404 Page Not Found”>WI Higher Educational Aids Board - Financial Aid Programs)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You haven’t said anything. Where is the misuse of data? Why are the conclusions mistaken?</p>
<p>So many logic flaws, hard to begin. Instead, here’s a simplistic ACT/gpa admissions view.</p>
<p>Consider 4 groups- high/low (relative) ACT and gpa. The low/low ACT/gpa will not get in- not enough spaces, too many more competitive students. Likewise the high/high students will get in- no reason their places should go to someone else unless they show reasons via essays and/or recommedations. ECs may play a role also. That leaves those with high/low stats.</p>
<p>Those with low (remember to think relative to the school’s stats) ACT scores but high grades will fall into several subcategories. Some will get high grades because they take easier courses- few or no AP/Honors or tough ones. Others will always have a study hall, fewer ECs or other reasons to have more time to study/do homework. Then there are those who study very hard and take the courseload/difficult courses, achieving more than expected for their natural academic abilities. The students in this last group, who outperform expectations, deserve a spot (in my opinion and likely UW’s). They will likely continue with their hard work ethic and make good use of their time at UW.</p>
<p>The last group. Those with stellar natural abilities but who do not have the grades to match. These students are likely to take the hardest/most courses each year to challenge themselves. Some are not challenged by the work and choose not to bother with it- leading to lower grades for not handing in homework… Some will take on the most challenging courses in subjects that are difficult for them even if it means non-A grades. Will these students succeed in college? Some will, some won’t. This is a hard group for admissions people to evaluate. Will the student thrive when the courses are finally challenging or get better grades when busywork isn’t required? Or have they never developed good work/study habits and flounder in college? Or are there other reasons- the need to help out the family with a job and no time to study? Should this student displace someone who worked to earn a place at UW?</p>
<p>These are reasons UW does not only admit students based on the ACT/gpa numbers. Are mistakes made? Of course, they are human. This does not address the issues of admitting students who will actually choose to attend-ie those for whom UW is their safety and get into their more favored school. Is there a better way to do things? Find a workable one (include time and costs) and all admissions committees will thank you.</p>
<p>Addenda- this simplistic grouping doesn’t begin to handle the students whose ACT/gpa fall somewhere in between the high and low stats groups.</p>
<p>^I think you’ve forgotten the focus of this discussion. We are not talking about applicants, and whether applicants should be admitted. Admissions is a complex process–no one doubts that there’s more behind the numbers, as you’ve shown above.</p>
<p>But we’re asking whether high ACT scores should be used to identify particularly desirable students within the subset of admitted UW applicants. In other words, are high ACT scorers the type of admitted students that we should try and keep from fleeing out of state through merit scholarships?</p>
<p>Now, we could try to separate the UW admits into a bunch of groups like you did for UW applicants. But even the simpler, holistic overview speaks for itself.</p>
<p>Consider this: According to UW (<a href=“http://www.education.wisc.edu/cap/UW...pectations.pdf[/url]”>http://www.education.wisc.edu/cap/UW...pectations.pdf</a>
) 50% of applicants with a (30+ ACT and 3.1-3.3 GPA) get in and 95% of the (30+ ACT applicants get in with a 3.8+GPA).</p>
<p>Meanwhile, 5% of applicants with (24- ACT and 3.1-3.3 GPA) get in and 70% with (24- ACT and 3.8+ GPA) get in.</p>
<p>What does this imply about the the admitted UW students?. It implies that a low ACT scorer needed an extraordinary GPA or unique soft factors to get in, while the high ACT scorers didn’t really need a strong GPA or any special softs.</p>
<p>So, what are we really identifying when we weed out the “top ACT scorers” among UW admits? We’re including a broad array of students. Some of them are extremely unique: they have high ACT scores, high GPAs, and great ECs. But it’s very easy for a high ACT scorer to have had a weak GPA and minimal ECs and still be in this admit pool. Should such a student be targeted as a particularly desirable student among admits? Not really, IMO.</p>
<p>Clearly, there’s some factors that would dismiss such a simple analysis. We don’t know the distribution of GPAs among high ACT scorers. If the number of high ACT, low GPA students is negligible, then the fact that 50% get accepted doesn’t really matter. Likewise, if ACT, GPA, and soft factors are highly correlated (dubious), then high ACT scores sufficiently identify top admits because their other factors are likely exceptional as well. </p>
<p>But I don’t think the above factors are likely. My hunch is that there are a significant number of high ACT, low GPA applicants to UW (as you seemed to hint at above), and that ACT isn’t highly correlated to extracurriculars or GPA (among admits). Thus, I don’t think high ACT scores identify desirable UW Madison admits.</p>
<p>Given today’s grade inflation in many HS’s pretty much anyone can get high grades. The nice thing about the tests is that they take that out of the picture and are more of a measure of raw brain power (SAT more than ACT but whatever). Persoanlly I’d take the high brainpower 33 who might have loafed some in HS over the grade grinder with a 24. But that’s my opinion. </p>
<p>Now for such a quick study as the UW was doing you cannot use mulitple variables and get very far. In the real world you use the best data you have handy and move ahead. I doubt the overall aswers to the questions UW was trying to answer would be much different if you used a more complex grid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like you’ve said, it’s difficult for admission committees to know how such high ACT, low GPA students will develop. They have a high potential to flourish in college, but have no track record of excellence. </p>
<p>Why should such risky applicants, if admitted, be tracked to see if they choose UW? Why are they more desirable than other applicants?</p>
<p>What is the opposing argument here? That high ACT, low GPA students are rare among high ACT UW applicants? Or that most high ACT, low GPA students didn’t have a high GPA because they worked 30-40 hours a week to provide for their families? </p>
<p>Do you really think these unique types of students account for most high ACT, low GPA applicants? I guess I can’t find data, so if this is the assumption then fine. But I don’t think I’m illogical to assume otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is perfectly fine. I agree, using ACT scores to identify top admits is a quick, cheap solution. But let’s not pretend like this data is actually very meaningful.</p>
<p>Your set of admitted UW students has already been screened for ACT scores. The low ACT scorers that remain are exceptional. Using the same screening process over again to identify “exceptional admits” is a biased determinant.</p>
<p>
You need to remember that these admits are byproducts of a (potentially) complex admissions process. If a high GPA is really so easy to attain for high schoolers, then undoubtedly UW’s admission committee already factor this when determining admits. Indeed, we see that high GPA students get rejected at a higher rate than high ACT scorers.</p>
<p>Most of that type, of which I am one, will get an A in a class they like and a C in one they don’t. It’s pretty easy to tell if they are higher potential. The higher grades might often be in harder classes. It’s just a little study–not the Bible. Yes there are exceptions but overall the results are pretty believable.</p>
<p>Read the gifted and talented literature for insights. Being unique does not correlate with being better suited to the rigors of a UW education. Your not getting it shows why your use of the information is faulty. Study the subject further before trying to have the answers. Take some relevant courses if you wish to be an expert. Learn how statistics can be manipulated by takuing a few classes in that. btw- some of those high ACT/gpa students will flop as they have never needed study skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t get what I’m saying at all. You skim what others post without thinking and then respond inappropriately.</p>
<p>I’m no expert on “gifted and talented literature.” But identifying gifted students is not the focus. The question is whether high ACT scores among admitted UW students is a quick, easy solution to approximately identifying the top students as would otherwise be done holistically by an admission committee. </p>
<p>This only requires comparing ACT to the other factors UW adcoms consider important to being a successful UW student.</p>
<p>Post #55. You can’t get into a discussion of the meaning of high test scores without addressing gifted student characteristics as they are the ones with the highest scores. Your conclusions don’t make sense. Either learn more or continue to show ignorance and have people dismiss your opinions. btw- holistic means adding to, not substituting for, the hard test/gpa data. In discussions like this be sure to edit for content and clarity, have the proof behind your statements- be prepared to defend your position with facts if challenged (sounds like the classroom?- well, you learn the skills there for real life).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. The question is whether high ACT scores identify the students who would have been selected as “top students” via a **holistic<a href=“and%20therefore%20costly”>/B</a> post-admissions process. The holistic process would’ve considered ACT, GPA, softs, and any other available measurements of future potential and current merit. </p>
<p>You still haven’t countered anything relevant. The argument remains that ACT is already highly regarded in the first admissions stage. Therefore, most high ACT scorers are let in (regardless of whether their other factors are excellent), while most low ACT scorers are rejected. Thus, the remaining low ACT scorers who were admitted have excellent other factors, and ACT is a poor indicator of top students among UW admits.</p>
<p>I’ve already mentioned the inherent assumptions in this argument.</p>
<p>Not to be rude, but everything is else is just you jabbering away for fun. That’s fine but irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s unclear what you consider a gifted student, and it’s unclear why gifted students are the “top students” that UW should be chasing. It’s not relevant. Like I said, we’re considering the use of ACT scores as an indicator of top students (among UW admits) that would optimally have been identified via an adcom review (post-admissions). Everything else is your vague interpretation of “top student” and “gifted.”</p>
<p>“So many logic flaws, hard to begin. Instead, here’s a simplistic ACT/gpa admissions view.”</p>
<p>I believe “simplistic” is the operative word here. Using an ACT score as a measure of an applicant’s worth to a university is indeed simplistic. That is why there is a trend in higher education to move away from use of standardized testing as the primary evaluative source of evaluation. The test score identifies how well an individual performs on a multiple choice exam over a period of four hours. It may be useful when aggregrating the scores over a number of students but an individual’s performance can vary for a number of reasons. Studies have shown that a high school GPA when carefully evaluated is a much better source of college success and a person who has a low test score can achieve high grades for reasons other than “taking easy classes” or “grinding it out”.</p>
<p>So in order to do a study based on GPA you would have to create some sort of point system based on careful evaluation of each applicant’s transcripts to quantify this component of high achieving. If you wanted to do a study for the last 5 years they would have to go back and evaluate over 65,000 applications. That’s prohibitive. They could start now but then they would have to wait 5 years to do the study.</p>
<p>Same with ECs, you would need some kind of point system.</p>
<p>With both, how accurate would the point system data be?</p>
<p>Or you can just use the easily accessible ACT data and have the study now without additional work.</p>
<p>The question is, are the outliers from the subset where ACT, GPA and EC quality are generally aligned, statistically significant? I’m not a trained statistician. Bad data or a bad study can be worse than no data or no study and lead to faulty conclusions.</p>
<p>I would hope the author of the study has statistical training, but I don’t see where the author addresses the limitations of using ACT as the sole measure of high achieving. I think academic quality statistical studies generally do this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly the question. Maybe the answer is no, but my point was that the quick study ignored this possibility and so did barrons/wis75. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. Which begs the question: are ACT scores among admits a suitable quick replacement for the potential study above? Not when you consider the original criteria used to admit UW applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such a point system was, up until recently, used in peer schools like Michigan. The adcoms would give ECs, ACT, GPA, essays, and other factors points. Any applicant scoring above a 100 out of 150 was an auto admit.</p>
<p>Even if UW’s system is not so explicit, there’s little doubt that a huge state school needs to use an admissions process that’s fairly similar to a point system. Otherwise the costs of admitting students would be huge. </p>
<p>So, suppose we look at all the admits who got 100+ points out of 150. Among them, shouldn’t we desire the ones with the most total points in this holistic process? If someone got 25+ (out of 30) points on the ACT, what does that say about their total points? Nothing–because they needed less points from other factors to be admitted.</p>