<p>In reading the thread about a theoretical stats-only university, I got to thinking about how you would actually operate the admissions process at such a school. I wanted to devise a totally standardized approach that would avoid school differences as much as possible–thus, I didn’t want to include GPA at all. It goes without saying that ECs, recs, essays, etc. will not be included. I wanted the stat to include mastery of content, and not just test-taking aptitude. So here’s the formula, with more explanation after:</p>
<p>Super-Stat = (superscored SAT) + (3<em>average all SAT Subject Tests) + (3</em>100*average all AP scores) - (correction factor)</p>
<p>Correction factor: Add 10 points for each AP and SAT Subject Test taken above three of each; subtract 20 points for each time SAT is taken over two after end of sophomore year.
Three SAT Subject tests required–must include Math II and a foreign language (if a Subject test is taken twice, only higher score is included).
Three AP tests required.</p>
<p>Explanation: Clearly, top numbers will go to students who get 5s on APs, because a 4 will drop you 100 points. I wanted to give some advantage to people who take more than 3 APs or SAT IIs, but not an overwhelming advantage. I didn’t include ACT, but somebody could make a conversion and replace the SAT element with an ACT alternative, I suppose. I penalize you slightly if you take the SAT multiple times, but I do allow superscoring.</p>
<p>Example: a student who got 2400 on the SAT in one or two sittings, got 800 on 3 SAT Subject tests, and 5 on 3 AP exams would have a Super-Stat of 6300. That could be bumped up maybe another 100 points by taking lots of additional APs and Subject tests, and scoring very well on all of them.</p>
<p>It seems to me that this Super-Stat would do a pretty good job of identifying students capable of handling a broad range of difficult college subjects at a high level. Comments?</p>
<p>Interesting concept but most of the midwest doesn’t take the SAT or the SAT II so there would have to be a method that comparable uses the ACT. Same for AP - not all schools have all AP classes so basing a “stats” only school on one company’s “product” probably wouldn’t go over very well across the country.</p>
<p>Anybody can take the SAT, SAT Subject, or AP tests. This stat isn’t designed to be entirely fair–it’s designed to identify students who are ready to do difficult college-level work. Students who don’t have access to AP or AP-equivalent courses probably don’t have that mastery. But as I suggested, you could replace other standardized tests in the formula if you have a credible conversion factor.
Just to add: a college using this approach would NOT say that as long as you take the most challenging curriculum your school offers, it’s OK. Only the students who in fact have taken AP-level curricula (or who can effectively self-study) will get the highest scores.
(Note: I don’t necessarily advocate this approach. Google “Modest Proposal” to see the original “modest proposal” put forward by Jonathan Swift.)</p>
<p>Well, I’m certainly glad to read it in a Swiftian vein. Otherwise, your super-stat, being content-tilted, would greatly tilt away from lower income kids or kids from middling school systems. But the kind of stats-only university you envision this system for would already, of course, be difficult for them. Emphasizing content over potential just magnifies that effect.</p>
<p>The high weighting of AP results bothers me, especially since many kids take half or more of their AP tests at the end of 12th grade. So you are saying that those results are really important, but you don’t actually care about them. </p>
<p>Also, because I don’t actually respect most of the AP tests that much, I don’t like the pressure your measure would put on results. I honestly didn’t care what my kids got on AP exams. For example, their AP Government & Politics class was a fabulous class, and very few (if any) kids got 5s, because the teacher didn’t teach to the AP test at all, which was fine by me because I thought what he taught was great.</p>
<p>SAT II subject tests are even worse, and you weight them even more heavily than the APs.</p>
<p>I think your averaging of all AP/SATII tests, with a small bonus for taking extra tests beyond three, is a massive disincentive to take risks in challenging courses. If you take a fourth AP test, out of your comfort zone, and score a 3 rather than a 5, you have lowered your index by 40 points, while you only raise it by 10 if you get a 5. That’s a bad bet. And at the same time, there shouldn’t be any incentive to double-up on SAT II and AP tests, since that’s double-counting and doesn’t indicate any substantive extra knowledge or skills.</p>
<p>Also, in your super-stat, you really need to find a way to bring actual performance in actual school in. If your super-stat became common, good students would take 3 AP courses (and a bunch of test prep) in 11th grade, and that would be all that mattered in their high school career. (Maybe they could take 3 AP courses in 10th grade, too, to goose the bonus points a bit.) Nothing they did in 9th or 12th grade would matter, except maybe for not committing a crime.</p>
<p>It’s an interesting approach. I agree with the comment that this approach would make the Super Stats University available to students from all over the country and indeed all over the world, because students in all regions do take the SAT Reasoning Test </p>
<p>and there are distance learning courses available for essentially all AP subjects, including several state-funded virtual schools in various states.</p>
<p>Isn’t this the utopia that the UC system has been looking for … with horrendous results? Simply looking at how the clueless in California cannot find the adequate formula and go back and forth on the value of the Sat Subject Tests, it’s a given that there are no “perfect” formulas. </p>
<p>The “numerical only” approach has as much chance of success as the “stats only” university. And that is none whatsoever.</p>
<p>I agree with JHS. This proposal just rewards kids & families who obsess over standardized testing, rather than seek meaningful educational experiences. There is no reason for taking more than three subject tests. No college asks for more than three. Why would a kid who enjoys spending Saturday mornings taking standardized tests be desirable to any college? I’d rather select a kid who got out & lived a bit and would contribute some of his experience to the campus. And why insist on math if a child has no interest in the field? If colleges want math focused kids, there are plenty of more difficult tests that kids can take to demonstrate this. But for the humanities focused kid, requiring math subject tests doesn’t show them in the best light. And I really do think colleges are o.k. with lopsided kids.</p>
<p>Haha, Canadian universities are basically “Stats Only”. I didn’t have to write a single essay, take a single standardized test, get a single teachers reference form, list a single EC…I just plugged in a few numbers!
I’m not sure how formulated their decision, was, however. I think it’s just if you’ve got the %, you’re in.
And although the Canadian university experience is certainly different than the classic American college experience, it’s certainly not BAD.</p>
<p>The real problem is that they lopped the top off of the SAT. So colleges can’t rely on the numbers like they used to. And parents think their kids are geniuses because they have “high” SAT scores, parents who are used to the old SAT test/scaling…</p>
<p>Canucker: Can you write a little bit more about the admissions process at Canadian colleges/universities? What numbers did you plug in? Can you apply to any/all schools?</p>
<p>Perfecting the three-section SAT is still exceedingly rare, and all students who do that wouldn’t even fill the entering class at ONE Ivy League college, or at any college larger than Caltech. </p>
<p>I’d like to “defend” my Super-Stat against some of the criticisms raised above. First, I readily agree that this test will disadvantage lopsided kids. That’s what it’s designed to do. At Super-Stats University, we only want the top kids who are good at everything.
Second, it may well disadvantage low income kids or kids from middling school systems. At SSU we don’t want them, unless they can already master college-level material.
As far as kids who take all their AP tests at the end of 12th grade, we don’t want them, either. We want the high achievers who take at least 3 APs by the end of 11th grade.
While it would be nice to take into account high-quality courses that don’t cover the same material as AP and SAT Subject tests, at SSU we insist on standardization, and thus are stuck with those tests. (We may develop our own Super-Test in the future.)
Also, while the formula might be a disincentive to some students to take more AP or SAT Subject tests, we think the most motivated students will take more, in the believe that they can achieve high scores. Also, note that a disappointing score on one of the first three SAT Subject or AP tests can be brought up through averaging by additional tests, with a bonus for just taking those additional tests.
JHS’s point on including AP and SAT Subject Tests in the same subject to be counted may have merit, and deserves further study. However, we believe that the tests are different enough to justify this approach, and we expect that most students will have at least some doubling.
At SSU, we are not really concerned about your grades in school, although (I just added this), we will revoke your admission if you don’t graduate. We also think that the very high scorers we seek will continue to do well in their high school courses, because we understand that some other colleges use different criteria than we do.
As for students in IB, we understand that many of them already take the AP tests in related subjects. Of course, we would be willing to consider replacing AP scores with IB scores if credible conversion factors could be created.
Finally, we don’t believe that SSU applicants obsess over testing. We believe that SSU applicants welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their skills according to objective criteria.</p>
<p>This is a generally important point about any modest proposal involving just one new college: students will still have to plan strategically to have a fall-back option if they are not admitted to their first-choice college, or if they are not sure that college is really their first choice.</p>
<p>Why do students apply to the schools they do? Because there are qualities about the school which suit their academic goals and appeal to their idea of what college social life should be. In addition, there are practical concerns such as location, cost, and whether or not the student’s preparation (already judged by GPA and test scores) would enable him to succeed at that school. The current system as it is, is not fair to every type of student from every kind of high school and from every geographic region, so why should we apply that standard to our hypothetical university? Currently, if I live in the Northeast, I will experience more competition for admission to an Ivy than if I live in North Dakota. That’s not fair, but at least I know that. I don’t think a stats-only school has to be “fair” in the sense of affording equal accessibility. The beauty and fairness of it will be that the standards are clear and calculable. If you can meet them because you went to a particular sort of high school, or if you have to meet the criteria through self-study, the point is that you know exactly what is required for admission and can determine in advance if your credentials mesh with those the school desires. If the application of that school’s standards to your application do not show you in the best light, then you could apply to an EC-only school, or a school for people who came from rural high schools with no or few AP’s, or a school for bright slackers or whatever. The greater transparency would be the point, since the lack thereof is a criticism of our current holistic system. If the student is the kind who wants to study all day and not feel he has to do anything else to be well-rounded or well-lopsided or humanitarian, then this could be the place for him, just as other schools suit other types of children.</p>
<p>(did not see the two previous posts when I wrote this)</p>
<p>Your theoretical U should give a “college graduation competency test” upon matriculation. This would identify what subjects the students need to take to pass each section of the exam. They can then take the recommended classes and retake the test until they meet the required score. When they do (and only when they do, whether it takes 6 mos or 60 years), a diploma would be conferred.</p>
<p>One thing about the SAT II for languages–that seems to only favor native-speakers (ref. the jillions of chances posters who have 800 in Chinese or Korean).</p>