I don’t think the schools are ill intentioned and I think they’d like to believe that requiring the SAT will result in attracting more talented low income kids, but the numbers suggest that will be a tall order. Prior to TO, only 25% of low income students were testing - I can only imagine that the percentage is lower today. How do you encourage kids to go back to testing if they are unaware of the nuances - most teenagers aren’t dialed in the way that CC posters are and kids in low income communities are less likely to have a GC that can encourage them as they are so thinly staffed. And even when kids do test and perform well relative to their school you have the challenge of getting them to apply - new rules don’t allow schools to buy lists from the CB anymore so they can’t do the same kind of targeted outreach that they used to. For the record, I hope I’m wrong.
There are multiple references here:
And also here:
“Results show that essays have a stronger correlation to reported household income than SAT scores.”
There are also many other studies talking about this.
The real question is this, are the people in this thread who are anti-SAT also as passionate about putting an end to college admission essays?
This study found the exact opposite of what you claim. SAT was tremendously more correlated with income than any other analyzed factor. However, when controlling for SAT score, top 1% still had an advantage even beyond that. Specific numbers from the quoted study are repeated below.
Portion of Kids Scoring 1500+ on SAT by Parents Income
99.9th Percentile Income – 7%
99th Percentile Income – 5%
98th Percentile Income – 4%
96-97th Percentile Income – 3%
90-95th Percentile Income – 2%
…
Median Income – 0.2%
Low Income – 0.0%
This has been discussed many times before. The study did not find that good college essays correlate with income. It instead found that keywords related to essay content correlated with income. For example, it found that essays with keywords related to travel + China were associated with high income. It didn’t evaluate whether those essays talking about traveling to China were good or not, just that an admin officer could theoretically try to predict income based on essay topic.
Harvard’s endowment is $50 billion. I don’t think it is swayed by the lobbying power of a $1 billion industry.
More likely it just wants to use the SAT in its evaluation of students.
I’m a little confused as to why Deming is so clearly leaning the other way on this (emphasis mine):
Harvard gazette Nov 22, 2023
GAZETTE: Some experts say the SAT test has become a sort of “wealth test.” What’s your take on this?
DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.
I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.
Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.
My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.
Deming doesn’t specify it the interview, so there is not a lot to evaluate. What is more clear, is when you compare test optional and test submitter admits at selective colleges, test optional admits average lower income than test submitter admits. Dozens of colleges have published this stat, and I am not aware of any exceptions. The kids who are actually being admitted
test optional, when focusing on the non-score sections of application, are more likely to be lower income. For example, in the analysis at Wayback Machine , at all 21 of the reviewed colleges, test optional kids averaged lower income than test submitter kids
I think one does have to consider that since their group is trying to promote equity of access to Ivy+ across SES, their desire to keep the SAT (and Friedman supports keeping the SAT, and i can only assume Chetty as well) does indicate something. Whether they want us to have the data to vet their claims is another thing, but lacking that I’m comfortable taking their word for it given their stated goals.
The simple truth…
Endowment is irrelevant. It is the lobbying of decision -makers.
Ok, now tell me how College Board’s lobbying is influential enough to sway the admission decision makers at Harvard, MIT, Dartmouth, Brown …
It is a whole industry and not just one organization.
The massive $1 billion industry. Reminds me of the Dr Evil scene from Austin Powers.
Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.
Everyone attacking the SAT needs to address this point. Take away standardized tests, and you are taking away the least unfair aspect of admissions. Test Optional or Test Blind hurts applicants that aren’t wealthy.
Why do you want to take away standardized tests and make things harder for the less fortunate?
Blockquote
In reality, this is untrue especially for the high profile colleges that just announced a return to test required. The College Board has fairly well-known ways to apply for fee relief for the test. At Harvard and Dartmouth for families making <$125k per year, family contribution is zero and loans are zero. And there are myriad free online SAT prep resources.
For low income students, Ivy colleges are generally less expensive than their state school.
So, a pretty nice opportunity financed in part by those full-price paying legacies.
You bolded the world “probably” in your quote, implying it is a guess. Why do you assume this guess without listed evidence is correct, and all of the evidence to the contrary that has been posted in this thread is incorrect?
This includes the analysis linked few posts above where test optional admits had lower average income than test submitter admits at all 21 of the reviewed schools, or the previously linked review at Ithaca that came to the same conclusion, or the one at Bates that came to the same conclusion, or the one at every other college I am aware that has done such a review? Or the link you listed in your earlier post that found highest income kids were >100x more likely to get 1500+ SAT than low income kids? Or the Harvard lawsuit analysis that was linked earlier? Or …
Many of the schools that are reinstituting testing, have the most generous financial aid. (Yale is about as generous as can be. Dartmouth has eliminated loans as part of the package.)
I don’t think anyone is really attacking the SAT, but it’s not a difficult point to address. There has been a lot of great data posted here. Reasonable takeaways are that SAT’s are somewhat correlated with wealth - like most other factors apparently relevant to admission.
As to the claim that test-optional and test-blind policies harm low-income students, that is an unproven assertion. These are two completely separate regimes. In test-optional, a high-scoring albeit low income student can simply send in her score. If there is a concern that low income students have misperceptions as to their scores, going test-required is far from the only solution.
As to test-blind, where you come out on this (based on data and not politics) is whether you think the additional information from a highly correlated variable is significant. Some studies say yes, some no. And people and institutions argue about what “significant” means or which “significant” is fair. That was the UC experience posted and discussed above.
Obviously, no one is trying to harm the less fortunate. That’s a straw man. Both sides want to help the less fortunate. But they are coming to different conclusions based on a lot of data that are themselves, a very close call.
I’m hoping this thread stays open as it is an amazing collection site for demographic and admissions data.
I have been reading this thread as a bystander and wondered how the academic index originated and why SAT/ACT were weighed twice as heavily as GPA, for both non athletes and athletes. This preceded the idea of grade inflation that is pervasively hypothesized on this and other sites.
Also, how would you apply AP scores in an academic index formula?
Where is the data that proves that Ivy colleges are less expensive than state?
Of course, no one is addressing the “gender” gap issue with SATs.