OK, so you see your admission file - that still is an anecdote.
My quote was a wink to the Harrison-Biden debate.
CA kids have UCs, which are incredible institutions and don’t require tests. I wouldn’t worry about CA students. There are easy pathways into even the most selective of those campuses.
I think test availability is not an issue outside of CA.
Ok I get the joke now
California is the most populated state by far. It’s students matter, as they make up a significant portion of the potential candidate pool of any top institution. For example, according to collegefactual.com, over 18% of domestic MIT students come from California.
Moreover, even if we look at nationwide numbers, only a quarter of students from the lowest 20% of income distribution bother to take either the SAT or ACT, and only about 0.5% of students from the lowest 20% score above 1300. In short, the vast majority of students from low SES families aren’t taking the tests, and if they do happen to take the tests they aren’t scoring at a level compares favorably to published numbers at elite schools, so they aren’t even bothering to apply.
1 Like
My point it there is no big loss not having access to these “top schools” for CA kids since we have amazing public institutions that do significant work trying to expand opportunities to low income and first generation students. I understand that we account for a large chunk of potential student population.
So how should colleges go about identifying promising students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds? I’m serious.
I know everyone hates the mailers. But the most talented low SES student I interviewed for my alma mater applied because he got a letter which explained that below a certain income level, college would be free for his family (but he’d need work study for incidentals) and that he could get an application waiver with a form signed by his guidance counselor. He had never heard of this college, and up until the letter, his plan was a local “technical college” (now a CC) for an AA or certificate in something health related. Why should the world miss out on a talented surgeon-- eventually-- because he came from a rural community where NOBODY went to a four year college, let alone on to Med school? No guidance counselor but the kid was smart enough to use his principal instead.
I know everyone hates the PSAT. But for kids lucky enough to be at a HS which explains “do well on the PSAT and it could be money in your pocket”-- how great that there are still institutions which offer financial inducements to National Merit Scholars?
There is so much to dislike about the uneven allocation of educational resources. But other than sending an Adcom on a month long field trip to rural Kentucky, Kansas, Arkansas, and Missouri, how do you reach smart and talented kids in small rural HS’s?
6 Likes
Oh, how I wish I was HS '26. I got a 36 ACT, 1530 (single take) SAT & 1470 NMSQT, and I would not mind being compared with all scores instead of just the top!
1 Like
This is where the local context comes in. They compare your score not the their standard, but to the scores of the people around you. A 1400 is much more impressive there than in SoCal.
In my opinion, it is the elite schools who suffer the “big loss.” The kids (from CA and elsewhere) top schools are trying to attract don’t even bother applying. It is easy for schools to claim that they searching for diamonds-in-the-rough and to even come up with a few anecdotes, but their policies prevent the vast majority of potential low SES applicants bothering to even apply.
The “local context” is that low SES kids are unlikely to bother to take the tests, and therefor can’t apply.
And if a kid happens to the odds and take the test and get a 1400, they probably aren’t going to apply to the elite colleges if the average for the elite college is 1540. How does an elite college admit that kid with the 1400 if that kid doesn’t even apply?
In a different thread, MITChris explained why MIT quit using Subject Test scores:
That’s the crucial balance that schools are repeatedly ignoring when they explain why they are going back to requiring the tests. Does the increased predictive utility for those who apply outweigh the fact that requiring the tests excludes a huge swath of potential candidates - especially low SES candidates - from applying at all?
1 Like
I think colleges need to stop publishing these ranges.
4 Likes
And then there’s the thunderous “why can’t they be more transparent?”
3 Likes
You can’t please everybody. If they feel that those inflated score ranges are preventing kids from applying, they can withhold them. They don’t currently publish how many AP classes admitted kids took and what their scores were.
1 Like
And this is the strange thing about how Yale and Dartmouth have communicated their change back to requiring ACT or SAT. They can do what they want, and require the data the school admin think they need to make the best admission decision. Why the need to try and justify their [still] opaque process at all?
Yep. Most of the elite private schools don’t do well on measures of social mobility. It tends to be state schools, many with high admission rates, that do well in social mobility rankings/measurements.
Most colleges have no problem getting apps from and accepting disadvantaged applicants. But, I assume you are talking about the more selective schools. There are many ways that these colleges are trying to get more of these students.
- Feet on the street (AOs visiting schools in disadvantaged communities). Some colleges have AOs dedicated to finding these students. This is not really an expensive proposition. Entry level AOs make at the most $50K.
- Marketing, I don’t know how common mailers are, but counselor reach out (including independent counselors, including the many doing the heavy lifting at the community based non-profits) is sorely lacking IMO. And transparency to counselors on average is pathetic.
- Fly-in programs
- PSAT score sure, but colleges can’t get data/student names from CollegeBoard anymore, which mitchris has talked about. (I’m not sure if colleges can’t get any data from CB, or if it’s just different somehow)
- There is a group of colleges focused on rural HSs, the STARS network. Mostly highly rejective schools. They have a road show, and do other marketing/reach out. https://starscollegenetwork.org/
- NACAC has a small town and rural working group that meets regularly.
I’m sure there are things I missed. But lots of smart people have been working on this for a a decade or more. Sometimes I don’t think they all want to see meaningful change with regard to this measure. But I’m cynical since I hear the water cooler and inside baseball talk.
1 Like
I think there’s a disconnect between the often idealistic admission officers, who would love to admit many low-income students, and the people running the university who need to make sure the budget balances. Case in point is legacy, which provides a set of students much more likely to be full pay. And of course the admission preferences for children of rich donors.
3 Likes
I agree (but do know plenty of AOs who aren’t idealistic.) Even the colleges with large endowments have an annual budget for net tuition revenue, and it doesn’t include giving aid to all students. Requiring test scores, at least right now, means a relatively larger proportion of affluent apps.
In addition to legacy and development admits, are recruited athletes…many of which are full pay. Being full pay is an advantage in athletic recruiting at many schools. And there are more athletic recruits than legacies and/or developmental admits at many of the schools we are talking about.
2 Likes
Are you saying they require SAT scores so they can specifically scan for affluent students? You realize they can do that easily by just looking at zip codes or extracurriculars activities. I mean 93% of kids in the top 1% of income households don’t seem to be managing to crack a 1500 on SAT despite probably the most elite education they received. If they wanted more of those kids, they would just rely on zip codes and private schools. Or just become need aware.
4 Likes
Nope that’s not what I said. I said that requiring test scores will result in an application pool with relatively more affluent applicants.
3 Likes
But there are lots of things they could require (or emphasize) that would make for a more affluent applicant pool. They could favor squash and dressage over other sports, for example. But scores- at least at a gross level- are tied to the academic success of the student whereas the “lifestyles of the rich and famous” do not.
I’m trying to follow your point but having trouble.
2 Likes
There is a significant body of data that show affluent students have higher test scores.
ACT stopped breaking out results by income sometime in the not too distant past. Here’s their research: https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/5688-data-byte-2016-5-adjusted-differences-in-act-scores-by-family-income.pdf
Jon Boeckenstedt made a visual of the 2018 data:
Link to graphic:
And this NYT article (gift link) based on one of Raj Chetty’s research studies:
2 Likes
Yes, but this is not a reason to not consider test scores. Think of all the dimensions of a college application that benefit wealthy applicants - private tutors, coaching, enrichment opportunities, private school guidance counselors, private college counseling, select travel sports teams, travel abroad, grade inflation at competitive private schools, etc. The SAT, while not perfect, can be one constant across all applicants and probably the least influenced by wealth compared to the others.
Also, this article makes an interesting case
“The SAT is revealing differences in current ability, not creating those differences. And scrapping the tests wouldn’t make those differences disappear.”
6 Likes