<p>“I’m not aware of ANY college that thinks it will improve its enrollment, its reputation, its endowment, or its ability to attract strong faculty members by being “SAT hostile” and actively preferring students with lower SAT scores to students with higher SAT scores.”</p>
<p>That’s going a bit far, but my d’s school, which does require SAT scores, went this way. The former Pres. of college, Ruth Simmons, now pres at Brown, commissioned a three-year study to determine, among those admitted, whether 1) There was any relationship between SAT scores and performance at the college; and 2) Whether use of SATs in admissions mitigated against the college’s 30-year-old commitment to providing education to low-income students (28% are on Pells; 60% receive need-based aid.) The study included faculty, the office of institutional research, and the admissions office. The answers came back, unequivocally, 1) no; 2) yes. As a result, the new Pres. gave orders to the admissions office to use SAT scores in setting a floor (when necessary), and could use them perhaps in the awarding of the few merit scholarships they give out, but to heavily de-emphasize them in admissions. </p>
<p>They believe they have improved their enrollment as a result. Whether you’d call that “SAT hostile”, I don’t know. But you will find folks on the board for my d’s school under LACs who have seen what would otherwise be seen as “confusing” admissions decisions as a result.</p>
<p>It’s hard to believe that Bates (or any school) intentionally looks for people with LOWER SAT scores. This kind of thinking reflects a central problem with SATs: They loom so large in our minds that we can imagine that a top ranked school would look for people with lower scores when there are so many other factors that weigh into an admission decision. So, again, I’m totally with Weisbuch on this one.</p>
<p>token adult, I’m not sure why you posted the link to Bate…Most schools that make SATs optional ask students to provide their SAT scores (if they’ve taken the test) AFTER enrollment so they can provide them to USNWR and also use them for their own research purposes. </p>
<p>Some of the top LACs, the ivies, and the big state uni’s may never be able to make SAT’s optional because they use the test as an initial screen. Faced with many thousands of applicants, this certainly makes some sense from their perspective. For example, UMass/Amherst had 25,000 apps for about 5,000 seats last year. How could they possibly process all of those applications holistically? At an info session we attended, they pretty much said that they wouldn’t be looking at anyone with less than 1150 (or possibly higher) on Reading/Math SAT. That cuts their applicant pool quite substantially.</p>
<p>I have looked up the College Board profile of U Mass Amherst, because another post in this thread asked about the state universities in the northeast, and you (cadbury) mention its admission policies. </p>
<p>Following the sublinks shows some key facts and figures. </p>
<p>I think you correctly understand my point about SAT-optional colleges. There are, indeed, colleges of some regional reputation that admit applicants who have never submitted an SAT score at all. But once you equate other desirable characteristics an applicant may bring to the college (e.g., sports ability, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, high school grade average, etc.), there isn’t any college that says, “Oh, good, we have a 500-scorer here whom we take rather than that otherwise similar 650-scorer.” That’s just not the stated policy of any college. </p>
<p>Mini makes a different point, which is that colleges consider issues other than SAT scores, sometimes to the degree that the college’s average SAT score is lower than what it could otherwise draw. I agree with that point empirically (that is, I agree that colleges really do that) and I agree with that point as a matter of policy (that is, I agree that colleges can do well by themselves and by society as a whole by considering issues other than SAT scores when evaluating applicants). But we don’t have to learn from Drew about such ideas. Harvard makes clear that it will admit students with SAT scores below its usual median level if those students have truly outstanding extracurricular accomplishments. </p>
<p>Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a former economic advisor for President Clinton, has advocated [Affirmative</a> Action for the Poor](<a href=“Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Businessweek - Bloomberg) in a manner that I agree with. I think it is the HYPSM colleges rather than the Drews and Sarah Lawrences that are leading the way to a more nuanced approach to college admission. Certainly they are organizing the seminars on college admission </p>
<p>Easy, just ask their professional colleagues at Cal (41,000+ applicants) and UCLA (47,000+ applicants). Both campuses have holistic admissions. :)</p>
<p>U Mass accepts the great majority of its applicants. Its enrolled class must reach the target size through low yield, if it really has five times as many applicants as spaces. </p>
<p>Acceptance & Retention</p>
<pre><code>* Percent applicants admitted: 71%
Percent of students who return for sophomore year: 83%
</code></pre>
<p>First, bluebayou…All the power to Cal and UCLA. I’d love to know how many people they have working out of their Admission Offices. It must be a small army if they’re truly reviewing each and every one of those applicants holistically!! (BTW I suspect UMass/Amherst would say they review applications holistically as well; but…)</p>
<p>Today’s Boston Globe Magazine ran an interesting article about President Marx at Amherst College, who is trying to deal with some of the issues that we’ve been discussing. He has introduced several programs to increase applications from middle class, working class, and low income students who would generally be scared away by Amherst’s sticker price. Of particular note is that they will be replacing loans with grants, something I believe Princeton is doing as well. Hence, no major distinctions between need based and merit based aid–and no crushing debt at graduation!</p>
<p>Finally, tokenadult, I honestly don’t know how to respond to statements like these: “But we don’t have to learn from Drew about such ideas…I think it is the HYPSM colleges rather than the Drews and Sarah Lawrences that are leading the way to a more nuanced approach to college admission. Certainly they are organizing the seminars on college admission.” With all due respect, that seems awfully elitist! Bates introduced SAT optional and holistic admission processes years before HYPSM even considered the remote possibility of such things. Bard has an incredibly creative, optional Immediate Decision Plan that adds an interesting dimension to the process. Several of these schools have programs for identifying talented students from lower income brackets. HYPSM are fine, but they aren’t the be-all-and-end-all of creative, nuanced admissions policies and/or quality educational experiences! Pedagogically, HYPSM could probably learn a lot from SLC, Bard, and yes, even Drew! As I’m sure you’re aware, many undergraduates at HYPSM are often quite dissatisfied with their classroom experiences (large classes, TA’s, instructors who have difficulty with English. etc, etc.).</p>
<p>Weisbuch is the president of a LAC in NJ who was being interviewed for a NJ periodical. He also happens to have been a prof and administrator at Michigan and president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation that organizes and funds various initiatives relevant to higher ed. With this kind of background, I think he might have a few valuable things to contribute to the discourse on higher ed. I/We may not agree with everything he has to say, but I suspect he brings more to the table than most of us!</p>
<p>Holistic admission processes are quite old, but there is a definitional issue here that may be hard to resolve. It would be interesting to trace the history of the use of the Common Application (the sole application form at several elite colleges), because the Common Application organization requires holistic admission practices. </p>
<p>I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that loans have kept low- or middle-income students from applying to HYPSMAMS, and the reality is that largest number of individuals benefitting from the no-loan policies are top 20% folks who now receive small amounts of need-based grant aid rather than loans (and their parents often take out loans anyway, but these don’t show up in the college’s indebtedness statistics.)</p>
<p>Where the creativity of the so-called top schools has come in the past 20 years is in retaining the need-blind fiction while at the same time ending up with classes that have virtually exactly the same percentage of full-freight students year after year; or, more recently, enrolling slightly larger percentages of low-income students without in some cases impacting the percentage of those receiving no aid (Amherst), or increasing the percentage of higher income students receiving aid (Princeton), all while claiming to be “need-blind”. When you think about it, it really is quite a trick, and is a tribute to the professionalism of the respective admissions offices.</p>
<p>I agree with you, Mini, and I don’t see the problem with requiring a loan component for those who don’t approach a minimum income bar. Because of business failure and other unpredictable events, including having two children at expensive, elite institutions at the same time, my children are receiving need based aid. Some of this is in the form of loans. I would rather pay these loans and have other monies go to those in lower income brackets in greater numbers than have the loans eliminated from my kids’ packages entirely. They also have work study which does more to set up a two tiered system when they are in college when compared with peers who don’t have to put in these hours but both have wonderful jobs that enhance their college experience. By earning their own spending money they are learning that what they can do is related to how many hours they choose to put in at their jobs, the beginning of a personal economy. To her credit, my D loves her job and is happy to be a part of getting her own education. (Of course her money doesn’t go as far as S’s. One in NYC, one in Williamstown.) She often babysits too, but she does spend more on entertainment per week than I do, so this is her choice.</p>
<p>I see your argument, mini, that something sure doesn’t compute. Such cconsistent results cannot just happen by chance.</p>
<p>How did Smith control the various elements it pretended to measure? How did it measure the performance of students with 1100 SATs to students with 1000 SATs? Or students with 1300 SATs versus 1100? For instance, did the students take the same classes?</p>
<p>why would the school set a floor, if the answer to #1 was No? (It is not logical.) How does that study correspond with the UC studies which DO show some predictive value of test scores?</p>
<p>Like many of the other state university flagships in the Northeast, UMass Amherst is the safety school for a population that generally prefers private schools and underfunds the public universities. This leads to a low yield unlike what is seen in the UC and well funded Midwestern state university systems. </p>
<p>This has an impact on the Revealed Preferences type of ranking, by the way.
The elite Northeast schools on the whole get some free points for routinely beating the state universities of applicants from the surrounding region. Elite private schools in California and especially the Midwest often lose cross-admit tournaments to the nearby state universities, and this probably lowers their rating on the whole (although each time Stanford does win against the UCs, it gets more points than when it beats the University of New Hampshire). </p>
<p>For instance, while UChicago has to compete with students whose safety schools are Wisconsin-Madison, Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ohio State, U Minnesota, which are real competitors for enrollment of dual admits, it is rare for anyone to choose UMass Amherst or the University of Maine over MIT.<br>
On the whole this artificially raises the ranking of the Northeast universities simply because of the regional bias toward private colleges.</p>
<p>[Smith College] commissioned a three-year study to determine, among those admitted, whether 1) There was any relationship between SAT scores and performance at the college; and 2) Whether use of SATs in admissions mitigated against the college’s 30-year-old commitment to providing education to low-income students (28% are on Pells; 60% receive need-based aid.) The study included faculty, the office of institutional research, and the admissions office. The answers came back, unequivocally, 1) no; 2) yes. As a result, the new Pres. gave orders to the admissions office to use SAT scores in setting a floor (when necessary), and could use them perhaps in the awarding of the few merit scholarships they give out, but to heavily de-emphasize them in admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These studies generally confirm the predictivity of SAT, and are then “spun” as the opposite for political reasons. </p>
<p>The recent anti-SAT study at the University of California tried to suck out the socioeconomic correlation of SAT-I and see what predictivity remains, but in fact showed, quite clearly — they made the mistake of displaying the regression coefficients for all to see — that if admissions takes socioeconomics into account by favoring poor students over rich ones ( taking their A grades or 1500 SAT scores to be more impressive), the predictive weight of SAT-I increases. </p>
<p>At Smith or any other holistic-admissions school, one expects a low or even negative correlation of SAT with student performance. If admissions did its job perfectly (correctly balancing SAT against grades and other factors) the correlation would be reduced to zero. If there is a slight positive correlation between SAT and performance, which is what most of these studies find, then (within the linear regression metaphor that all these articles utilize) it means that admission doesn’t give enough weight to SAT, thus leaving some residual effect of the scores on student performance.</p>
<p>“These studies generally confirm the predictivity of SAT, and are then ‘spun’ as the opposite for political reasons.”</p>
<p>Huh? This works as a political statement, but not as a statement of fact.
The research on SATs is quite consistent. Studies regularly show that there IS a significant correlation between SAT scores and performance in college as measured by GPA. HOWEVER, results of multiple regression analyses that look at the contribution of more than one factor in predictivity of academic performance show that SAT scores contribute negligibly beyond the use of High School GPA alone. In short, the bulk of the data say “Why bother with SATs”?</p>
<p>There is also data from Mt. Holyoke’s three year SAT optional study, "Early Results from MHC Study Reaffirm SAT-Optional Policy " published in the College Street Journal (March 18, 2005) and sponsored by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The preliminary study supports the LAC’s commitment to holistic admission policy and the contention that the SAT is not essential to making good admission decisions and has limited value as a predictor of an individual students success. Mt. Holyoke, like Drew, requires a teacher-graded writing samples in lieu of SAT scores. </p>
<p>MM88 and Cadbury, I am glad you both posted excerpts from Dr. Weisbuch’s chronicles of his college president experience - I expect he will produce a third one soon and I would be disappointed if he didn’t include at least a snippet dedicated to the “What did we go wrong” remark. I can certainly hear the wry lacing that comment. Weisbuch, outspoken critic of college rankings, is of course in the pragmatic seat of college president and - while college rankings are not his ideal yardstick, it is an ironic measure of a job well-done that might even have put a smile or two or the faces of the members of the Drew board of trustees.</p>
<p>Of course, that is what such studies have to demonstrate! </p>
<p>After the results of such studies are compiled, the studies can find a small place on the shelves next to the MULTIPLE studies of college enrollment that serve to maximize the financial model, and help schools such as Smith, Mount Holyoke combat their dwindling selectivity and increased difficulty to raise their SAT scores and OTHER measures of selectivity. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, one can CHOOSE to believe the gospel of holistic admissions, protection of the poor students, protection of the gem-like students who happen to be poor test-takers. Others can see it as the basic ploy it is: market differentiation for the sole purpose of filling the classes with reasonably able students -reasonable ability to pay and perform.</p>
<p>Some facts are easy to underscore: a school that accepts around 80% of its ED candidates does NOT constitute a strong FIRST CHOICE for most selective students. For this reason, such schools have to attract students who are NOT interchangeable with students who apply and attend much more selective schools. </p>
<p>There is little mystery as to WHY Weisbuch and his friends continue to harpoon the organizations that make the differences in selectivity so … easy to track and identify. Why can’t he and his friends trust their decisions and let the “marketplace” judge them for what they are? It is obvious that they land enough applications (seemingly increasing) and compile enough of a yield to remain in business; so why can’t they be happy strolling in the middle of the pack between recognized excellence and the next level? </p>
<p>I also “expect we will see published results from Drew as well” and hope the first result of all this utterly misguided complaining will land them on the appropriate page in the US News Report. As I said, just above SLC on the unranked page. Then, we might read a different comment from Barbara Caspersen, the esteemed chair of Drew’s board of trustees. Actually, Asteriskea, do you have any supporting comment that dates AFTER Weisbuch’s appointment in July 2005?</p>
<p>Standardized tests are clearly not the be all and end all for predicting success at college. But they test what they test, and what they test is correlated to such success even in an era where coaching is rampant–particularly when one moves away from the most selective colleges, so that one is likely to see relatively large differences in test scores among candidates who are otherwise plausible admits. For people like Weisbuch to pretend otherwise is either myopic or simply disingenuous.</p>
<p>If one is truly worried about redressing the disadvantages faced by low income and minority students, one should simply admit more low income and minority students. Oops, that might have an adverse impact on the finances of the university.</p>
<p>Standardized tests predict one thing well: first-year college gpa (even at Smith, one suspects). But the correlation breaks down as students enter their majors, select more diverse courses, have more college courses behind them to “level the playing field,” etc. It seems reasonable to ask, as Smith doubtless did: what are the prices we pay for requiring the SAT if the test can’t discriminate between submitters and non-submitters two years down the line?</p>