 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3319 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 11:02 pm |
|
I just posted a Q&A article with Robert Schaeffer, FairTest's Public Education Director. For those who may not know, FairTest is a non-profit group that has been a leading critic of standardized admissions testing since 1987. FairTest also maintains a list of the 742 colleges and universities which currently have test-optional admissions policies. Here's the link to the interview:
Q&A With FairTest's Public Education Director
|
DesperateDad
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 12:38 am |
|
Very nice interview and write-up carolyn. But, since I'm a boolean logic kinda guy, I've always questioned the test-optional idea. As Scheaffer points out: a growing recognition of the exams' weak predictive value, concerns about bias and susceptibility to coaching, and a desire to send a message that high quality classroom performance is more important than how well a person can fill in multiple-choice bubbles on a Saturday morning.
...of which I heartily agree. But, given such negatives, why use the tests at all? They either add value or they don't. If they do add value, how. In what cases to test-optional schools use them (i.e., intended majors, to buttress low gpa (this one, btw, conflicts with "high quality classroom performance"), homeschoolers)? When? If they don't add value, why don't the colleges tell kids to not send 'em and save some $?
|
Xiggi
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 05:57 am |
|
Fairtest continues to be an organization long on half-truths but desperately short on novel and constructive ideas. Its effectiveness as organization is, of course, a matter of individual opinions. What is beyond a matter of opinions is that the interviewee glossed over a few details in describing SAT optional schools:
Middlebury wants three SAT subject tests from applicants who don’t submit ACTs or SATs.
Hamilton College requires results from any three of the following exams: math, reading or writing SAT, ACT, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or SAT subject.
At Pitzer College in California, applicants who choose not to submit SAT scores — and who didn’t rank in the top 10 percent of their high school class or have at least a 3.5 grade point average — must send two A.P. test scores with a 4 or above, two I.B. exam scores, or a graded writing sample and a math exam.
And Muhlenberg wants non-submitters to appear for an interview and turn in a graded paper.
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 787 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 03:25 pm |
|
I believe there's still a USN&WR problem for "test optional" schools. Namely, USN does report the SAT score ranges (perhaps they're also on the CDS of test optional schools? I haven't checked). And I recall that it was pretty conclusively demonstrated that such schools get a significant benefit by higher average scores from their more selective reporting of such scores. I also think it's not always clear, or wasn't in the early years, that schools went "test optional" for the fine reasons that FairTest reports.
I do think it's much easier for LAC's to go this route than for major universities, because the former are in a better position to make holistic application reviews than the latter. I'm kinda with DD on this issue: I can accept the idea of using the tests some of the time, weighting them differently for different applicants in a holistic review (e.g., some kids really just don't do well on standardized tests but distinguish themselves in other ways); but I think all applicants should present the same base of evidence of their academic credentials.
It's easy to forget that one reason for the development of such tests in the old days was to level the playing field, and to get away from the time when various exclusionary clauses as well as legacy admissions were the norm at our elite schools. That the tests have proved to be far from the best route to a meritocratic admissions process, partly because of the test-prep fads and industry and the continuing (inevitable, IMO) substantial influence of parental background on kids' test scores (independent of the kids' true ability) doesn't make them meaningless.
Last edited on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 03:27 pm by mackinaw
|
DesperateDad
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 03:34 pm |
|
some kids really just don't do well on standardized tests but distinguish themselves in other ways.
mack: I totally agree. But, HOW does a college learn that fact besides their subjective guess? Yes, a holistic review can and will show outstanding achievements inside and outside of the classroom. But, if that is what happens in committee, i.e., look at the file and interpolate, 'hmmm, great package, ignore test scores...', why not just drop (ignore) the SAT for all, a la Sarah Lawrence? Thus, I can only conclue that the SAT-ACT must add some value, but what and when? Only to find those diamonds in the rough?
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 787 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 03:44 pm |
|
DD, I think we're in basic agreement.
I am not in favor of using test scores in the formulaic way that they're used in most law school admissions where a student's slot in a GPA-LSAT grid all but determines the admission outcome at many schools. That is, I do not favor such an approach with undergrad admissions (SAT + GPA).
But I do think low SAT scores are a useful diagnostic to identify students who may not be ready for college level work; and SAT's in general are also a "check" on grade inflation if used in a sophisticated way. (Recall the Boalt Hall -- UC Berkeley law school adjustments of undergrad GPA's for grade inflation?) I am still not certain, however, how to adjust for the fact that test scores may reflect parental social status much more than underlying ability of their children; and to that extent I would rely on the tests mainly as a first-order diagnostic and not determinative of the student's ability to complete college work. There can be alternative evidence. But how to use such evidence in a systematic way, and in particular one that doesn't ultimately reintroduce the sorts of biases in admissions that tests were originally intended to eliminate?
Last edited on Sun Aug 5th, 2007 12:16 am by mackinaw
|
limner
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 816 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27th, 2007 11:46 am |
|
I wonder about the economic impact of the testing industry--not to mention the ever-burgeoning college-rankings industry--and their impact on the requirement or lack thereof of standardized tests. If all schools were to go test-optional, it would cut off at the knees the test-prep industry. Or am I way off on this?
Edit: Oh, and a question: what is (and where's it located) the research on the predictive value of the tests? One piece of sociological research I read about indicated pretty strongly that the tests were not predictive and depending on them made a college's admissions less diverse. This was a revelation to me, probably revealing both my naivete and ignorance on the subject.Last edited on Mon Aug 27th, 2007 11:52 am by limner
|
DesperateDad
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 849 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27th, 2007 03:55 pm |
|
Limner:
A lot research on the "predictive value" of tests was conducted by the Univ of California. You could search the UCOP website.
|
limner
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 816 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27th, 2007 04:45 pm |
|
| Thanks, DDad. I'll take a look.
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 787 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27th, 2007 09:34 pm |
|
Main documents are here:
http://www.ucop.edu/sas/research/researchandplanning/
This has links to the supporting statistical analyses.
http://www.ucop.edu/sas/research/researchandplanning/supporting.htm
Last edited on Tue Aug 28th, 2007 11:54 am by mackinaw
|
Consolation
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 488 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29th, 2007 06:14 pm |
|
Weighing in late, here, but I think there is a place for SATs in the admissions picture. There are very smart kids who are not hand-raisers, or nice, neat, compliant out-going BMOC types. They are not likely to get the goodies handed out by teachers and coaches, such as team captaincies, club presidencies, and various awards. They are also likely to be slighted in the grade department in favor of more compliant students who are big on following directions. For any student who is a little off the beaten path, the opportunity to go out and compete *anonymously* for SAT scores is valuable, and a welcome antidote to the personality-driven judgements that otherwise tend to rule high school life.
In addition to that, we have schools that don't weight grades in calculating GPAs. Typically they also don't rank, but they do give out enough information for adcoms to figure out a rough rank on their own. At our high school, for example, there was a valedictorian a few years ago who had never taken a SINGLE honors or AP class. Now, that student and others like her are unlikely to get into a very selective school, but they do have the effect of driving down the class rank of other students who are taking a challenging program. Those students are not competing against that val, but they are competing against kids at other high schools were grades are weighted to determine class rank. For kids like that, high SAT scores are a way of making their true academic caliber apparent.
Lastly, to be perfectly blunt, in my years in high school and college I have never known a person of poor or marginal academic talent to do extremely well on the SAT. It may or may not be an indicator of how well someone will do in school, but I think it works fairly well as a measure of raw academic ability.
|
Current time is 01:03 am | |
|
|
|
|
