I’m not sure I know what a social justice degree is, but to get a degree in Sociology, you need to get through a few stats classes. To get an advanced degree in it, I think you need even more. I didn’t major in it nor did any of my children, but I think it employs statistics generally.
2 Likes
I’m sure you’re right. Even the soft, social sciences use stats to substantiate their theories.
1 Like
When it comes to Caltech:
When it comes to Yale and Dartmouth:
Are you being consistent here?
Mostly agree. Even though I am generally in favor of testing, I believe that different colleges can validly come to different conclusions based upon the applicant body. The set of students applying to the University of California can have a different set of characteristics than the set of students applying to say Bowdoin. I would have expected the the applicants to Michigan and the University of California would have been similar, so the opposite conclusions there are unexpected.
Many colleges that are using tests have said they use them as a first pass, and pretty much not after that.
You have previously complained that the SATs are not good enough because they only explained 22% of the variance, corresponding to a correlation of about 0.47. But the correlation between SAT and income is much lower, so why would you bring this up now?
7 Likes
Did you use Bowdoin as example knowing they have been test optional since the 1960s?
Yes.
I have long said there is value in having test-optional colleges even if testing is required. Because even if a test is predictive of performance for a majority of students, it is not predictive for all students. Colleges like Bowdoin can apparently find the students that will thrive without tests.
4 Likes
Not me (per bolded). But even if the apps are similar, Admissions is not. Ann Arbor has half the Pell Grantees than does Cal or UCLA. UC gives big bumps to low income students, apparently UM chooses differently.
Even in the varsity blues cases, no one “faked” a disability if I am recall correctly. A doctor writes a neuropsychological report with testing and data. They have to list the names of the psychological testing administered and the results - this is standard for neuropsychological reports. They can’t just diagnose out of thin air.
“Faking” a disability to get extra times for standardized testing is overblown.
In the varsity blues cases, it was mostly faked participation in sports like crew, tennis, fencing, soccer etc with coaches at the schools getting payoffs and the testing centers being crooked with someone changing the kid’s answers to get a higher score.
Sad.
1 Like
By compressed, the CB has done what they call recentering a number of times. “In 1996, the Educational Testing Service simplified the SAT. The overall effect was to raise the average combined score. On the high end, a verbal score of 730 on the old scale is now awarded a perfect 800 and a math score of 780 on the old scale is now scored as 800.”
In principle, percentiles would not change, but a) more people look like that are tippy-top and b) you won’t be able to distinguish between an old 780 and a old 790 and an old 800. Not clear how much that matters, but my guess is that having the scores boosted higher is helpful to any kind of social engineering or discrimination that the admissions committee wishes to do.
See: SAT Score Conversion Chart.
and
3 Likes
No, conspiring with a psychologist to purchase an accommodation was in fact one of Singer’s go-to methods and the only one he used that didn’t involve someone on the university side’s being bribed.
“The conspiracy relied on the parents getting medical documentation that would entitle their children to extra time on the test, an accommodation normally made for students with disabilities. Students who need extra time generally take the test alone, supervised only by a proctor — providing the opportunity for a bribed proctor to rig the outcome. Mr. Singer advised parents on how to get the medical documentation needed to qualify.
“According to court filings, in a conversation with Mr. Caplan, Mr. Singer explained that for $4,000 or $5,000, a psychologist he worked with would write a report saying Mr. Caplan’s daughter had disabilities and required special accommodations. He assured Mr. Caplan that many parents did this for their children.
“What happened is, all the wealthy families that figured out that if I get my kid tested and they get extended time, they can do better on the test,” Mr. Singer said in the conversation. “So most of these kids don’t even have issues, but they’re getting time. The playing field is not fair.”
2 Likes
Thanks for pointing that out. I stand corrected. Singer was a special case though, bribing coaches, psychologists, testing administrators, etc. Happy he was exposed, coaches fired and parents shamed.
I still think that the # bribing psychologists to fake a diagnosis is overblown….
All that $$$ to get their kid into USC when they would have fit in so much better and been so much happier at Arizona State;)
I think it’s pretty clear, though, that wealthier parents who are savvier and have more resources and who have children who legitimately need accommodations are more likely to get them – because they can pay for evaluations, because they know such accommodations exist in the first place, because they more likely to have the time and knowledge of the system to lobby for their kids.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I am a parent whose kid got some accommodations, for absolutely legitimate reasons).
But – sometimes, similar parents whose kids might not need accommodations push just as hard for them, and get them (this is more rare, but if you read to the end of the linked article, it does happen in wealthy schools). And the fact that parents who are living on the margins, who are immigrants and thus less familiar with the system, whose children attend under-resourced schools are less likely to receive legitimate accommodations signals that there is definitely inequity in standardized testing.
1 Like
I think the parents pushing for a disability accommodation when their kid doesn’t have a disability is rare. Most of the time, the kid is not doing well in school and/or scoring poorly on standardized testing. Who are we to say that that’s not due to a disability?
Lucky kids who have their parents advocating for them.
I know people at top 14 law schools who were referred for neuropsychological testing by their school and they got a diagnosis! Better late than never…. Also one guy who got diagnosed after law school at the end of his federal clerkship. Even if you get the diagnosis late, it’s valid and a relief and a revelation.
Sure, but given these accommodations are more likely to be used by wealthy students than low-income students, who are we to say that the low-income students who score poorly on standardized tests don’t have an undiagnosed disability or that their test scores wouldn’t go up with accommodations? I tend to believe that most students with accommodations have a real learning difference, but I have noticed that when a wealthy kid at my children’s schools “is not doing well in school and/or scoring poorly on standardized testing,” the parents jump to explore the reasons why the kid is struggling and they begin asking about neuropsychological testing, accommodations, and extended time. That seems fine and appropriate.
But I have definitely noticed that in this forum, the same benefit of the doubt is rarely given to the low-income kid who “is not doing well in school and/or scoring poorly on standardized testing.” Instead, most posters here are quick to believe the poor test scores indicate a student incapable of college level work, and a few posters repeatedly make posts claiming that poor performance on the SAT must be a sign of low intelligence. Who is to say that if the low income kid had been given access to the same testing and (if warranted) the same accommodations, their scores would not be higher?
6 Likes
I think “most” is overstating it. The issue at hand is whether a student has demonstrated that capability and preparedness. And coming from some schools, some students unfortunately have not (straight A’s from an unproven HS that might produce low AP scores, just as an example). So the question becomes whether the college is willing to take a chance on them.
Most of the testing in admissions debate (the “screening” portion) is really a “promise” vs “preparedness” debate. The idea is which student will thrive academically, and the answer is “those that are prepared (to the best of one’s knowledge)” AND “those that could have been better prepared (had they had better opportunities)”. Both have risk, but the latter has more so (at least apparently for Ivy+ schools based on Chetty’s work).
The problem I’ve been having is, alongside this lack of grace you’re railing against, there is also tremendous bias against the privileged here. Guilty until proven innocent kind of bias. Some call that prejudice, and others may call it bigotry. While I don’t believe it’s possible to root that stuff out completely, I think we should at least strive to minimize it, despite it being a sisyphean task.
7 Likes
That article I cited explains it - SAT scores are already correlated to wealth, but for the same SAT scores, very wealthy applicants are much more likely to be accepted. This data was from when these colleges required SAT scores.
Except that the SAT scores also depend on the experience and understanding of the SAT test itself. The fact that students can improve their SAT scores without having to take any more classes, the fact that there are courses aimed at teaching students how to do better on the SATs, tells me that they are not simply tests of the material that the students learned in high school.
Fact: the best way to prepare for the SATs is to do multiple practice tests. Not to review the material, not to get a deeper understanding of the material, but simply practice doing SAT tests. If the SATs were a good test of mastery of the material, preparing for the SATs would consist of going back over the material.
I am not categorically against a comprehensive test of general knowledge to supplement the GPA, I do, however, think that the SAT no longer does that, if it ever did. Between the fact that it has a tendency to ask questions in a roundabout way which is very characteristic of the SATs but not of the way that English, math, and science are taught, and its tendency to recycle questions, the SATs have become their own little system.
The SATs need to be rethought.
However, at the end of the day, this country is failing low SES kids, and there are too many low income kids who indeed aren’t prepared for college, and these low income kids will underperform on even the most fair SAT tests possible. On the other hand, there are many low to mid income kids who are college ready, but are underperforming on tests because of the way that the system works.
3 Likes
Yes. Privileged kids get no credit on this thread. If they do very well on standardized tests, it’s “of course they should,” as if their hard work, discipline, and talent mean nothing. Disadvantaged kids get the benefit of the doubt. If they don’t do well on standardized tests, it’s “only if they have the resources” or “these tests don’t measure academic excellence” and a myriad of other reasons. The reverse bias is appalling.
8 Likes
I have seen people game the low income situation. I know people who quit their jobs so their kids qualify for quest bridge and the kids got into ivies. So there are always examples both ways of people gaming the income and the test accommodations. Also lots of families overseas may qualify as low income when compared to US standards of living but their purchasing parity is much higher. Take an income of 60000 in CA vs same in south Asian or African country and one can see the difference.
These are zebras that we are looking at not the horses.
I totally agree. Everyone who is privileged is not getting these scores and accolades . They still have to work hard , make sacrifices and be dedicated to their studies to excel at it. It almost seems like some posters assume privilege = high performance.
3 Likes
Questbridge also has asset limitations (“minimal assets” is their wording), so these families with no jobs would have had not much in the way of assets.
Further, when applying to financially generous/meet full need schools and one or both parents is not working, the FA staff often ask for more details (even beyond CSS Profile requirements)…starting with ‘how are you paying your bills?’ and going from there.
3 Likes