Dartmouth reinstates SATs

6,021 Views | 97 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by BearGoggles
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:08a, 2/5/24
This may end-up in Off Topic which is a rabbit hole for time-wasting, but here is one report, hopefully not behind a paywall. Not sure how this impacts admissions for athletes.

Dartmouth is reinstating its standardized testing requirement for admissions. The Ivy League college, like many selective schools, had made submitting SAT and ACT scores optional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/02/05/dartmouth-reinstates-sat-admissions-requirement/
Reply Quote
2
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:11a, 2/5/24
I agree with this in concept. Schools attempted to address an issue of concern, but overcorrected in doing so, therefore some additional adjustments were needed.
Reply Quote
6
Rushinbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 10:19a, 2/5/24
wifeisafurd said:
This may end-up in Off Topic which is a rabbit hole for time-wasting, but here is one report, hopefully not behind a paywall. Not sure how this impacts admissions for athletes.

Dartmouth is reinstating its standardized testing requirement for admissions. The Ivy League college, like many selective schools, had made submitting SAT and ACT scores optional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/02/05/dartmouth-reinstates-sat-admissions-requirement/
Everyone realizes, I hope, that the SATs and ACTs are not predictors of performance in college. In fact, they are not predictors of anything. These tests are merely a rank ordering of the scores of those who took the test on that particular date. The hope is that enough people took the test that time, that you can assume a normal distribution of mental ability. And, the College Board has made that assumption since time began.

That's why colleges finally got around to dropping it. Now that other means of identifying eligibility are being pulled (read into it what you will), the colleges need something, so they'll go back to it.
Reply Quote
BearCam
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rushinbear • 10:55a, 2/5/24
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

As it turns out, test scores are one of the best predictor of success in college relative to other measures provided by students to the universities.
Reply Quote
25
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rushinbear • 10:56a, 2/5/24
Rushinbear said:
wifeisafurd said:
This may end-up in Off Topic which is a rabbit hole for time-wasting, but here is one report, hopefully not behind a paywall. Not sure how this impacts admissions for athletes.

Dartmouth is reinstating its standardized testing requirement for admissions. The Ivy League college, like many selective schools, had made submitting SAT and ACT scores optional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/02/05/dartmouth-reinstates-sat-admissions-requirement/
Everyone realizes, I hope, that the SATs and ACTs are not predictors of performance in college. In fact, they are not predictors of anything. These tests are merely a rank ordering of the scores of those who took the test on that particular date. The hope is that enough people took the test that time, that you can assume a normal distribution of mental ability. And, the College Board has made that assumption since time began.

That's why colleges finally got around to dropping it. Now that other means of identifying eligibility are being pulled (read into it what you will), the colleges need something, so they'll go back to it.
Dartmouth professors concluded there was quantitative evidence to the contrary at Dartmouth (see the article and notice the limited statistical pool). Also, schools drooped the test for many reasons, including C-19, the view that the tests were biased against certain minority groups, etc. The problem, as you touch on, is that with so many otherwise qualified candidates to get into elite schools like Dartmouth, the SAT becomes a way of eliminating people from admissions. My two cents is that the problem might go away if schools like Dartmouth actually increased class size to keep-up with populations increases. They don't because they are selling exclusively.

The New York TimesA Top College Reinstates the SAT7 hours ago

I am curios if anyone thinks the reinstatement of the SAT will hurt the chance of more academic schools, such as Cal, from being able to pursue more recruits? It seems to me, and this may show my biases, that it does little to impact recruiting at schools such as ASU.

Reply Quote
1
2 edits
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:06p, 2/5/24
Being a West Coast guy, I had no real exposure to Ivy League contemporaries until I went to grad school. Two of my closest friends had gone to Cornell and they derisively referred to Dartmouth as "Dart-mouth", meaning that the students from there talked a much better game than they played. The 1-2 Dartmouth grads I've met over the years fit that mold.

But to the SAT issue, with the rampant grade inflation in high schools, it's hard to see how GPA can be the accurate predictor of college success that it once was. So, maybe they're reworking the SAT to remove/reduce cultural bias.

DISCLAIMER: I almost certainly got into Cal on my test scores because my HS GPA was, uh, not flashy.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Rushinbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearCam • 12:59p, 2/5/24
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

As it turns out, test scores are one of the best predictor of success in college relative to other measures provided by students to the universities.
The issue is the statistical analysis of these tests. They are not valid predictors of any outcome (criterion-related validity). That is, they were not developed using statistical tests of these tests. These tests do not purport to correlate their scores with any other quantitative value, such as frosh gpa, successful graduation, gpa at graduation, etc. They only provide a clean ranking of the test takers on that date. Any desired statistical analysis can then be done against population subgroups such as age, region, race, gender, etc. Such analyses probably showed results that were not desired, therefore they were dropped. Now, there is probably no criterion on which colleges can rely, because as the deterioration of their quality, i.e. hs education, there is nothing on which they can rely.

The best test is a test of moderate difficulty for the target population. You want discrimination, but discrimination on the desired prediction criterion. A too-difficult test will fail even those who can perform on the desired criterion, i.e. making it past the frosh year, say. A too easy test is a waste - it doesn't discriminate between those who can and those who can't. Same with the value of a degree - pass all students and the degree signifies nothing; flunk everyone out and no one gets your degree.

What Dartmouth has concluded is that they need something and given the changes in the ed system, the SAT is the best we've got now, despite its failings. They cculd go with a series of interviews, in-person performances, and pre-entry academies, but those would be too expensive.
Reply Quote
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:03p, 2/5/24
Dartmouth is a "top college" only because of the historical accident of being included in the Ivy League, and drafting off of the reputations of Harvard/Yale/Princeton, right? It's the 8th best Ivy. LOL.
Reply Quote
2
concernedparent
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearCam • 2:24p, 2/5/24
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Reply Quote
9
NVBear78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concernedparent • 2:41p, 2/5/24
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
How so? And are you saying that was the case 50 years ago too?
Reply Quote
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concernedparent • 3:38p, 2/5/24
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Families are a fantastic predictor of success.
Reply Quote
16
BearCam
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 3:45p, 2/5/24
bear2034 said:
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Families are a fantastic predictor of success.
Family resources are also a fantastic predictor of admission essay quality, number and quality of extra curricular activities, school district quality, # of AP tests taken, and # of high school sports played.
Reply Quote
9
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 3:46p, 2/5/24
BearSD said:
Dartmouth is a "top college" only because of the historical accident of being included in the Ivy League, and drafting off of the reputations of Harvard/Yale/Princeton, right? It's the 8th best Ivy. LOL.
Really? Pretty much everyone thinks all the Ivies are good schools.

As for ranking them, depends on who is doing the rating and what criteria they use. Look at Cal which very high in Forbes and other publications and has traditionally sucked with USN&WR, which is the oldest and most well known college rating system.

Dartmouth is last among the Ivies in the latest USN&WR, having apparently took a nose dive from 5th to 8th in ratings due to the lack of diversity in the student body (this became a recent criteria) per the WSJ and Ivy Coach, both of which have their own rating system. It is clear that Princeton and Harvard generally make the top of most lists, with Yale surprisingly is either very high or low. Dartmouth generally is in the middle tier (Ivy Coach tied for 5th, 6th by WSJ, 6th by Forbes). Dartmouth is 5th among Ivies in term of lowest percentage of acceptances. The general view among rating agencies not named USN&WR is that Cornell is last in the Ivies, and it is tied for last among the Ivies for acceptance rates. That said, everyone thinks Cornell is a very good school, though you do have to go to school in freezing Ithaca.

My guess is that most of the top schools will reinstate the requirement for standardized test as part to the admissions process given grade inflation. In that regard, Furd quietly now has gone back to requiring test scores, which were optional during C-19.




Reply Quote
1
1 edit
75bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:04p, 2/5/24
All the latest information points to the SAT being the best metric we have for college admissions officers to differentiate applicants and determine future success. It's pretty clear getting rid of the SAT was a mistake.
Reply Quote
6
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:09p, 2/5/24
Anyone have thoughts on the use of standardized tests impacting athletic recruiting?
Reply Quote
75bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 4:13p, 2/5/24
wifeisafurd said:
Anyone have thoughts on the use of standardized tests impacting athletic recruiting?
Wife, you must have thoughts. What do you think?
Reply Quote
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 75bear • 4:13p, 2/5/24
75bear said:
All the latest information points to the SAT being the best metric we have for college admissions officers to differentiate applicants and determine future success. It's pretty clear getting rid of the SAT was a mistake.

Agree, with two caveats:

+ they need to always be striving to make the SAT and the ACT better tests (in different ways)

+ sometimes I think colleges used to weigh the tests too much (not sure what the solution is there, exactly)

Reply Quote
cedarbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:13p, 2/5/24
Opponents of standardized tests often argue that the gap between rich and poor test takers is solely the result of the superior resources that the rich kids have, like paying for test prep, taking the test multiple times, and so on.

I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.

Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.

I have a kid who just went through the college admissions process last year and attended high school in an affluent Bay Area suburb. I've closely studied all the data regarding UC admissions and college admissions in general over the past few years. It's clear that the UCs have leaned more into social mobility in their admissions in the past five years, and going test blind is key component of that.

If the UCs don't need to look at test scores, then they can admit more kids from lower-income backgrounds without paying a penalty in the US News algorithm that would result from reporting that their admitted students' test scores have dropped.

I get what the UCs are trying to do, and correcting some of the inequality in society is a laudable goal. The reality, though, is that means that you have many very smart kids with great test scores from towns like mine who get shut of the UCs (especially in hot STEM fields like Computer Science and Engineering) and are now ending up at places like Purdue and University of Illinois. 5-7 years ago, these same kids would have easily gotten into UCSD or even Cal.

If the UCs want to make correcting inequality more important than educating the smartest kids in California, then fine. But I think they could be a little more upfront and honest about what they're doing. To not admit that's what they're doing is kinda trying to have it both ways.
Reply Quote
12
3 edits
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearCam • 4:14p, 2/5/24
BearCam said:
bear2034 said:
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Families are a fantastic predictor of success.
Family resources are also a fantastic predictor of admission essay quality, number and quality of extra curricular activities, school district quality, # of AP tests taken, and # of high school sports played.
Families are also fantastic for kids trying to stay out of poverty.
Reply Quote
4
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearCam • 4:15p, 2/5/24
BearCam said:
bear2034 said:
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Families are a fantastic predictor of success.
Family resources are also a fantastic predictor of admission essay quality, number and quality of extra curricular activities, school district quality, # of AP tests taken, and # of high school sports played.

Absolute truth.
Reply Quote
1
Boot
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HearstMining • 4:32p, 2/5/24
Back in the day I screwed around until my Sr year.
I wouldn't be able to get into Feather River college today.
Reply Quote
1
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearCam • 4:57p, 2/5/24
BearCam said:
bear2034 said:
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Families are a fantastic predictor of success.
Family resources are also a fantastic predictor of admission essay quality, number and quality of extra curricular activities, school district quality, # of AP tests taken, and # of high school sports played.
Yep. We have good friends in Los Altos who had a Stanford grad student lined up as a paid tutor for their son in AP Chem before the class even started.
Reply Quote
2
SBGold
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HearstMining • 5:01p, 2/5/24
HearstMining said:
BearCam said:
bear2034 said:
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Families are a fantastic predictor of success.
Family resources are also a fantastic predictor of admission essay quality, number and quality of extra curricular activities, school district quality, # of AP tests taken, and # of high school sports played.
Yep. We have good friends in Los Altos who had a Stanford grad student lined up as a paid tutor for their son in AP Chem before the class even started.
Same stuff happens in multiples in Piedmont, and I bet all over Lamorinda as well
Reply Quote
1
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearCam • 6:19p, 2/5/24
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

As it turns out, test scores are one of the best predictor of success in college relative to other measures provided by students to the universities.
Not only did Dartmouth find that test scores were the "least bad predictor" of College success, the University of California found the exact same thing in February 2020.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Then UC used Covid as an excuse to suspend SAT/ACT testing and ultimately reached a "settlement" to eliminate it. Meanwhile the science has not changed and the ACT/SAT tests are still the best predictor. UC just succumbed to the political pressure, seemingly in no small part because it allows the schools to circumvent prop 209..
Reply Quote
8
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NVBear78 • 6:40p, 2/5/24
NVBear78 said:
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
How so? And are you saying that was the case 50 years ago too?

I always think about Michael Lewis, who was admitted to Princeton 46 years ago....with "such bad grades," as he mom explained in 2011.

Obviously, he wasn't an athlete.

So how does somebody with "such bad grades" get into a school like Princeton, which is supposed to be one of the hardest to get into?


https://nymag.com/news/features/michael-lewis-2011-10/

Reply Quote
1 edit
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SBGold • 6:43p, 2/5/24
SBGold said:
HearstMining said:
BearCam said:
bear2034 said:
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Families are a fantastic predictor of success.
Family resources are also a fantastic predictor of admission essay quality, number and quality of extra curricular activities, school district quality, # of AP tests taken, and # of high school sports played.
Yep. We have good friends in Los Altos who had a Stanford grad student lined up as a paid tutor for their son in AP Chem before the class even started.
Same stuff happens in multiples in Piedmont, and I bet all over Lamorinda as well




Reply Quote
1
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearCam • 7:11p, 2/5/24
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

As it turns out, test scores are one of the best predictor of success in college relative to other measures provided by students to the universities.

I remember a discussion here back when the UCs decided to get rid of test scores as admission criteria. The argument I found most convincing is that while the SAT or ACT were not perfectly predictive of academic ability, all the other admissions criteria were worse. Seems to me that the move to jettison them was more about politics than actual evidence.
Reply Quote
9
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to okaydo • 7:16p, 2/5/24
okaydo said:



Damn. Imagine paying $120,000 to juice your kid's college applications and the only Ivy they get into is Dartmouth.
Reply Quote
2
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 7:30p, 2/5/24
BearSD said:
okaydo said:



Damn. Imagine paying $120,000 to juice your kid's college applications and the only Ivy they get into is Dartmouth.


Dartmouth students get graduation speakers like this guy (with a former president behind him).




Harvard students get graduation speakers like this guy (without a former president behind him).


Reply Quote
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cedarbear • 8:04a, 2/6/24
cedarbear said:
Opponents of standardized tests often argue that the gap between rich and poor test takers is solely the result of the superior resources that the rich kids have, like paying for test prep, taking the test multiple times, and so on.

I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.

Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.

I have a kid who just went through the college admissions process last year and attended high school in an affluent Bay Area suburb. I've closely studied all the data regarding UC admissions and college admissions in general over the past few years. It's clear that the UCs have leaned more into social mobility in their admissions in the past five years, and going test blind is key component of that.

If the UCs don't need to look at test scores, then they can admit more kids from lower-income backgrounds without paying a penalty in the US News algorithm that would result from reporting that their admitted students' test scores have dropped.

I get what the UCs are trying to do, and correcting some of the inequality in society is a laudable goal. The reality, though, is that means that you have many very smart kids with great test scores from towns like mine who get shut of the UCs (especially in hot STEM fields like Computer Science and Engineering) and are now ending up at places like Purdue and v of Illinois. 5-7 years ago, these same kids would have easily gotten into UCSD or even Cal.

If the UCs want to make correcting inequality more important than educating the smartest kids in California, then fine. But I think they could be a little more upfront and honest about what they're doing. To not admit that's what they're doing is kinda trying to have it both ways.
I sympathize with your plight, but U of I and Purdue aren't chopped liver. If your child ends up going to either school, they'll get an excellent education. Marc Andreessen, the creator of Netscape and one of the hotshot VCs, got his BS at U of Illinois and Larry Ellison attended for two years. I have a good friend who got an engineering degree from Purdue and retired as a Sr. VP from Hewlett Packard. You'd be surprised at how many tech heavyweights got their undergrad degrees at Utah, Oregon St, Colorado and any of the Big 10 schools.

We look down our noses at CSUs, but my old running partner got his engineering degree at San Jose St, a MS at Stanford, and has his name on at least a dozen patents. My kids graduated from Cal Poly SLO, learned a lot of useful stuff, and have solid careers in the tech sector. Your son or daughter must be motivated if they're going down the STEM route - they'll do great!
Reply Quote
1
concernedparent
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cedarbear • 9:28a, 2/6/24
cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.

Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?
Reply Quote
juarezbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 9:51a, 2/6/24
bear2034 said:
BearCam said:
bear2034 said:
concernedparent said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

Test scores are also a fantastic predictor of family resources.
Families are a fantastic predictor of success.
Family resources are also a fantastic predictor of admission essay quality, number and quality of extra curricular activities, school district quality, # of AP tests taken, and # of high school sports played.
Families are also fantastic for kids trying to stay out of poverty.
I believe the origin of the SAT was to get a measure of kids who didn't attend prep school or one of the well known public schools in NY, Boston, or Chicago. If a kid was from Texas, the Dakotas, a small city in the south - basically any high school that admissions heads at top schools weren't familiar with. Then, as now, it's very difficult to measure a 4.0 from Piedmont HIgh against a 4.0 from a high school in the Imperial Valley or rural NorCal. Aside from not having access to as many AP courses, the kids could have similar transcripts so without a standardized test or a course they both took from the same instructor, it's very difficult to gauge who's more talented strictly in academics. Grade inflation has made comparisons even murkier. It's clear the SAT favors wealthier kids, but it would be interesting if the SAT were used only to distinguish between a Piedmont kid and a Gunn High or Beverly Hills HIgh kid and not between Piedmont and Mission High.
Reply Quote
HKBear97!
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 10:04a, 2/6/24
BearGoggles said:
BearCam said:
What you wrote is precisely the opposite of what Dartmouth found. To quote the NYT:

"Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades or student essays and teacher recommendations of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing."

As it turns out, test scores are one of the best predictor of success in college relative to other measures provided by students to the universities.
Not only did Dartmouth find that test scores were the "least bad predictor" of College success, the University of California found the exact same thing in February 2020.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

Then UC used Covid as an excuse to suspend SAT/ACT testing and ultimately reached a "settlement" to eliminate it. Meanwhile the science has not changed and the ACT/SAT tests are still the best predictor. UC just succumbed to the political pressure, seemingly in no small part because it allows the schools to circumvent prop 209..
Thanks for posting because this is a very powerful report that I don't think many people actually read. The report refutes so many myths about standardized test scores. Just a few items from the report:

  • Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study. (pg 4)
  • Applicants from less advantaged demographic groups are admitted at higher rates for any given test score as a result of comprehensive review, which is a process that evaluates applicants' academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them and takes into consideration the capacity each student demonstrates to contribute to the intellectual life of the campus. (pg 4)
  • Refers to the Sackett and Huncel report on test prep and how much it actually boosts scores (pg 82). Sackett and Huncel conclude that the most careful study in the literature suggests that test prep may boost test scores on average by about 14 points on the SAT math and 5 points on the SAT verbal. Such gains are not large enough to make much of a difference to UC admissions decisions.
  • Refers to racial bias on pg 83 - So, in three of four cases (math for both racial/ethnic comparisons and verbal for Latino/white comparisons) no evidence of racial bias emerges. In the fourth case, black/white comparison on the SAT verbal test, some evidence of bias exists, but the bias is against white students on some questions against black students in other cases. Furthermore, our analysis of the results suggest that for this one, the effects are far too small to explain much of the SAT gap in test scores between black and white students

Essentially while the report suggested changes could be made to the SAT/ACT, the tests were indicative of college success, the UC admissions process was successful in admitting URM and a new exam would take time, so the UC system should wait to go without standardized tests until a better system could be implemented. Of course, the UC system simply ignored the suggestion.
Reply Quote
5
Anarchistbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cedarbear • 10:23a, 2/6/24
cedarbear said:
Opponents of standardized tests often argue that the gap between rich and poor test takers is solely the result of the superior resources that the rich kids have, like paying for test prep, taking the test multiple times, and so on.

I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.

Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.

I have a kid who just went through the college admissions process last year and attended high school in an affluent Bay Area suburb. I've closely studied all the data regarding UC admissions and college admissions in general over the past few years. It's clear that the UCs have leaned more into social mobility in their admissions in the past five years, and going test blind is key component of that.

If the UCs don't need to look at test scores, then they can admit more kids from lower-income backgrounds without paying a penalty in the US News algorithm that would result from reporting that their admitted students' test scores have dropped.

I get what the UCs are trying to do, and correcting some of the inequality in society is a laudable goal. The reality, though, is that means that you have many very smart kids with great test scores from towns like mine who get shut of the UCs (especially in hot STEM fields like Computer Science and Engineering) and are now ending up at places like Purdue and University of Illinois. 5-7 years ago, these same kids would have easily gotten into UCSD or even Cal.

If the UCs want to make correcting inequality more important than educating the smartest kids in California, then fine. But I think they could be a little more upfront and honest about what they're doing. To not admit that's what they're doing is kinda trying to have it both ways.


Being not admitted to Berkeley or San Diego is not being shut out of UC'.s . I'm pretty sure such kids could get into UCD, UCSB, UCI or others in addition to Purdue or Illinois and would be as well off at much less cost
Reply Quote
BearoutEast67
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:35a, 2/6/24
Rather then to advance any political agenda, most colleges and universities made the move to eliminate standardized testing to help address a predicted sizable decline in applications and admissions. We are currently seeing an increase in female students (58% across the board) with more males choosing military or trade options. I've never read a sound, evidence-based reason to remove a predictive source of information from the set of evaluative factors for college admissions. The same removal of standardized testing from higher academic education (graduate school, law school) has been made, with no true gains among under-represented minorities.
As an educator, the caliber of entry level students is declining no matter what they look like. I find myself engaging in more remedial training for critical thinking and writing skills. Yet I do see students respond when I don't lower the bar but provide resources to help them achieve.

The SAT, ACT, MCAT, GRE, LSAT, etc... are needed sources of admission information. Whether the UC system should maintain standards for football and basketball athletes who are now employees is another question.
Donate to Cal's NIL at https://calegends.com/donation/
Reply Quote
2
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.