<p>
[quote]
I think you have to have some compelling hook along with the grades to make up for the lack of submitting the test scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What the SAT-optional schools may be fishing for is an increased pool of applicants whose daddy is willing and able to write $180,000 worth of tuition checks for more "prestige" than Biffy or Buffy's test scores would otherwise buy.</p>
<p>Or they may be "fishing" for low-income candidates who can't afford expensive test preps or mulitple takes, or coming from schools in low-income communities where prep is less than adequate. This was precisely the target of Smith's old policy put into place in 2002 based on a three-year study (and which proved highly effective). The "optional" policy for them was merely a 'follow-on', an extension of policy they already had.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or they may be "fishing" for low-income candidates who can't afford expensive test preps or mulitple takes, or coming from schools in low-income communities where prep is less than adequate. This was precisely the target of Smith's old policy put into place in 2002 based on a three-year study (and which proved highly effective). The "optional" policy for them was merely a 'follow-on', an extension of policy they already had.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Will that canard ever fly away? </p>
<p>The reality is pretty simple: the admission officers working in competent offices should know that the test scores are supposed to be analyzed in their context. Since they claim to be able to apply holistic concepts to each application, should they not be able to evaluate each test score and weigh them again the SES of the candidates as well as against the academic environment. </p>
<p>For many disadvantaged students, the SAT offers a VERY HELPFUL tool to set them apart from their PEERS. Adcoms (at most highly selective schools) should --and DO-- correctly ascertain the value of a SAT score that is lower than the superstars but still reflect a great performance for a student attending a poorer district or being simply ... poor. Actually, it may be easier for a poor student to score a COMPARATIVELY high score than it is for a student living on Park Avenue. </p>
<p>Throwing the test out altogether is nothing but an abject **excuse **for hiding the impact of enrollment management devices. Schools that CANNOT attract highly competitive students in number sufficiently high to raise the average do resort to crutches that will help raise scores artificially. This is obviously the case at Smith as their statistics show both an average SAT that is below its peers, a lower percentage of top 10% students, and an admission rate that is well above its peers. To make things worse, the trends are not in Smith's favor as competing schools are able to raise their admission standards and not keep stagnant.</p>
<p>Of course, dropping the SAT was not meant to prop up the below average statistics by muddying the statistics and seek to generate more applications from naive students who drink the same Kool-Aid that seems to be the nectar of choice for cheerleading parents.</p>
<p>There are a number of reasons that dropping the test score requirements would increase the applicant pool. That end result is certainly worthwhile for colleges to pursue. I know that my friend's D would not even have entertained the thought of applying to Middlebury, Bowdoin, Bates and the like, had her test scores had to have been included. It allowed her to widen her pool. But the end result was consistent with her test scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the end result was consistent with her test scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you mean that she got into the same colleges you think she would have gotten into if she had submitted her test scores? I suspect that often happens. Maybe all a college does by announcing that it is test score optional is gin up the nerve of a few students that the college would gladly admit, low tests notwithstanding, if only the students will dare to submit an application.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe all a college does by announcing that it is test score optional is gin up the nerve of a few students that the college would gladly admit, low tests notwithstanding, if only the students will dare to submit an application.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or to just gin up a bunch of extra applications, period. So that the acceptance rate goes down, the perceived selectivity increases, and potential customers see the college as more "prestigious".</p>
<p>It's no different than putting out a press release about "loan-free" for all students or "need-blind" for internationals. These are all marketing initiatives to increase the number of applications.</p>
<p>Of course!</p>
<p>And in the case of Smith, it worked. The percentage of Pell Grant recipients went up to a high of 28%. It worked academically as well, as the number of Fulbright recipients soared following the 2002 initiative. So the move, BECAUSE, it is shrewd marketing, is just an open acknowledgment of what they have already been doing.</p>
<p>They didn't, however, go for the loan-free marketing ploy. Apparently, it was discussed by the trustees, but to go loan-free would simply have meant 1) middle-income admits would end up with parental loans rather than college ones; and 2) going loan-free for the lowest income applicants was not a major factor in them choosing the school (as the 28% Pell Grant attendees indicate), but would cut down on need-based grants provided to middle/upper-middle income students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The percentage of Pell Grant recipients went up to a high of 28%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that good?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Apparently, it was discussed by the trustees, but to go loan-free would simply have meant 1) middle-income admits would end up with parental loans rather than college ones; and 2) going loan-free for the lowest income applicants was not a major factor in them choosing the school (as the 28% Pell Grant attendees indicate), but would cut down on need-based grants provided to middle/upper-middle income students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't make a bit of sense. How does increasing grant aid to replace loan aid result in parental loans instead of school loans?</p>
<p>Going loan free is increasing the grant-aid to middle and upper-middle income students. That's the whole point. How can going loan free reduce the grant aid to these students?</p>
<p>Of course, that's the "sham" of the flurry of recent announcements about loan free. Most of these schools were already loan free for family incomes up to about $60,000 per year.</p>
<p>28% Pell Grant recipient is great if an institution is committed to economic diversity.</p>
<p>But whether a ploy or not, it seems to me that, unless a school has the reserves to replace loans w/ grants, going loan-free would result grants to fewer families or smaller grants awards.</p>
<p>The schools that have gone loan-free have all increased their discounting budgets to replace the loans, dollar for dollar with grand-aid discounts. I assume the same is true for the others, too, but Swarthmore is replacing the current loan component with additional grant discounts even for existing students, beginning in Fall 2008.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder whether w/ Bates, the move to SAT optional resulted in URMs being only 10-15% more likely to apply b/c the school is in the middle of nowhere (even for Maine).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Off topic, but Bates is actually in the second largest city in Maine (of course a Maine "city" is not the same as a "city" in New York or Massachusetts or California). It definitely is in the middle of nowhere - but for Maine, it's downright urban.</p>
<p>I posted these comments on the other WF thread.</p>
<p>Confusing:</p>
<p>Two juniors:
D's friend Has an 89.1 in precalculus at a large local public school.
D has an 83 in H Algebra II at a selective private school.</p>
<p>D's friend scored in the 400s on SAT M - not planning to retake.
D scored 770 and 750 on SAT M.</p>
<p>Accurate test scores: IMO - yes; friend's mother concurs also.</p>
<p>But if you look at the level of the math course and grade, wouldn't you draw a different conclusion regarding the math ability of the girls?</p>
<p>Another case:
Student left selective private school at the end of freshman year - disappointing academic performance. Nice girl, but no one was surprised that the work load and performance level was difficult for her. She moved to a non selective Catholic hs and graduated among the top 10 students. However, dropped into the pool of 1.5 million seniors or so graduating now, she isn't as strong as a top 10 ranking indicates.</p>
<p>I know the SAT has flaws, but not as many flaws as the hs systems. There is no objective measure other than standardized testing. Even within a school grades/class rank can be manipulated - students learn quickly which teachers are "easy As". How the heck can college admissions advisors not look at something that attempts to standardize?</p>
<p>I think part of the problem stems from the fact that a student may be a top student at his school and then has an SAT that indicates differently. The automatic assumption - must be a problem with the SAT. Not necessarily - looking at yourself within the context of 50 - 800 seniors in a graduating class at one particular school as compared to 1.5 million students or however many - well, good chance it may look somewhat different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course!</p>
<p>And in the case of Smith, it worked. The percentage of Pell Grant recipients went up to a high of 28%. It worked academically as well, as the number of Fulbright recipients soared following the 2002 initiative. So the move, BECAUSE, it is shrewd marketing, is just an open acknowledgment of what they have already been doing.</p>
<p>They didn't, however, go for the loan-free marketing ploy. Apparently, it was discussed by the trustees, but to go loan-free would simply have meant 1) middle-income admits would end up with parental loans rather than college ones; and 2) going loan-free for the lowest income applicants was not a major factor in them choosing the school (as the 28% Pell Grant attendees indicate), but would cut down on need-based grants provided to middle/upper-middle income students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mini, fwiw, I truly believe that Smith should offer you a full-time position as spin meister. I doubt they'll find anyone better in finding a silver lining in the changes in financial aid at Smith or in giving a positive twist to ANY admission statistics. </p>
<p>While the debate about the percentage of Pell grantees might take different directions, it should be TOTALLY irrelevant to a discussion about dropping the SAT. In addition, the often quoted correlation between income and SAT scores is hardly as compelling as some may want us to believe since the sources (the SAT surveys students mostly ignore or fill randomly) are the same that offered the country such gems as the data that tell us that more than 40% of the high schoolers in the United States have a better than A average. In other words, data that is highly suspect. As a small example, one might consider analyzing the numbers of Pell grantees at Cal and UCLA and correlate the income of students, their race, and their SAT results. Are we not supposed to believe that Asians score much higher and are the highest recipients of Pell grants. Could it be time for a Congressional witch hunt in California and audit all those Pell applications? </p>
<p>Despite the perceived value of the Fulbright awards, this is another entirelly irrelevant data point in a SAT discussion. The number of Fulbright awards is directly proportional to a direct effort by a college in this regard. This is why you see many awards at schools such as Pitzer (and other 5C colleges in particular years) or at the German department at Brown. </p>
<p>If the professors who are directly responsibkle for the push to present competitive applications decide to move to greener pastures, so would be the statistics of Fulbright grantees. Would this mean that the college and its admission policies **change **in tandem with the number of Fulbright?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a small example, one might consider analyzing the numbers of Pell grantees at Cal and UCLA and correlate the income of students, their race, and their SAT results. Are we not supposed to believe that Asians score much higher and are the highest recipients of Pell grants. Could it be time for a Congressional witch hunt in California and audit all those Pell applications?
[/quote]
Oy. You don't want to open this can of worm.</p>
<p>My understanding was that the only study that ever showed ANY correlation between SAT and college success was one that showed a SLIGHT correlation between SAT and frosh year grades. Yet there is an entire industry that exists because thousands of parents will pay thousands of dollars to get their kids coached for a very coachable test.... and people think this test makes admissions fairer? My sister-in-law teaches SAT prep. She says the whole thing is a huge racket. She can coach a kid and get their score up, but they're not any more intelligent or any better of a student than they were before she taught them how to answer multiple choice questions.</p>
<p>My college did a 4 year study where they correlated their students high school GPA with their college GPA (at graduation), and they also tried to correlate their SAT with their final college GPA. The result? No relationship between SAT scores and grades. Definite, strong relationship between hs GPA and grades. So they made the SAT optional.... for a few years, until it lowered their ranking and people thought they were less selective. So the test is back, but for no good reason that I can see.</p>
<p>(I'm not one of those test-haters who is bitter because of poor SAT scores either - both I and my son scored quite high on the SAT.)</p>
<p>A lot of the college correlational studies fall down because of restriction of range within any one college. Most kids who are actually admitted to a college, and especially most kids who enroll at the same college, have a somewhat similar profile of SAT scores, and everything that else that appeared in their admission file that might influence college grades probably traded off with SAT scores. (That is, a kid with a top G.P.A. in high school can get into the same college with a lower SAT score than the kid who had a lower high school G.P.A.) The University of California studies on this issue seem to have been done with the best and most thorough methodology (and on a very large population of students), and they show some usefulness of SAT scores, but that has been denied for political reasons. </p>
<p>But in the end, I've never heard of a college actively preferring lower scorers to higher scorers. I think every admission office knows that there some classroom advantages to preferring students who can find and mark the right answers within the time limits over students who simply cannot, even though college study is based on other student abilities besides those tested on the SAT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And in the case of Smith, it worked. The percentage of Pell Grant recipients went up to a high of 28%.
[/quote]
This number is highly inflated by the non-traditional Ada Comstock scholars (women over 24 years old) who are nearly all Pell grantees. These students absorb a large percentage of the financial aid budget. This unique program is certainly commendable, but it masks the overall demographics of the school which is largely white and upper-middle class. The SAT optional program is an attempt to bury the SAT scores of these older students which depress the school average and makes the school appear less selective and therefore less attractive to the wealthier regular applicants it still needs.</p>
<p>Aren't ALL the selective LACs largely white and upper-middle class?</p>
<p>"This number is highly inflated by the non-traditional Ada Comstock scholars (women over 24 years old) who are nearly all Pell grantees."</p>
<p>Ada's make up approximately 7.7% of the student body. If 75% of Ada's were on Pell Grants, which I seriously doubt, and those were subtracted from the total, Smith would still have the highest percentage of Pell Grant recipients of any prestige private college in the nation.</p>
<p>tokenadult, I did sort of think of that - its hard for any given college to do a correlational study because their range of accepted students is probably fairly narrow compared to the entire range of kids that take the SAT. </p>
<p>I still tip my cap to schools that make the SAT optional.</p>