“qualified students” and “proven best” are terms so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Qualified is whatever a college says it is in any individual case. CalTech has been striving for national and global diversity. In a tiny class of 270, any statistics are going to be suspect in the face of multiple correlated variables and small sample size.
Diversity can include differences in rigor or in preparation. Even in elite math, the training for the olympiad has some benefits, and so does taking topology in HS. College professors don’t know a priori which of these groups of students would do better on a second year exam. Could be the IMO gold medalist, but not every winner of the national spelling bee turns out to be a good writer or linguist.
If colleges’ only goal were to be an elite academic training ground, especially a place like Caltech, they’d admit a monolithic class of students with one kind of achievement (either the topology kids or the iMO kids) and tailor a curriculum to build on that specific background. In any system (education, health, economics) uniformity results in the most efficient gains.
The burden of diversity (both in rigor and in area of preparation) does fall on professors, their TA’s and others who do not want to see any students fail. Most studies I’ve read in the academic literature of education show that many students who are “behind” reliably catch up pretty quickly. It does take more work from teachers, and a bit of patience from those better prepared.
That is rather bold to suggest that you know more than Caltech professors about what will determine success at Caltech and who best represents the academic standards that are obviously meaningful to these professors.
I addressed this earlier in this thread. This is a rather disturbing bias. It may come as a shock to you, but plenty of applicants with top tier academic credentials also have artistic and athletic passions and accomplishments.
A conversation as to IMO vs. acceleration in math is a bit OT for this thread, but my statement is only “bold” as to multiple math faculty at top 10 math universities having said that the IMO kids always think they’re the best but don’t always do so well with “main line” math. Caltech may be different, but I doubt it. IMO is pretty specialized stuff.
It’s pretty obvious that those who are well-developed academically also are often awesome at chess, music, etc. I thought we were talking about academics and professors teaching classes - not piano classes. Not sure where the supposed bias is.
If these universities want to “talk the talk” on diversity, they also need to “walk the walk” as far as some students not arriving on campus ready to ace the curve. With grade inflation averaging a 3.7 GPA, if someone less prepared / underprivileged) but talented got a 3.0 GPA freshman year, they’d need to average 3.95 for the remaining 3 years just to get back to a total 3.7 GPA like their average well-prepared classmates. So that might be tough. So we abandon diversity?
College professors have their own unique biases. That is why many should be nowhere near an admissions department. SAT’s don’t measure the “intangibles”. This is why schools must decide for themselves what their “classes” should look like. College is more than an educational setting but, a social one as well.
Aren’t tests a large part of the overall grade for most high school classes? It’s not like these kids are just summarily handed their 3.8-4.0 and then get slammed, out of nowhere, with this inconceivable thing – a big, bad test called the SAT or ACT. They’ve been taking tests, and those test results are significant factors in their high GPAs.
They take tests all the time. It’s hard to imagine that a kid who takes 100 tests and manages a 3.9 GPA could really say, “Well, I got a 1070 because I suck at tests.”
How did you get a 3.9 in high school if you are a bad test-taker?
Possibilities:
Maybe schools aren’t teaching the knowledge necessary to do well on the SAT (hard to believe, but within the realm of possibility). Math, logic & reasoning, grammar, reading comprehension…
Maybe high school tests are generally easy to ace (also hard to believe, especially given that so many kids are taking AP and IB classes.) Or, the teachers are grading the exams leniently.
How can a kid who gets a 3.9 based largely on tests make the excuse that they are bad test-takers? Help me understand that. Is it… long-term vs. short-term memory maybe? Ability to memorize, but not use logic/reason?
I think it can be confusing because some of the discussion in this thread talks about distinguishing students at the high end, and some discussion talks about scores that are much lower. I feel those are different things.
Posters who want admissions at a highly selective public flagship (for example, 10-15% or lower admit rate) to be “transparent,” with test scores counting as a large part of the academic index, are talking about distinguishing students at the higher end.
A student with 3.9 UW GPA who is a “bad” test taker might (for example) get 1400 on the SAT, while their classmate with similar academic strength in the same high school classes who is a “really good test taker” might (for example) get 1550. This is the sort of spread that we observed at our school among students who were generally considered to be excellent, promising students. At this level, I feel that being a “bad” or “good” test taker DOES matter. And I feel that there is probably some level at which, if you set a cutoff in the name of transparency (I don’t know what the number would be, but let’s say 1500), or if test score differences at this level were very heavily weighted in admissions, you might miss out on some students who are quite good students, but are “bad” or “just okay” at taking tests.
However, I’m not talking about students getting 1070 (your example) on the test. I expect there is a level at which a low score would be a strong indication of a lack of sufficient preparation, or severe difficulty with testing to the point where college would be a challenge. I’m not a college admissions or testing expert, so I don’t know what that level would be.
I’m not sure why anyone who received and average score on a standardized test would claim to be a “bad” test taker. You are actually a competent test taker. Just because you scored lower than you thought you would doesn’t mean your score is “bad” or you aren’t capable. I mentioned this earlier; it’s an excuse and defense of the ego. If you are a 4.0 whatever student, you likely have a possibly inflated self image with regards to intelligence. An average score invalidates that belief, so the ego attacks the source of the discomfort, and voila! I’m a bad test taker (or fill in whatever rationalization you prefer).
Apparently the timed math test in Mr smiths period 3 class that you received an “A” on is a valid representation of aptitude. The timed math test on a Saturday afternoon that you did poorly on that covers the same material is too “high stakes” and is “unfair” because it is timed. Help make sense of this logic.
Was it never the case that you took a class (in high school, college, or elsewhere) and noticed that there were one or more students who may not have been the TOP performers on the midterm or final exam, but were nevertheless really outstanding students in some other meaningful and substantive aspect of the class?
For example, students who really excelled when they worked on essays, extended research papers, individual or team projects, labs and associated lab reports, hands on engineering, creative or original thinking, thoughtful discussion and debate, … ?
Note, I’m not talking about students who do HORRIBLY on tests. But the TOP performers on tests are not always the TOP students in every way.
Of course! People are gifted in different ways. World needs hard workers as much as it needs the brainiacs. Or empathetic people. The list goes on and on.
For the purposes of this discussion, we’re talking about the relevancies of standardized testing. I’ve said before, there are a vocal group of people who’ll twist themselves into knots trying to invalidate the purpose and conclusions that cam be drawn from standardized tests, despite the known, and mounting, evidence that they DO correlate to success at the college level (and beyond).
Because two Mr. Smiths in two different parts of the US may be giving two math tests that are vastly different in difficulty. That’s why standardized tests are useful, especially when viewed in context.
As someone who has tutored math specifically and has a math degree and has taught, tutored, volunteered, helped kids with college apps, etc I think the tests as they are designed now are not particulary testing aptitude. They are testing processing speed on a limited skill set with a relatively low ceiling. That may be an interesting correlated statistic but it is far from perfect. Academic tests that high schoolers and even college students typically take are pretty different in format often with less empahasis on time management. I would also say I have worked with some gifted math students who weren’t necessarily fast.
I was a first gen student. I took the ACT one and done with a glance over. Was nervous, did ok, high 20’s if I am remembering correctly. Graduated in the top 10 of my class of 350 in the dark ages when it was normal not to get straight As. My parents gave me a choice of 3 in state schools and I picked the flagship engineering program (where I may not be accepted if I were a student with the same stats today). Graduated with 2 BS degrees, regularly making the dean’s list and tested at the top of the GMAT.
I am personally fine with schools chosing to do what they want. I actually think especially with historic data/AI, some schools (like state flagships) may have enough data on individual schools to be able to predict which students will be successful (and likely to attend for that matter). I am a big fan of funding public colleges and universities for highly affordable paths.
I just think if we are testing students we could do a whole lot better, get more and better info, and be more equitable. An online test could potentially be administered in school on demand at low/no cost. Much less time dependant. Wealthy students are much more likely to have testing accomodations. High ceiling, possibly adaptive so maybe you could really suss it out at the top end. Break them up by subject so a student could chose to retake math or english easily. The fact that most colleges don’t use these for placement anymore is pretty telling to me.
I am about to be offline for a couple days for the most part, just a few thoughts I had. My first kid had very high apply anywhere kind of stats/academics as an aside. My 2nd kid was auditioning for music at colleges/universities and had 2 ACTs cancelled through covid so went test optional. But very similar students other than kid #2 is not STEM interested at all.
It just took them a few centuries for the interviewers to stop mostly choosing wealthy White Protestant kids who attended private high schools. Until a decade ago, kids from public high schools were less likely to be able to take the required A-levels, were less likely to get interviews with the same A-level scores as their wealthy private school counterparts, and were far less likely to get an offer than wealthy private school graduates who had the same A-level scores.
They are not all that diverse, but are better than they were a decade ago, and ONLY by practicing race- and income-aware interviewing. So, to actually avoid mostly choosing students like themselves, they had to be taught and trained. they are also using methods that would be prohibited in the USA.
Faculty at Oxford are really not diverse at all, so it’s not surprising that they would select people like themselves. They still aren’t at all diverse. For example, of the 1,952 permanent academic staff (that’s what they have now instead of tenure), only 11 are Black. Not 11%, but 11. Of the full professors, 80% are men, etc, etc:
It all depends on who you are comparing it to. Compared to its HYPSM peers, Oxford is doing just fine on the diversity front, with less than 1/3 of its students from private schools. And Britain has greater social mobility than the US.
Not that it matters, US faculty would never bother with playing a real role in admissions. That’s why colleges have administrators.
It depends on the college. For example, Caltech was discussed a few posts up. Many members of Caltech’s faculty are quite involved in the admissions process. Caltech’s website states, “every student admitted to Caltech receives a positive review from a professor.”
The Caltech admissions podcast linked earlier discusses this in relation to Caltech’s decision to go test blind. The director of admissions mentions that the faculty are able to assist in things like understanding whether the applicants’ ECs/awards/research/… are truly meaningful in their field or not, in ways that a typical admin reader may miss.
While Caltech is the exception, rather than the rule; I wouldn’t assume the reason for lack of faculty involvement is that “US faculty would never bother.” Many faculty do care about undergraduate admissions. However, their involvement also depends on things like practicality (Caltech has a very high faculty/student ratio) and whether admissions wants to dramatically change their existing system, for a more time consuming and expensive one, that may be prone to biases or going against existing admission goals.
The reason Faculty should only be remotely involved is the “independence” of the process and the “social” dynamic of the university. The whole discussion above is very highly skewed towards the “elite” schools or “big brands” and is not representative of the vast majority of what schools are seeking. The elite schools can pick from anyone and have a luxury of choice so they can play the “testing” standard game to get the students they want to pick anyway.
You are correct in one thing. The overwhelming majority of colleges & universities accept just about everyone, regardless of standardized test scores. To post in this thread, on either side of the issue of standardized testing, is an endorsement to the concept that attending a highly selective institution really matters.