I suspect that lower SAT's than norm wouid more benefit minorities at Dartmouth where they are attempting to re-create the demographics of the US in a state that is 92% white and 1.5% black. The beneficiaries of this are less likely to be the valedictorian of Bakersfield High more likely an upper middle class minority from Orinda who plays lacrosse

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

I could get on board with this. Thankfully US News, which has a huge role in driving the inequitable use of the scores, has been moving away from emphasizing scores towards incorporating social mobility. Theoretically, this would incentive the use of scores in the way you describe.

concernedparent said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

I could get on board with this. Thankfully US News, which has a huge role in driving the inequitable use of the scores, has been moving away from emphasizing scores towards incorporating social mobility. Theoretically, this would incentive the use of scores in the way you describe.

---

US News is terrible. The universities are also responsible, for trying to use the SAT scores of their incoming classes as a measure of the university's quality relative to their competition.

75bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anyone have thoughts on the use of standardized tests impacting athletic recruiting?

---

Wife, you must have thoughts. What do you think?

---

I don't really know, and candidly I don't have the background to even speculate.

The discussion here in not exactly what I had in mind with my OP, but it is an interesting and relevant discussion.

BearSD said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Elite educational consultants are charging parents upwards of $120,000 a year to coach their kids into Ivy League schools by curating their extracurriculars, helping them land internships, craft essays and morehttps://t.co/pMVgKMH4td pic.twitter.com/ESiJlTJaYQ

— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) January 30, 2024

---

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

---

I do like that Dartmouth forest green color though. Seems like a stellar color choice for a school located in the woodlands of west central New Hampshire.

It's a shame that Dartmouth's d0uchebag rating factor (DRF) is so high. Even by Ivy League standards, Dartmouth's DRF is off the charts. Maybe the students are just compensating for the fact that Dartmouth's not a real Ivy. Kinda like Brown.

The kids I'm thinking of didn't get into any schools in UCB, UCLA, UCI, UCSB, UCSD, UCD. Some got into Santa Cruz but others didn't. Most didn't apply to Riverside and Merced.

Again, these extreme examples are all CS and Engineering majors. I think it's not as bad in other majors.

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

BearSD said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Elite educational consultants are charging parents upwards of $120,000 a year to coach their kids into Ivy League schools by curating their extracurriculars, helping them land internships, craft essays and morehttps://t.co/pMVgKMH4td pic.twitter.com/ESiJlTJaYQ

— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) January 30, 2024

---

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

---

I do like that Dartmouth forest green color though. Seems like a stellar color choice for a school located in the woodlands of west central New Hampshire.

Even by Ivy League standards, Dartmouth's DRF is off the charts. Maybe the students are just compensating for the fact that Dartmouth's not a real Ivy. Kinda like Brown.

---

DRF, lol, I recently met a fellow dad at a fundraiser and the topic of where we went to school came up. He said, "Oh, a small college in New Hampshire." I was like, "Dartmouth, perhaps?" Yep. These DBs are so "polished" that they know not to say the name of the school at first, while at the same time desperately hoping it is revealed.

HearstMining

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!

----

I hear you, and you can add Jensen Huang, founder of Nvidia, to your list. He went to Oregon State for undergrad and now is a multi-gazillionaire.

Cal Poly SLO is great and their acceptance rate is now below 30%. The kids who ended up at Purdue/UIUC that I'm thinking of mostly didn't get into SLO either!

cedarbear said:

---

The kids I'm thinking of didn't get into any schools in UCB, UCLA, UCI, UCSB, UCSD, UCD. Some got into Santa Cruz but others didn't. Most didn't apply to Riverside and Merced.

Again, these extreme examples are all CS and Engineering majors. I think it's not as bad in other majors.

---

But you say they are good kids with good test scores from good schools and imply they are being ignored in favor of lower income or minority students. I doubt this is the case. They probably just don't measure up in the most competitive cohort- CS and engineering.

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Yes indeed, the "A" in SAT used to stand for "aptitude" (basically smarts) and its purpose was to identify really smart kids who had, for whatever reason, not achieved good grades in school, but might be able to nevertheless thrive in college. And to give them an opportunity, perhaps at the expense of a kid who had managed to get a high GPA without being all that bright.

Hence the famous "analogies" questions and such.

Then, the ACTs ("A" for "achievement"), to try and figure out what the kids had actually learned, again doing an end run around GPAs.

The SAT was supposedly a test that couldn't really be prepared for, but the "prep course" people dove in and figured out ways to give students an edge. Not a huge edge, but an edge. The test has changed over the years, but is still predictive. IMO -- and I am an educator -- it should still be used as one of the data points. The more data points, the better.

Big C said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Yes indeed, the "A" in SAT used to stand for "aptitude" (basically smarts) and its purpose was to identify really smart kids who had, for whatever reason, not achieved good grades in school, but might be able to nevertheless thrive in college. And to give them an opportunity, perhaps at the expense of a kid who had managed to get a high GPA without being all that bright.

Hence the famous "analogies" questions and such.

Then, the ACTs ("A" for "achievement"), to try and figure out what the kids had actually learned, again doing an end run around GPAs.

The SAT was supposedly a test that couldn't really be prepared for, but the "prep course" people dove in and figured out ways to give students an edge. Not a huge edge, but an edge. The test has changed over the years, but is still predictive. IMO -- and I am an educator -- it should still be used as one of the data points. The more data points, the better.

---

At the risk of getting further into the statistics weeds, I'd like to see peer reviewed studies that verify that the SAT is predictive of ...what? That's the problem - as soon as you make a claim like that, you beg the question. I suspect that each college that reinstates the SAT has their own invalid, subjective, warm and fuzzy idea of what might justify their decision.

The fact is that a test like the SAT relies on uncertain definitions of the predictive criteria, namely psychological constructs such as "Aptitude." Let's see these schools reveal their definitions of them.

The ACT has a similar but different challenge. It claims to test achievement levels, but achievement measuring what? My bet is that they would answer in a way that goes back to psychological constructs. I doubt that they have run criterion-related validity studies of correct answers on objective subjects against college student performances.

Using standardized tests is a messy and unscientific endeavor, but we've gotta use something. Especially since the other things we've been using have been coming unraveled. All in the pursuit of subjective outcomes.

Rushinbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Yes indeed, the "A" in SAT used to stand for "aptitude" (basically smarts) and its purpose was to identify really smart kids who had, for whatever reason, not achieved good grades in school, but might be able to nevertheless thrive in college. And to give them an opportunity, perhaps at the expense of a kid who had managed to get a high GPA without being all that bright.

Hence the famous "analogies" questions and such.

Then, the ACTs ("A" for "achievement"), to try and figure out what the kids had actually learned, again doing an end run around GPAs.

The SAT was supposedly a test that couldn't really be prepared for, but the "prep course" people dove in and figured out ways to give students an edge. Not a huge edge, but an edge. The test has changed over the years, but is still predictive. IMO -- and I am an educator -- it should still be used as one of the data points. The more data points, the better.

---

At the risk of getting further into the statistics weeds, I'd like to see peer reviewed studies that verify that the SAT is predictive of ...what? That's the problem - as soon as you make a claim like that, you beg the question. I suspect that each college that reinstates the SAT has their own invalid, subjective, warm and fuzzy idea of what might justify their decision.

The fact is that a test like the SAT relies on uncertain definitions of the predictive criteria, namely psychological constructs such as "Aptitude." Let's see these schools reveal their definitions of them.

The ACT has a similar but different challenge. It claims to test achievement levels, but achievement measuring what? My bet is that they would answer in a way that goes back to psychological constructs. I doubt that they have run criterion-related validity studies of correct answers on objective subjects against college student performances.

Using standardized tests is a messy and unscientific endeavor, but we've gotta use something. Especially since the other things we've been using have been coming unraveled. All in the pursuit of subjective outcomes.

---

Curious if you read the UC report on standardized testing shared earlier?

Big C said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

BearSD said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Elite educational consultants are charging parents upwards of $120,000 a year to coach their kids into Ivy League schools by curating their extracurriculars, helping them land internships, craft essays and morehttps://t.co/pMVgKMH4td pic.twitter.com/ESiJlTJaYQ

— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) January 30, 2024

---

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

---

I do like that Dartmouth forest green color though. Seems like a stellar color choice for a school located in the woodlands of west central New Hampshire.

Even by Ivy League standards, Dartmouth's DRF is off the charts. Maybe the students are just compensating for the fact that Dartmouth's not a real Ivy. Kinda like Brown.

---

DRF, lol, I recently met a fellow dad at a fundraiser and the topic of where we went to school came up. He said, "Oh, a small college in New Hampshire." I was like, "Dartmouth, perhaps?" Yep. These DBs are so "polished" that they know not to say the name of the school at first, while at the same time desperately hoping it is revealed.

---

"Southern New Hampshire University, perhaps? Nice."

It should be emphasized that at the Ivys test scores and other criteria are far less important than, as excerpted from NYT

"Elite colleges have long been filled with the children of the richest families: At Ivy League schools, one in six students has parents in the top 1 percent.

A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed rsums, and applied at a higher rate but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things. For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in

Data is from at least three of the dozen top colleges where the researchers had access to detailed admissions records.
The study by Opportunity Insights, a group of economists based at Harvard who study inequality quantifies for the first time the extent to which being very rich is its own qualification in selective college admissions.

The analysis is based on federal records of college attendance and parental income taxes for nearly all college students from 1999 to 2015, and standardized test scores from 2001 to 2015. It focuses on the eight Ivy League universities, as well as Stanford, Duke, M.I.T. and the University of Chicago. It adds an extraordinary new data set: the detailed, anonymized internal admissions assessments of at least three of the 12 colleges, covering half a million applicants. (The researchers did not name the colleges that shared data or specify how many did because they promised them anonymity.)

The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America's elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

HKBear97! said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Yes indeed, the "A" in SAT used to stand for "aptitude" (basically smarts) and its purpose was to identify really smart kids who had, for whatever reason, not achieved good grades in school, but might be able to nevertheless thrive in college. And to give them an opportunity, perhaps at the expense of a kid who had managed to get a high GPA without being all that bright.

Hence the famous "analogies" questions and such.

Then, the ACTs ("A" for "achievement"), to try and figure out what the kids had actually learned, again doing an end run around GPAs.

The SAT was supposedly a test that couldn't really be prepared for, but the "prep course" people dove in and figured out ways to give students an edge. Not a huge edge, but an edge. The test has changed over the years, but is still predictive. IMO -- and I am an educator -- it should still be used as one of the data points. The more data points, the better.

---

At the risk of getting further into the statistics weeds, I'd like to see peer reviewed studies that verify that the SAT is predictive of ...what? That's the problem - as soon as you make a claim like that, you beg the question. I suspect that each college that reinstates the SAT has their own invalid, subjective, warm and fuzzy idea of what might justify their decision.

The fact is that a test like the SAT relies on uncertain definitions of the predictive criteria, namely psychological constructs such as "Aptitude." Let's see these schools reveal their definitions of them.

The ACT has a similar but different challenge. It claims to test achievement levels, but achievement measuring what? My bet is that they would answer in a way that goes back to psychological constructs. I doubt that they have run criterion-related validity studies of correct answers on objective subjects against college student performances.

Using standardized tests is a messy and unscientific endeavor, but we've gotta use something. Especially since the other things we've been using have been coming unraveled. All in the pursuit of subjective outcomes.

---

Curious if you read the UC report on standardized testing shared earlier?

---

No I didn't. I looked for it in this thread after reading your comment, but didn't see it. If in another thread, I'd be happy to trace it down from a source you might share. Is there a point (or more) in it that I should be mindful of?

BearoutEast67 said:

---

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.

---

Do you have a citation for the bolded statement? And even if the statement is true, the logic would not apply to the elite schools (Cal, Furd, UCLA, Ivies, Notre Dame, Vandy, etc) which will always have more applications then available spots. For those highly selective schools, decline in apps/admissions could not have been the driving force.

Anarchistbear said:

---

It should be emphasized that at the Ivys test scores and other criteria are far less important than, as excerpted from NYT

"Elite colleges have long been filled with the children of the richest families: At Ivy League schools, one in six students has parents in the top 1 percent.

A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed rsums, and applied at a higher rate but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things. For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in

Data is from at least three of the dozen top colleges where the researchers had access to detailed admissions records.
The study by Opportunity Insights, a group of economists based at Harvard who study inequality quantifies for the first time the extent to which being very rich is its own qualification in selective college admissions.

The analysis is based on federal records of college attendance and parental income taxes for nearly all college students from 1999 to 2015, and standardized test scores from 2001 to 2015. It focuses on the eight Ivy League universities, as well as Stanford, Duke, M.I.T. and the University of Chicago. It adds an extraordinary new data set: the detailed, anonymized internal admissions assessments of at least three of the 12 colleges, covering half a million applicants. (The researchers did not name the colleges that shared data or specify how many did because they promised them anonymity.)

The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America's elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

---

Haven't read the full article (yet), but it sounds like the tl;dr version is...

1) legacy admits and...
2) Olympic sports

This sounds like what Bearly Care Anymore has posted here in the past. Regarding the Olympic sports, I would be curious if the rationale is that they genuinely appreciate a more well-rounded student, or is it more about bring athletic glory to the college? (Or, more cynically, perpetuating a system that wealthier families know how to game.)

Anarchistbear said:

---

It should be emphasized that at the Ivys test scores and other criteria are far less important than, as excerpted from NYT

"Elite colleges have long been filled with the children of the richest families: At Ivy League schools, one in six students has parents in the top 1 percent.

A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed rsums, and applied at a higher rate but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things. For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in

Data is from at least three of the dozen top colleges where the researchers had access to detailed admissions records.
The study by Opportunity Insights, a group of economists based at Harvard who study inequality quantifies for the first time the extent to which being very rich is its own qualification in selective college admissions.

The analysis is based on federal records of college attendance and parental income taxes for nearly all college students from 1999 to 2015, and standardized test scores from 2001 to 2015. It focuses on the eight Ivy League universities, as well as Stanford, Duke, M.I.T. and the University of Chicago. It adds an extraordinary new data set: the detailed, anonymized internal admissions assessments of at least three of the 12 colleges, covering half a million applicants. (The researchers did not name the colleges that shared data or specify how many did because they promised them anonymity.)

The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America's elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

---

Private schools would be stupid not to give admissions preference to rich families who give money historically through their alumni. They need to make money like anyone else. And frankly, in the refining to come over higher education, raising funds is much more important to them than social engineering will be.

Oski87 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

It should be emphasized that at the Ivys test scores and other criteria are far less important than, as excerpted from NYT

"Elite colleges have long been filled with the children of the richest families: At Ivy League schools, one in six students has parents in the top 1 percent.

A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed rsums, and applied at a higher rate but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things. For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in

Data is from at least three of the dozen top colleges where the researchers had access to detailed admissions records.
The study by Opportunity Insights, a group of economists based at Harvard who study inequality quantifies for the first time the extent to which being very rich is its own qualification in selective college admissions.

The analysis is based on federal records of college attendance and parental income taxes for nearly all college students from 1999 to 2015, and standardized test scores from 2001 to 2015. It focuses on the eight Ivy League universities, as well as Stanford, Duke, M.I.T. and the University of Chicago. It adds an extraordinary new data set: the detailed, anonymized internal admissions assessments of at least three of the 12 colleges, covering half a million applicants. (The researchers did not name the colleges that shared data or specify how many did because they promised them anonymity.)

The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America's elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

---

Private schools would be stupid not to give admissions preference to rich families who give money historically through their alumni. They need to make money like anyone else. And frankly, in the refining to come over higher education, raising funds is much more important to them than social engineering will be.

---

Sure, they can and do but I am also sure their student body mirrors the population of the country as a nod to diversity. But it's all fake- the diversity is fake, the SAT argument is fake. It all comes down to how rich you are not how talented or "underprivileged"

Well, I mean - not true at all since the kids - all of the kids - who go to these schools are extraordinarily bright. Everyone has great test scores, great grades, all the extras, etc. That being the case, choosing a bunch who have given money to offset the others who can't actually afford to go there is a tried and true method for all private schools to survive. To do an analysis on that and say it is racist or not diverse, etc - really just misses the boat. The headline is 5 out of 6 are NOT FROM THE TOP ONE PERCENT! Not that 1 of 6 are. Frankly that shocked me that was the case. I bet at Cal more than 1 in 6 are from the 1 percenters.

Oski87 said:

---

Well, I mean - not true at all since the kids - all of the kids - who go to these schools are extraordinarily bright. Everyone has great test scores, great grades, all the extras, etc. That being the case, choosing a bunch who have given money to offset the others who can't actually afford to go there is a tried and true method for all private schools to survive. To do an analysis on that and say it is racist or not diverse, etc - really just misses the boat. The headline is 5 out of 6 are NOT FROM THE TOP ONE PERCENT! Not that 1 of 6 are. Frankly that shocked me that was the case. I bet at Cal more than 1 in 6 are from the 1 percenters.

---

Well this thread purported to be about the merit of SAT's at Dartmouth but admission to Dartmouth is much more likely based on income than SAT's, a different type of affirmative action. Middle class are the least advantaged

You think more than 1 out of 6 Cal students comes from families making more than 600,000 a year? No, the reverse is true. Richer alumni have no built in advantage and are less likely to attend. The UC system's goal is to raise all boats and prioritize students who are first to attend college.

Another study
"At most UC campuses analyzed in the paper, attendance rates among the wealthiest are actually lower than those for less affluent students with comparable SAT scores. Students with parents in the top 0.1% are half as likely to attend UCLA, Berkeley and Santa Cruz than the average student with similar test scores.."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/college-attendance-income-data-18264392.php

But let's talk about what's really important in selecting a college: WHO HAS THE BEST FITNESS CENTER. It's been 15 years since we did the college tour thing with a kid, but there was a friggin' arms race going on between schools to see who had the best recreation facilities. I graduated from Cal in 1976, before the RSF was gleam in somebody's eye - IM basketball games were scheduled til 9PM on weeknights, and I was astounded at the rec facilities these universities have now built -and we saw them all because they were a prominent part of every tour - except Cal's where RSF wasn't even mentioned.

cedarbear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

It should be emphasized that at the Ivys test scores and other criteria are far less important than, as excerpted from NYT

"Elite colleges have long been filled with the children of the richest families: At Ivy League schools, one in six students has parents in the top 1 percent.

A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed rsums, and applied at a higher rate but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things. For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in

Data is from at least three of the dozen top colleges where the researchers had access to detailed admissions records.
The study by Opportunity Insights, a group of economists based at Harvard who study inequality quantifies for the first time the extent to which being very rich is its own qualification in selective college admissions.

The analysis is based on federal records of college attendance and parental income taxes for nearly all college students from 1999 to 2015, and standardized test scores from 2001 to 2015. It focuses on the eight Ivy League universities, as well as Stanford, Duke, M.I.T. and the University of Chicago. It adds an extraordinary new data set: the detailed, anonymized internal admissions assessments of at least three of the 12 colleges, covering half a million applicants. (The researchers did not name the colleges that shared data or specify how many did because they promised them anonymity.)

The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America's elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

---

Anarchistbear (great name--are you really an anarchist?), check out the graph in your NYT article. Do you see that big acceptance rate dip for those around the 70-98% of income? It's worst for those in the 90-95th percentile of income. Those kids have the lowest acceptance rate of all kids, and their acceptance rate is far lower than that of low income ones.

This is exactly what I'm talking about happening at affluent public schools. These 90-95th percentile high schoolers generally come from highly-educated families and have great grades and their test scores are much much higher than the low income kids (if you're skeptical about that, check out the CAASPP test score data for schools in Palo Alto vs. those in, say, Clovis).

But the elite schools have two agendas: raising money and showing the world that they're correcting social inequalities. So the top 1% and the bottom 20% get boosts, but the 90-95th percentile kids are in no-man's land and get held to a much higher standard. Now I'm not sure if the UCs are as guilty of kissing up to rich people as much the private schools (I think they're probably not), but talk to anyone who's paid attention to college admissions during the past 10 years, and they'll tell you that the UCs have pivoted a lot more toward social justice. Yes, CS and Engineering are tough to get into these days, but this social justice agenda is clearly also a factor.

BTW, my kid got lucky and ended up actually getting into an elite private--with mixed results from UCs/SLO. So this is not sour grapes on my part. But I do think it's kind of unfair that my kid's classmates with 1580 SATs, 36 ACTs, and 4.6 GPAs (at a high school much tougher than most) got rejected by UCB, UCLA, UCSB, UCI, UCD, UCSD. Some of these classmates are bona fide geniuses. Shouldn't the University of California be educating young people in California who are this talented? I just think the pendulum may have swung a bit too far in the social justice direction at the UCs.

---

I agree but there is another problem here- too many students chasing too few elite schools- that is causing kids to literally go crazy. When I went to Cal, 90% of it was showing up.

Now Cal and other elite schools will tell you that you need 1450 SAT, passion, overcoming disadvantage, community service, leadership, 4.5 plus GPA. But what they won't tell you is it doesn't matter- you're still likely to be rejected because you can shake a tree and thiusands of kids with this profile fall out.

So, parents and kids buy into this creating a whole army of consultants telling kids what to do- build a church in Mexico, work on a cure for cancer if you have time. But everyone from an affluent family does the same thing and they still fail and some jump in front of trains in Palo Alto

If it was up to me I would accept the top x percentage of kids from every school in California. Top of your class you are in the UC of your choice. If the best of the rest can be discriminated do it but be transparent. If not, have a lottery

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Wasn't the origin of using standardized testing in the college admissions process intended to keep the Ivy League schools lily white? This was in an era where Eugenics was a valid theory and the belief that WASPs were naturally more intelligent than "Jews," the "negros," and the "Orientals" such that standardized testing would prevent the admissions of the undesirable latter three categories.

I'm not saying that standardized tests are the same now, let alone that Eugenics is a valid current belief, just pointing out that the historic genesis of the standardized tests was rooted in racism.

That said, there is absolutely bias in standardized tests. Not only in the words used (e.g., while the term "brownstone" is common in the Northeast, few in the West Coast would recognize it as a description for a house, yet "brownstone" was a common word in SATs), but also in the passages chosen for "reading comprehension." Few, if any, of these passages ever centered on minorities or minority cultures, but very often centered on the white majority and white culture. While an argument could be made that white culture is the default in the US, that alone argues in favor of the position that standardized testing is racially biased.

I'm actually not against standardized testing. I think standardized tests serve a valid purpose. However, numerous objective problems have been identified with how standardized tests have been implemented; these problems need to be fixed. A good start would be by including test writers from a multitude of races and cultures. Also, making test prep free for all students is a must.

01Bear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Wasn't the origin of using standardized testing in the college admissions process intended to keep the Ivy League schools lily white? This was in an era where Eugenics was a valid theory and the belief that WASPs were naturally more intelligent than "Jews," the "negros," and the "Orientals" such that standardized testing would prevent the admissions of the undesirable latter three categories.

I'm not saying that standardized tests are the same now, let alone that Eugenics is a valid current belief, just pointing out that the historic genesis of the standardized tests was rooted in racism.

That said, there is absolutely bias in standardized tests. Not only in the words used (e.g., while the term "brownstone" is common in the Northeast, few in the West Coast would recognize it as a description for a house, yet "brownstone" was a common word in SATs), but also in the passages chosen for "reading comprehension." Few, if any, of these passages ever centered on minorities or minority cultures, but very often centered on the white majority and white culture. While an argument could be made that white culture is the default in the US, that alone argues in favor of the position that standardized testing is racially biased.

I'm actually not against standardized testing. I think standardized tests serve a valid purpose. However, numerous objective problems have been identified with how standardized tests have been implemented; these problems need to be fixed. A good start would be by including test writers from a multitude of races and cultures. Also, making test prep free for all students is a must.

---

There is a kernel of truth here, but most is spec. The SAT was first conducted on a somewhat widespread basis in the late 50's when I was in hs (public). I took it in 58 and 59. I was in a grad class of 600. 8 went to Harvard, 2 skipping their freshman year. 12 went to Yale, many skipping. Most of those got 1,600's. I got close and started at Brown...and flunked out after 1 year. About 1/3 of my hs was Jewish, including most of those 20, and just about every one got in a great school. So, from my experience and that of my entry class at Brown and my friends throughout the Ivies, the SAT didn't discriminate against Jews. Asians? At that time, there weren't any to speak of. BUT, you had to figure that it discriminated against Blacks, but I'm thinking as much because they got terrible educations and because edu was discouraged, anyway. Studying was "acting white" even then as it is now.

Eugenics? BS. That was and is PP talk.

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Wasn't the origin of using standardized testing in the college admissions process intended to keep the Ivy League schools lily white? This was in an era where Eugenics was a valid theory and the belief that WASPs were naturally more intelligent than "Jews," the "negros," and the "Orientals" such that standardized testing would prevent the admissions of the undesirable latter three categories.

I'm not saying that standardized tests are the same now, let alone that Eugenics is a valid current belief, just pointing out that the historic genesis of the standardized tests was rooted in racism.

That said, there is absolutely bias in standardized tests. Not only in the words used (e.g., while the term "brownstone" is common in the Northeast, few in the West Coast would recognize it as a description for a house, yet "brownstone" was a common word in SATs), but also in the passages chosen for "reading comprehension." Few, if any, of these passages ever centered on minorities or minority cultures, but very often centered on the white majority and white culture. While an argument could be made that white culture is the default in the US, that alone argues in favor of the position that standardized testing is racially biased.

I'm actually not against standardized testing. I think standardized tests serve a valid purpose. However, numerous objective problems have been identified with how standardized tests have been implemented; these problems need to be fixed. A good start would be by including test writers from a multitude of races and cultures. Also, making test prep free for all students is a must.

---

There is a kernel of truth here, but most is spec. The SAT was first conducted on a somewhat widespread basis in the late 50's when I was in hs (public). I took it in 58 and 59. I was in a grad class of 600. 8 went to Harvard, 2 skipping their freshman year. 12 went to Yale, many skipping. Most of those got 1,600's. I got close and started at Brown...and flunked out after 1 year. About 1/3 of my hs was Jewish, including most of those 20, and just about every one got in a great school. So, from my experience and that of my entry class at Brown and my friends throughout the Ivies, the SAT didn't discriminate against Jews. Asians? At that time, there weren't any to speak of. BUT, you had to figure that it discriminated against Blacks, but I'm thinking as much because they got terrible educations and because edu was discouraged, anyway. Studying was "acting white" even then as it is now.

Eugenics? BS. That was and is PP talk.

---

You're about 30 years too late. The SATs originated in the 1920s. That's also when the Eugenics was still going strong in the US. Also, during this inter-war period, there was a lot of concern over the erosion of WASP values in the US paired with the belief that whites were genetically superior to all other races.

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Wasn't the origin of using standardized testing in the college admissions process intended to keep the Ivy League schools lily white? This was in an era where Eugenics was a valid theory and the belief that WASPs were naturally more intelligent than "Jews," the "negros," and the "Orientals" such that standardized testing would prevent the admissions of the undesirable latter three categories.

I'm not saying that standardized tests are the same now, let alone that Eugenics is a valid current belief, just pointing out that the historic genesis of the standardized tests was rooted in racism.

That said, there is absolutely bias in standardized tests. Not only in the words used (e.g., while the term "brownstone" is common in the Northeast, few in the West Coast would recognize it as a description for a house, yet "brownstone" was a common word in SATs), but also in the passages chosen for "reading comprehension." Few, if any, of these passages ever centered on minorities or minority cultures, but very often centered on the white majority and white culture. While an argument could be made that white culture is the default in the US, that alone argues in favor of the position that standardized testing is racially biased.

I'm actually not against standardized testing. I think standardized tests serve a valid purpose. However, numerous objective problems have been identified with how standardized tests have been implemented; these problems need to be fixed. A good start would be by including test writers from a multitude of races and cultures. Also, making test prep free for all students is a must.

---

There is a kernel of truth here, but most is spec. The SAT was first conducted on a somewhat widespread basis in the late 50's when I was in hs (public). I took it in 58 and 59. I was in a grad class of 600. 8 went to Harvard, 2 skipping their freshman year. 12 went to Yale, many skipping. Most of those got 1,600's. I got close and started at Brown...and flunked out after 1 year. About 1/3 of my hs was Jewish, including most of those 20, and just about every one got in a great school. So, from my experience and that of my entry class at Brown and my friends throughout the Ivies, the SAT didn't discriminate against Jews. Asians? At that time, there weren't any to speak of. BUT, you had to figure that it discriminated against Blacks, but I'm thinking as much because they got terrible educations and because edu was discouraged, anyway. Studying was "acting white" even then as it is now.

Eugenics? BS. That was and is PP talk.

---

You're about 30 years too late. The SATs originated in the 1920s. That's also when the Eugenics was still going strong in the US. Also, during this inter-war period, there was a lot of concern over the erosion of WASP values in the US paired with the belief that whites were genetically superior to all other races.

---

the elite schools didn't need the SAT back then. And, Eugenics never got anywhere, despite Sanger's blather.

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Wasn't the origin of using standardized testing in the college admissions process intended to keep the Ivy League schools lily white? This was in an era where Eugenics was a valid theory and the belief that WASPs were naturally more intelligent than "Jews," the "negros," and the "Orientals" such that standardized testing would prevent the admissions of the undesirable latter three categories.

I'm not saying that standardized tests are the same now, let alone that Eugenics is a valid current belief, just pointing out that the historic genesis of the standardized tests was rooted in racism.

That said, there is absolutely bias in standardized tests. Not only in the words used (e.g., while the term "brownstone" is common in the Northeast, few in the West Coast would recognize it as a description for a house, yet "brownstone" was a common word in SATs), but also in the passages chosen for "reading comprehension." Few, if any, of these passages ever centered on minorities or minority cultures, but very often centered on the white majority and white culture. While an argument could be made that white culture is the default in the US, that alone argues in favor of the position that standardized testing is racially biased.

I'm actually not against standardized testing. I think standardized tests serve a valid purpose. However, numerous objective problems have been identified with how standardized tests have been implemented; these problems need to be fixed. A good start would be by including test writers from a multitude of races and cultures. Also, making test prep free for all students is a must.

---

There is a kernel of truth here, but most is spec. The SAT was first conducted on a somewhat widespread basis in the late 50's when I was in hs (public). I took it in 58 and 59. I was in a grad class of 600. 8 went to Harvard, 2 skipping their freshman year. 12 went to Yale, many skipping. Most of those got 1,600's. I got close and started at Brown...and flunked out after 1 year. About 1/3 of my hs was Jewish, including most of those 20, and just about every one got in a great school. So, from my experience and that of my entry class at Brown and my friends throughout the Ivies, the SAT didn't discriminate against Jews. Asians? At that time, there weren't any to speak of. BUT, you had to figure that it discriminated against Blacks, but I'm thinking as much because they got terrible educations and because edu was discouraged, anyway. Studying was "acting white" even then as it is now.

Eugenics? BS. That was and is PP talk.

---

You're about 30 years too late. The SATs originated in the 1920s. That's also when the Eugenics was still going strong in the US. Also, during this inter-war period, there was a lot of concern over the erosion of WASP values in the US paired with the belief that whites were genetically superior to all other races.

---

the elite schools didn't need the SAT back then. And, Eugenics never got anywhere, despite Sanger's blather.

---

It looks like I may have been too late by about 20 years. Harvard first used standardized testing (a precursor to the SATs) in 1908 for college admissions. Again, it was believed, at this time, that WASPs would do well and the "inferior races" would struggle on the test. The latter proved not to be true as Jews and Catholics wound up doing well. In fact Jews did so well that Harvard went to a holistic admissions model in order to preclude the admission of so many Jews.

Also, the SATs were designed, in part, to prove the superiority of the white race over that of other races. It was only after years of teat results proved otherwise that the inventor of the SATs realized he was wrong about the role of race in intelligence.

Eugenics never wound up going as far as its proponents had believed it would/should. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a policy goal of many in prominent positions. Heck, even J. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. implicitly endorsed it with his infamous "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), which upheld the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act. (Incidentally, Buck v. Bell is still good law.)

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Wasn't the origin of using standardized testing in the college admissions process intended to keep the Ivy League schools lily white? This was in an era where Eugenics was a valid theory and the belief that WASPs were naturally more intelligent than "Jews," the "negros," and the "Orientals" such that standardized testing would prevent the admissions of the undesirable latter three categories.

I'm not saying that standardized tests are the same now, let alone that Eugenics is a valid current belief, just pointing out that the historic genesis of the standardized tests was rooted in racism.

That said, there is absolutely bias in standardized tests. Not only in the words used (e.g., while the term "brownstone" is common in the Northeast, few in the West Coast would recognize it as a description for a house, yet "brownstone" was a common word in SATs), but also in the passages chosen for "reading comprehension." Few, if any, of these passages ever centered on minorities or minority cultures, but very often centered on the white majority and white culture. While an argument could be made that white culture is the default in the US, that alone argues in favor of the position that standardized testing is racially biased.

I'm actually not against standardized testing. I think standardized tests serve a valid purpose. However, numerous objective problems have been identified with how standardized tests have been implemented; these problems need to be fixed. A good start would be by including test writers from a multitude of races and cultures. Also, making test prep free for all students is a must.

---

There is a kernel of truth here, but most is spec. The SAT was first conducted on a somewhat widespread basis in the late 50's when I was in hs (public). I took it in 58 and 59. I was in a grad class of 600. 8 went to Harvard, 2 skipping their freshman year. 12 went to Yale, many skipping. Most of those got 1,600's. I got close and started at Brown...and flunked out after 1 year. About 1/3 of my hs was Jewish, including most of those 20, and just about every one got in a great school. So, from my experience and that of my entry class at Brown and my friends throughout the Ivies, the SAT didn't discriminate against Jews. Asians? At that time, there weren't any to speak of. BUT, you had to figure that it discriminated against Blacks, but I'm thinking as much because they got terrible educations and because edu was discouraged, anyway. Studying was "acting white" even then as it is now.

Eugenics? BS. That was and is PP talk.

---

You're about 30 years too late. The SATs originated in the 1920s. That's also when the Eugenics was still going strong in the US. Also, during this inter-war period, there was a lot of concern over the erosion of WASP values in the US paired with the belief that whites were genetically superior to all other races.

---

the elite schools didn't need the SAT back then. And, Eugenics never got anywhere, despite Sanger's blather.

---

It looks like I may have been too late by about 20 years. Harvard first used standardized testing (a precursor to the SATs) in 1908 for college admissions. Again, it was believed, at this time, that WASPs would do well and the "inferior races" would struggle on the test. The latter proved not to be true as Jews and Catholics wound up doing well. In fact Jews did so well that Harvard went to a holistic admissions model in order to preclude the admission of so many Jews.

Also, the SATs were designed, in part, to prove the superiority of the white race over that of other races. It was only after years of teat results proved otherwise that the inventor of the SATs realized he was wrong about the role of race in intelligence.

Eugenics never wound up going as far as its proponents had believed it would/should. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a policy goal of many in prominent positions. Heck, even J. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. implicitly endorsed it with his infamous "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), which upheld the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act. (Incidentally, Buck v. Bell is still good law.)

---

Objective evidence? ...numbers? distinctions? design of SAT objective?

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Wasn't the origin of using standardized testing in the college admissions process intended to keep the Ivy League schools lily white? This was in an era where Eugenics was a valid theory and the belief that WASPs were naturally more intelligent than "Jews," the "negros," and the "Orientals" such that standardized testing would prevent the admissions of the undesirable latter three categories.

I'm not saying that standardized tests are the same now, let alone that Eugenics is a valid current belief, just pointing out that the historic genesis of the standardized tests was rooted in racism.

That said, there is absolutely bias in standardized tests. Not only in the words used (e.g., while the term "brownstone" is common in the Northeast, few in the West Coast would recognize it as a description for a house, yet "brownstone" was a common word in SATs), but also in the passages chosen for "reading comprehension." Few, if any, of these passages ever centered on minorities or minority cultures, but very often centered on the white majority and white culture. While an argument could be made that white culture is the default in the US, that alone argues in favor of the position that standardized testing is racially biased.

I'm actually not against standardized testing. I think standardized tests serve a valid purpose. However, numerous objective problems have been identified with how standardized tests have been implemented; these problems need to be fixed. A good start would be by including test writers from a multitude of races and cultures. Also, making test prep free for all students is a must.

---

There is a kernel of truth here, but most is spec. The SAT was first conducted on a somewhat widespread basis in the late 50's when I was in hs (public). I took it in 58 and 59. I was in a grad class of 600. 8 went to Harvard, 2 skipping their freshman year. 12 went to Yale, many skipping. Most of those got 1,600's. I got close and started at Brown...and flunked out after 1 year. About 1/3 of my hs was Jewish, including most of those 20, and just about every one got in a great school. So, from my experience and that of my entry class at Brown and my friends throughout the Ivies, the SAT didn't discriminate against Jews. Asians? At that time, there weren't any to speak of. BUT, you had to figure that it discriminated against Blacks, but I'm thinking as much because they got terrible educations and because edu was discouraged, anyway. Studying was "acting white" even then as it is now.

Eugenics? BS. That was and is PP talk.

---

You're about 30 years too late. The SATs originated in the 1920s. That's also when the Eugenics was still going strong in the US. Also, during this inter-war period, there was a lot of concern over the erosion of WASP values in the US paired with the belief that whites were genetically superior to all other races.

---

the elite schools didn't need the SAT back then. And, Eugenics never got anywhere, despite Sanger's blather.

---

It looks like I may have been too late by about 20 years. Harvard first used standardized testing (a precursor to the SATs) in 1908 for college admissions. Again, it was believed, at this time, that WASPs would do well and the "inferior races" would struggle on the test. The latter proved not to be true as Jews and Catholics wound up doing well. In fact Jews did so well that Harvard went to a holistic admissions model in order to preclude the admission of so many Jews.

Also, the SATs were designed, in part, to prove the superiority of the white race over that of other races. It was only after years of teat results proved otherwise that the inventor of the SATs realized he was wrong about the role of race in intelligence.

Eugenics never wound up going as far as its proponents had believed it would/should. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a policy goal of many in prominent positions. Heck, even J. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. implicitly endorsed it with his infamous "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), which upheld the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act. (Incidentally, Buck v. Bell is still good law.)

---

Objective evidence? ...numbers? distinctions? design of SAT objective?

---

I can pull up the quotes (but I'm feeling lazy), but do a quick google search and you can find the references to the SAT's original intent by its creator. Heck, it's even mentioned in the wikipedia article on the SAT.

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

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.

---

Wasn't the origin of using standardized testing in the college admissions process intended to keep the Ivy League schools lily white? This was in an era where Eugenics was a valid theory and the belief that WASPs were naturally more intelligent than "Jews," the "negros," and the "Orientals" such that standardized testing would prevent the admissions of the undesirable latter three categories.

I'm not saying that standardized tests are the same now, let alone that Eugenics is a valid current belief, just pointing out that the historic genesis of the standardized tests was rooted in racism.

That said, there is absolutely bias in standardized tests. Not only in the words used (e.g., while the term "brownstone" is common in the Northeast, few in the West Coast would recognize it as a description for a house, yet "brownstone" was a common word in SATs), but also in the passages chosen for "reading comprehension." Few, if any, of these passages ever centered on minorities or minority cultures, but very often centered on the white majority and white culture. While an argument could be made that white culture is the default in the US, that alone argues in favor of the position that standardized testing is racially biased.

I'm actually not against standardized testing. I think standardized tests serve a valid purpose. However, numerous objective problems have been identified with how standardized tests have been implemented; these problems need to be fixed. A good start would be by including test writers from a multitude of races and cultures. Also, making test prep free for all students is a must.

---

There is a kernel of truth here, but most is spec. The SAT was first conducted on a somewhat widespread basis in the late 50's when I was in hs (public). I took it in 58 and 59. I was in a grad class of 600. 8 went to Harvard, 2 skipping their freshman year. 12 went to Yale, many skipping. Most of those got 1,600's. I got close and started at Brown...and flunked out after 1 year. About 1/3 of my hs was Jewish, including most of those 20, and just about every one got in a great school. So, from my experience and that of my entry class at Brown and my friends throughout the Ivies, the SAT didn't discriminate against Jews. Asians? At that time, there weren't any to speak of. BUT, you had to figure that it discriminated against Blacks, but I'm thinking as much because they got terrible educations and because edu was discouraged, anyway. Studying was "acting white" even then as it is now.

Eugenics? BS. That was and is PP talk.

---

You're about 30 years too late. The SATs originated in the 1920s. That's also when the Eugenics was still going strong in the US. Also, during this inter-war period, there was a lot of concern over the erosion of WASP values in the US paired with the belief that whites were genetically superior to all other races.

---

the elite schools didn't need the SAT back then. And, Eugenics never got anywhere, despite Sanger's blather.

---

It looks like I may have been too late by about 20 years. Harvard first used standardized testing (a precursor to the SATs) in 1908 for college admissions. Again, it was believed, at this time, that WASPs would do well and the "inferior races" would struggle on the test. The latter proved not to be true as Jews and Catholics wound up doing well. In fact Jews did so well that Harvard went to a holistic admissions model in order to preclude the admission of so many Jews.

Also, the SATs were designed, in part, to prove the superiority of the white race over that of other races. It was only after years of teat results proved otherwise that the inventor of the SATs realized he was wrong about the role of race in intelligence.

Eugenics never wound up going as far as its proponents had believed it would/should. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a policy goal of many in prominent positions. Heck, even J. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. implicitly endorsed it with his infamous "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), which upheld the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act. (Incidentally, Buck v. Bell is still good law.)

---

Objective evidence? ...numbers? distinctions? design of SAT objective?

---

I can pull up the quotes (but I'm feeling lazy), but do a quick google search and you can find the references to the SAT's original intent by its creator. Heck, it's even mentioned in the wikipedia article on the SAT.

---

I've been there. not that going back that far is definitive re our lifetimes. NTL, we've beaten this one.