 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
In the Comments
"We don’t vote for grownups in Muskogee,
Recent Posts
Top Official in Education Dept. to Lead Business-School Consortium Diane Auer Jones, the assistant secretary for postsecondary education, will become president of the Washington Campus. GAO Report Says Community Colleges Are Crucial in Training the Work Force The colleges continue to meet the needs of local industry through specific technical training, the report says. Academic Capital Flows: U. of Chicago Plans $200-Million Milton Friedman Institute The research center will honor the late economist’s free-market scholarship. Comment [8] Medical School for Physician-Scientists Will Offer Free Tuition Leaders at the Cleveland Clinic hope the move will spark more interest in academic medicine. Study Finds Varying Community-College Enrollments Among States The report also call for more research into why some states enroll greater proportions of their citizens in community colleges than others.
Most Commented This Month
Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath | 74 Princeton U. Press Recalls Typo-Filled Book and Says It Will Reprint | 57 U. of Colorado at Boulder Wants to Hire 'Professor of Conservative Thought' | 57 Roman Catholic College Disinvites Pro-Choice Speaker | 47 U. of Florida Plans Layoffs and Enrollment Cuts as State Funds Fall | 44
By Category
Athletics
Blog Archives
Keep Up to Date
Today's most e-mailed
Prior days' news: By date | Search This week's print issue Back issues: By date | Search March 25, 2008Elite Colleges' Scramble to Enroll High SAT Scorers May Undermine DiversityNew York—Elite colleges have been undermining their own efforts to diversify by giving much more weight to high SAT scores than they did before, according to an analysis of College Board data presented this morning at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association. Over the past two or three decades, the share of freshman-class seats that elite colleges award to students with high SAT scores has risen significantly—and risen more quickly than the number of high scores, according to an analysis by Catherine L. Horn, an assistant professor of educational leadership and cultural studies at the University of Houston, and John T. Yun, an assistant professor of education at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The researchers examined the freshman classes entering the 30 highest-ranked institutions in the 2007 U.S. News and World Report annual college guide. SAT scores of entrants were available for 19 of the institutions. Of those, all but four enrolled classes in which more than 30 percent of the students had SAT verbal scores above 700, and more than half enrolled classes in which more than 50 percent of students had verbal scores over 700. In 1979, by contrast, just one of the 30 institutions enrolled a freshman class in which more than 30 percent of the students had verbal scores above 700. From 1989 to 2007, the researchers found, the share of entering freshmen with SAT verbal scores above 700 rose from 33 percent to 78 percent at Yale University, from 24 to 67 percent at Stanford University, from 9 to 54 percent at the University of Pennsylvania, and from 18 to 68 percent at the University of Chicago. Of the 74,000 students nationwide who earned SAT verbal scores above 700 in 2006, roughly 25,000 enrolled in one of the 30 institutions. The most prestigious of the 30 institutions, such as the members of the Ivy League, have always had large pools of high-scoring applicants, but the institutions now appear to be placing more emphasis on entrants’ SAT scores—a trend the researchers see as linked to the weight that U.S. News and other publications give to students’ SAT scores in judging selectivity for the publications’ college rankings. Other institutions—such as the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and Wake Forest University—have experienced surges in the number of high scorers applying but also appear to be giving high scores more weight. The researchers say that, by focusing so heavily on high scorers, the elite colleges they examined are ignoring promising minority students with lesser scores, increasing the competition for high-scoring minority students, and potentially “simply ‘pricing’ themselves out of the ‘market’ for a more diverse learning environment.” Especially among the most prestigious of the 30 institutions, it is hard to believe that putting less emphasis on high SAT scores would cause the institutions’ quality to suffer. The two researchers’ findings are included in a forthcoming book, Realizing Bakke’s Legacy, being published in June in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. —Peter Schmidt Posted on Tuesday March 25, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Previous: Japanese Academics Decry Government Decision That Blocked Italian Philosopher's Visit
|
SAT scores are definitely not the only measure of a whole person. It would be interesting to discover where all the other intelligent, worthy students go who are rejected by the elite 30 colleges. Other universities must be benefiting from the fine young people who are turned away. There are so many qualities that determine a successful life. Intellect and cognitive development is only one facet of a person.
— Rosalie Franks Mar 25, 03:26 PM #
I wish Rupert Murdoch would buy US News and turn it into a soft-core porn magazine (which is what it is, in a manner of speaking). This would give it at least some redeeming social value.
— Brian Mar 25, 03:27 PM #
Who told you that elite colleges have any commitment to diversity? Elite colleges serve a primary socio-economic function to match PLU’s with other PLU’s. If you’re inferring that by using the SAT they’ve reduced diversity from 2% to 1%, I think you’re debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
— marci Mar 25, 03:28 PM #
um, elite colleges are the ones that tell you they have a commitment to diversity. the author is just taking them at their word.
— umdgrad Mar 25, 03:38 PM #
We don’t understand the dancing angels reference; however, we remain quite pleased with ourselves and are continually amazed at how selective and special we are.
Sincerely,
The Ivy League
— Alberto Jones Mar 25, 03:54 PM #
EVERYTHING is going up at these schools… including diversity. Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN HAVE IT ALL.
— Dan Mar 25, 03:59 PM #
Everyone can get off their high horses about “elite” colleges and universities. Every college and university aspires to be better and to improve their public images. Except for the original “Ivy” schools, most of the current prestigious schools had humble beginnings, and many almost closed. They worked hard, built a reputation and brand, and garnered a following. I can say the same about places like Ohio State, University of Michigan, etc. Their students and employees are almost like a cult, and they also have millions (even billions) in the bank. As for diversity, yes, everyone touts it and rarely is it true. We all have to work harder to improve diversity at our institutions. However, there are only so many students to go around. It’s not that easy to recruit diverse populations to the border of Washington and Idaho (Washington State University), nor to the Berkshire mountains of Massachusetts (Williams College).
Cal State Univ.
— Carson Mar 25, 04:04 PM #
Marci, come on. You love just making the outrageous statement. Whether true or not. Unfortunately, too often without any data backing up your viewpoint. So look at the data on diversity before you just pop off. Race/ethnic data are readily available in IPEDS, for every college and university, over time.
First, the average highly selective private college is now just over 30% composed of black, hispanic, asian, and native American students (counting only US citizens in these four categories). The average highly selective private university (e.g., the Ivy League now) is 35% diverse by this measure. And if one excludes Asian Americans, these percentages drop, but only to just about 20%. Not 1%. Not 2% Fully 10 to 20 times these amounts, even without counting Asian Americans. You seriously trivialize our large presence at these schools when you say things like you did.
Further, these schools decidedly HAVE increased r/e diversity – by the numbers, by the data. And by BIG margins. 25 years ago 1982-83) these same colleges were 14% race/ethnic diverse, and the universities were at 16% (counting Asian Americans; both were at 8% without them). And before 1982, both sets of schools were lower than this. So, the gains in r/e diversity over time among the nation’s most selective schools have been big. That is demonstrable commitment to diversity.
A more interesting question is their economic diversity, something IPEDS does not collect data about.
Honestly, I am surprised that the researchers apparently did not include IPEDS race/ethnic enrollment trends in their work, if indeed they were making the claim that the trend upward in SAT scores might be reducing diversity.
But you, at least, should look at the data before you just pop off with some half-baked statement that is simply incorrect. You have something of a habit of doing so that seriously needs some tempering and improvement.
— Seen It All Before! Mar 25, 04:05 PM #
My son, whose father is a minority, therefore he is a minority group member, was actively recruited by Ivy League schools (verbal and math over 700 on SAT). He, short-sightedly rebuffed them all (now his gf is at one of the 7 sisters…) and he is stuck elsewhere…
The Ivies DO recruit high-scoring minorities.
— bb Mar 25, 04:09 PM #
The single largest predictor of performance across all domains of performance is general mental ability or what we refer to as “g”. One of the few unambiguous findings from research in Organizational Behavior is that nothing predicts performance as well as intelligence. Now before you all go saying “but I know so and so who is smart but lazy” you need to understand that these findings are tendencies within a population. There are lots of lazy smart people and there are lots of hard working people that are not quite as gifted, but on average the smarter person will perform better whether they are cleaning a toilet or doing brain surgery. So, I would defend the idea of getting smart people in school. They are going to perform better both in school and in the real world.
I also have a bone to pick with the diversity issue. People have come to accept as a maxim that diversity is good. I would have you defend why we need diversity. What is its purpose? Is it because of your sense of fairness that somehow if the population is x% whatever, then that should be represented in that same percentage in the school? Is it because you think that students will benefit from being exposed to multiple perspectives?
Most people don’t even know why they think diversity is important, they have just come to believe that it is. So, if we need to make sure that the population of a school represents a direct analog of the larger world, then we need to make sure that we have the right number of fat people and thin people, people from wealthy families and people from poor people, etc. Why should race get such a huge emphasis?
I am sick and tired of our society molly coddling people because of their race. If you can perform then do it. If there is no difference in ability at the biological level, then fix the preparation system so that minorities perform as well on the SAT as whites. I can’t believe the people are criticizing schools for choosing the smartest people. Next well be saying that we need more whites in the NBA and then talented minorities will be sitting on the bench while awkward Caucasians throw up bricks.
— Jeff Peterson Mar 25, 04:12 PM #
<i>From 1989 to 2007, the researchers found, the share of entering freshmen with SAT verbal scores above 700 rose from 33 percent to 78 percent at Yale University, from 24 to 67 percent at Stanford University, from 9 to 54 percent at the University of Pennsylvania, and from 18 to 68 percent at the University of Chicago.</i>
Just do the arithmetic on those. IOW, in 1989 91% of the frosh at UPenn scored below 700 on the verbal SAT. This is an elite institution?
— Kevin Mar 25, 04:13 PM #
Successful education is a sorting process. The article indicates that our premier universities are doing a better job of sorting students, and for that they should be applauded. The comment about the SAT not being a measure of the whole person is irrelevant, for the SAT was not designed and is not used for that purpose. Instead, it was designed and is used to identify students who are likely to perform well at university. Generally, it does this fairly well. If we insist that schools should place diversity ahead of intellectual ability, then we put our schools in a difficult situation, asking them to seek out the best and the brightest and simltaneously to fail to do so.
— James Mar 25, 04:23 PM #
“Seen it all before” is right—did the authors check what’s happening with the rest of the class?
It’s entirely possible that you could be recruiting a very elite upper third of your class, but still actively recruit/admit other kinds of desirable students on the basis of something other than SATs. After all, you’ve still 2/3 of the class to account for.
Who are being pushed out, in such a scenario, are not kids who bring “diversity” (however measured) but rather those solid, well-prepared kids who look like pretty good candidates, but didn’t crack the top SAT percentiles. The Unremarkable Achievers, I guess we could call them. They’d likely flourish at Ivy League schools, but there are fewer places for them if those colleges chase perfect SATs at one end, and development/diversity cases at the other.
— Confused Mar 25, 04:27 PM #
This appears to be a very flawed study. Just because the number of students with high SAT scores has gone up so much at these elite schools doesn’t mean the schools have placed more weight on the SAT. Rather, this trend could indicate an increasingly competitive applicant pool, which shouldn’t be surprising considering the “echo boom” increase in population during this time (1989 to 2007).
Moreover, I hope the researchers used more than just the currently elite programs, and considered that some of these programs have only achieved “elite” status during the time of the study data itself. I think they should have only used universities that stayed in roughly the same ranking during this period. Or at least include schools that have dropped in the rankings. For example, UPenn was ranked in the teens or 20s by usnews in the 90s, but has been ranked in the top 10 during the 2000s. I would argue that more competitive applicants found the school attractive (due to its higher ranking or other improvements at the school and city) rather than the other way around (Penn screwing with their admissions policies in order to get a higher ranking). When I was a student there in the late 90s/early 2000s the racial and ethnicity make-up did not change (about 30% non-white students, with consistent percentages from each minority) while the student quality rose. It’s odd to me that this article doesn’t actually report any of the diversity data to support this conjecture.
All of this being said, I certainly agree that SAT is a biased test that indicates very little in regards to how well a student will do in college both academically and socially. A seemingly much better standardized test has been developed by Robert Sternberg who is currently at Tufts. The test measures some of the same typical skills as the SAT, in addition to creativity and practical skills. He has been using his test as an aspect of admissions at Tufts, an sure enough apparently they have seen a huge jump in admitted minority students. So to answer Rosalie’s question, I think this could be one of the places these students are going to! I think Sternberg is on to something, and I hope that other elite colleges will adopt this model.
As for the commenter who asks why diversity is important, please read some of the articles published by Pat Gurin from the University of Michigan. It is <i>inherently</i> good for all parties involved, as long as the minorities are in large enough numbers to not have “token” status (in which case diversity is bad for them but possibly still good for the white people). The need for diversity has been defended. Go out and read the literature on it.
— Katherine Mar 25, 04:35 PM #
I run into a fair number of students who don’t do well on standardized tests, but are at least as smart and creative as those who do. They suffer in the admissions process. SAT scores are an OK predictor, but not a super predictor. Kudos to schools that minimize or ignore SAT scores.
— luigi Mar 25, 04:47 PM #
Jeff, I have another comment to your diversity stance. You say, “I am sick and tired of our society molly coddling people because of their race. If you can perform then do it. If there is no difference in ability at the biological level, then fix the preparation system so that minorities perform as well on the SAT as whites.” Isn’t college part of the preparatory system? And if the preparatory system is still currently flawed (look at primarily black and primarily white grade/high schools, you will see it is and also that segregation is still extreme these days), then what are we to do about that? Colleges should just ignore the problem and say it’s up to the earlier stages of education to work things out? College is still part of the process, so I think they might as well undo some of the unfairness that is created at earlier stages in education. The “g” of a black student from a really crummy educational system and a 1300 on the SAT is likely higher than the “g” of a white student from a great educational system and a 1400 on the SAT. (SAT is not a pure measurement of “g”).
Kevin, even though I went to Penn, I agree with your comment about it not being that elite! (at least in 1989, which is my real point — a school that moves around so much in the rankings shouldn’t be included.)
Confused — thank you for recognizing yet another flaw in the study.
— Katherine Mar 25, 04:48 PM #
I haven’t seen the study and wonder if the authors took into account the recentering of the SAT in the mid 1990s. A 700 on the recentered scale is approximately equal to a 640 on the old scale.
— Dan Mar 25, 04:54 PM #
Unfortunately, elite universitities serve as reproducers of social inequities. The argument that “not all students have to go to an elite(e.g. Ivy or public flagship university)” is fair…on the surface. But when you have a standardized test that assumes that all students have had equally quality educational opportunities(when clearly they don’t) privilege those fortunate to have access to quality learning opportunities, while simulatenously disadvantaging those who did not have that access,the preference of high SAT’s a moral issue.
It is not a neatral or objective instrument that measures “merit”, but instead is a covert method of ensuring that those from privileged backgrounds remain in their social roles and those who are not, stay in theirs.
In terms of the “diversity” issue, it does matter to have a racially, ethnically and economically diverse student cohort. Bowen and Bok’s work in “Shape of a River” provides a sound argument for the academic, social and economic benefits of underrepresented minorities(race/ethnicity/SES) to have access to the most elite college and universities. These institutions perpetuate social, educational, cultural and ultimately economic capital to those who gain entrance to them. Down with the SAT!!(and other standardized test that perpetuate inequality)
— drchris08 Mar 25, 04:55 PM #
Provocative? You want provactive? I’m just getting started. Let’s start with “diversity” itself. Tier 1 universities have rejected the notion of admission by nominal merit only because diversity is negatively correlated with merit-based admissions. Therefore, admissions offices proceed to tier the admissions, tier one being best and having the highest GPA/SAT/AP matrix. Most enrollments are taken from this tier. Now it gets interesting, because beginning with tiers two and three and four, they descend into ever deeper pools of diversity. But here is also where arbitrary decisions are made about how many spots are left and how many are going to be chosen from the remaining tiers. Not surprisingly, the last tier is where the greatest pool of diversity can be found but where the fewest students are chosen. What is insidious is that the metric variances between tiers one and four are sometimes less than 5%.
How many spoonfuls of Nesquik do you add until the milk is ruined?
— marci Mar 25, 05:04 PM #
Katherine, I must respectfully disagree that diversity (racial) is universally a good thing. While I am not directly familiar with Pat Gurin’s work, my first question is “inherently good” in what way? The question always needs to be asked “what are you trying to accomplish with racial diversity?” Is it good in making me more tolerant of other races? Is it good in exposing me to alternative ways of seeing the world?
I wanted my class mates to be smart and to engage in interesting discussions. I don’t care what color you are if you have something interesting to say. And just because you are a certain color doesn’t mean that what you say will be interesting or unique.
Again, research in OB shows that diversity in ethnic terms is more likely to result in non-functional conflict (things like communication problems) while other types of diversity (say in specific knowledge and experience) promote functional conflict. So, when Clinton had a racially diverse staff of Ivy league trained lawyers, just how much unique thinking do you think was going on?
What happened to Dr. King’s view of the day when people would be judged by what they did rather than the color of their skin?
And in response to college being part of the preparatory system, I would whole heartedly agree, if everyone that wanted to go to a college could go. But when the higher SAT white student gets passed over for the lower SAT minority, I have a problem. It’s not the job of colleges to reverse the failings of the lower education system by giving preference to those who performed less well over those who performed better. And while the SAT is not a perfect measure of g (like anyone could know that) it correlates very highly with success in college (despite the earlier assertion). If it was ineffective then it would be easy to abandon it in response to political pressure, but for now, there is nothing better to predict success. Part of what schools do is try to weed out who isn’t going to survive the experience, and lower SAT scores increase the likelihood that students will fail.
— Jeff Peterson Mar 25, 06:17 PM #
In the twenty comments I’ve read, no one actually defines “diversity” – or “minority” or even “underrepresented”. Let’s see: does second-generation Jew – from Vermont – count as a minority? When I went to Princeton, my roommates used to sing “I’m gonna sit right down and bake myself a kike” or say, “Think I’ll I go fly a kike.” I remember signs on a golf course that read “No Jews or Dogs Allowed”. How about Asian? Read this: “An amendment to the California State Political Code in 1921 established separate schools for Indian, Chinese, Japanese, or Mongolian children. By 1924, with the exception of Filipino “nationals”, all Asian immigrants, including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Indians were fully segregated by law, denied citizenship and naturalization, and prevented from marrying Caucasians or owning land. (http://www.museumca.org/picturethis/2_5.html) “In 1967, the anti-miscegenation laws were finally declared unconstitutional,” {http://www.ialink.tv/e_news/3-01-06/loverace.php}). Irish? Italian? Catholic? Everyone is a minority of one – and most belong to another once or presently besieged minority group. “Underrepresented”? By what measure? Does some law require a student body to approximate demographic percentages? by race? gender? state? how about BMI (Body Mass Index)?
Let’s face it: all these big words – “diversity”, “minority”, “underrepresented” – are simply code for two identifiable groups who have been in the USA the longest – who are born speaking the language: Blacks and Amerinds. Every other “group” has come after – some still coming – gotten stomped down, maybe did some stomping, and climbed.
— richard Mar 25, 09:35 PM #
Many comments here reference the Univ. of Pennsylvania, which is my second alma mater (Ph.D., 1982). I was so busy studying for a doctorate in German that I did not even notice the “ethnic diversity” of the student body. I am now retired as a former professor at a branch of The University of Texas (Arlington TX). The undergraduates here are nice kids who, thanks to ripoffs from the public school system, are oblivious to many things that people in my generation took for granted. A math professor once remarked that the students could not tell you how much was five per-cent of two thousand. Elsewhere (e.g., Temple University, also in Philadelphia), a professor of math was fired for giving a pre-test in freshman algebra in which most of the students could not solve the equation 12 + 3x = 48. And in one of my classes — admittedly about twenty years ago — I asked a class in German cultural background to identify the most revolutionary document published in Germany in 1848, expecting the correct answer (the Communist Manifesto). One student ventured to guess that it was the Magna Carta. This is what is faced in the less-than-elite colleges of America today.
— Edward A. Cowan Mar 25, 10:20 PM #
The problem is that you can’t create diversity in higher education by simply lowering the standards for this group or that. It puts them at a competitive disadvantage that leads to a higher failure rate. And it diminishes their accomplishments – a line about affirmative action heart surgeons comes to mind. No. . . the only way to create valid diversity in higher education is to start pre-K. And I’m not just talking about improving public education, though it clearly needs improvements – years of NEA influence, outcome-based education, etc., have made public schools a joke. No, we could have the best public education in the universe, but unless the extraordinarily dysfunctional aspects of “Black culture” and “Hispanic culture” are discarded, it won’t matter.
— Bill Mar 26, 07:11 AM #
I believe that the SAT scores were recentered in 1995. As a result of the shift a higher percentage of 700+ scores are awarded in the current SAT. Thus, the comparison of the percentage of students scoring over 700 in 1989 with those doing so in 2006 does not appear valid.
— Thomas Mahoney Mar 26, 09:31 AM #
Does the fact that this research is based on the 30 highest ranked institutions in the 2007 US News & World Report strike anyone as self-fulfilling prophecy? There some very concerning – and sometimes ethically questionable – actions undertaken in the chase for a high ranking. (Does your institution count a $10 senior gift as five $2 gifts over five years to improve alumni participation rates?) Better rankings = higher numbers of applications = more selectivity (read higher SATs). It’s an easy way to sort the applicants into tiers that may not take into consideration factors that are just as – if not more – important than scores on a standardized test. The rankings themselves are not outside of this process – they feed it.
— Jane B. Mar 26, 09:37 AM #
#24, the College Board re-centered SATs in 1995 because scores kept declining. Re-centering raised combined scores 90-100 points. The adjustment diminished the higher the score (for obvious reasons). I vaguely recall that the definition of a perfect score loosened also.
— wm Mar 26, 10:02 AM #
The analysis and conclusions reported in the article are nonsense. As has been discussed in College Board and other studies, by the 1970s and 1980s, SAT scores had drifted so far from the original scales that the top verbal scores were around 700. That’s why the SAT zero point and scale were floated a decade ago. Therefore, the 700 verbal score of 1978 is the 800 of today. As a result, the overall number of students with verbal scores exceeding 700 has risen dramatically, and a rise in the percentage of Ivy League admittees with verbal scores of 700+ was inevitable.
Instead of using “floated” SAT scores as Professors Horn and Yun did, a comparison of admitted students who scored in the top 10% on the SAT verbal 30 years ago with the percentage today would be much more useful. However, such a study would still be difficult to interpret, because the fraction of high school students taking the SATs has increased, and the typical economic circumstances of SAT test takers has changed. In an attempt to adjust the tests to the students, the Board is continuously revising the SAT. The Board realized that some questions from the 1930s weren’t really appropriate for students today, e.g. “Regatta is to the Americas Cup as “blank” is to the World Series.” (Not a question used in the old SAT, but not much different, either. See the College Board’s publications for a comprehensive discussion.)
All in all, to survey the landscape of of SAT results over the decades is to enter a minefield. If the Chronicle’s summary of the AERA conference paper is accurate, the authors of that paper are not demolition experts..
— kai kura Mar 26, 10:11 AM #
Interesting. 27 posts on this article. Much heat and much comment over the alleged decline in “diversity” on campus. But the data reported in the article only states that the percentage of high SAT scores among applicants is increasing at various prestigious schools. Because of this, the researchers express concern that colleges are ignoring minority applicants with lesser scores.
But note that the article presents NO data that the either the percentage or absolute number of minorities on campus is actually declining, or even just stagnating. In fact, the researchers only complaint is that minority students with lesser scores may be ignored. But the logical conclusion from the data would be that all students with lesser scores are being ignored in the scramble for higher SAT scores. That would seem to be an issue irrespective of those students’ racial or ethnic background, wouldn’t it? So the “minority” being left out of the mix isn’t just traditional minorities, but all those with lesser scores. Which, of course, is a completely different issue from the question the researchers appear to want to raise.
But there is another objection here. The researchers appear to have completely ignored what universities are actually saying in terms of admission criteria. Having visited roughly 20 colleges and universities over the last two years with two daughters embarking on their college careers, virtually every school visited stressed that SAT (and ACT) scores were only part of the mix. Each school stressed the importance of GPA and, more importantly, class rank. This is in keeping with very recent research by, I believe, the U of Texas which indicates that class rank is not only a better predictor of academic success than SAT and ACT scores, but also has the effect of normalizing across academic backgrounds, which SAT and ACT scores most definitely do not do. Obviously, this is only what schools want parents to think, which can be very different from what schools actually do. But any serious research seeking to support the kind of inferences in the article would need to deal with all potential factors, not just a select few pieces of data. Which would seem to support the kind of conclusion reached in #27.
— joe Mar 26, 11:08 AM #
What is going to be ironic is when white boys are counted as underrepresented minorities, which they already are de facto. Maleness is negatively correlated to college admissions which is why women are the dominant sex in higher education, and the gap grows steadily each year. At what point will white boys demand that the standards be lowered so that more white boys can attend elite colleges?
— marci Mar 26, 12:28 PM #
Isn’t “diversity” the opposite of “university”?
— Ed Minchau Mar 26, 02:31 PM #
>> I run into a fair number of students who don’t do well on standardized tests, but are at least as smart and creative as those who do. They suffer in the admissions process. SAT scores are an OK predictor, but not a super predictor. Kudos to schools that minimize or ignore SAT scores.
People spew such comfortable platitudes, never once engaging their brain.
If you have such a superior system for predicting which people will do better at an Ivy-League school, you really should share that information with the world.
Because back here on planet earth, no one’s found a more accurate method. For that reason, they no longer put graduation rates as the primary concern, because to do that interferes with other, more important goals like diversity.
Kudos to schools that focus on methods that WORK, not ones that are more PC and more touchy-feely so everybody gets to be part of the group hug… at least until they fail out of the school.
But who cares about THAT?
— Ryan Waxx Mar 26, 02:57 PM #
Study by “professor of education and a professor of education”? To put it bluntly, I see no reason for either position. I cannot think of more worthless degrees. The quality of our university graduates appears to be inversely proportional to student contact with “education” courses. Wonder whether any of Einstein’s courses were in “education”?
— Mike G Mar 26, 03:13 PM #
Sorry—Excellence trumps diversity.
— BW Mar 26, 03:26 PM #
Whites constitute the second-largest ethnic group at the University of California-Berkeley. The second most common language on campus is Mandarin Chinese.
Who is the minority? Who needs preferences? Why?
— David Mar 26, 03:38 PM #
“I would have you defend why we need diversity. What is its purpose? Is it because of your sense of fairness”
D’oh! Do you think?
What’s up with your “g”? Tired and worn out, are we?
— paul a'barge Mar 26, 03:40 PM #
I agree with you, David. Who really needs preferences and why they need it are the questions need to be addressed. Do not tell me you need to have diversity or affirmative action to catch up because your ancestors were victimized. You need to show your ability, honesty, hard working ethics and social responsibility to earn that.
— Wen Mar 26, 03:50 PM #
Posted this today on National Review Online’s “Phi Beta Cons” regarding a similar story in InsideHigherEd (link: http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/):
There’s an article in InsideHigherEd today that reports on a panel of “leading scholars” at the American Educational Research Association, all of whom concluded that there’s no way in the world that the performance of black and Latino students will improve enough to meet Justice O’Connor’s 2028 deadline for getting rid of university admission preferences for them. Link: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/26/bakke
Twenty years out, there’s of course no way of knowing if they’ll be right, but even if they are that doesn’t mean (a) that the preferences should continue (or have been allowed by Justice O’Connor in the first place), or (b) that the Left has any idea of how to close the white-Asian/black-Latino gap.
On the first point, I’ll just note that, in order to justify racial discrimination, you need a really, really good reason—and no such reason exists for university affirmative action. Nor, incidentally, is one offered in this article; rather, it is just assumed that every group should have its share of slots: what Justice Powell called “discrimination for its own sake” and rejected many, many years ago in Bakke.
The second point is more interesting. The solution for closing the gap in the article is encapsulated in a wonderfully Orwellian phrase: “the reconceptualization of merit.” In other words, if there’s a gap in SAT scores, just change the definition of merit so that the gap doesn’t matter. (As I’ve written before, the left doesn’t really believe in standards: http://article.nationalreview.com…jQ3YzI4YzYzNDlmNmExNjAwOWZjNGQ1Y2E=).
The panelists are also unhappy at the educational opportunities given black and Latino children at many public schools. Did any of them suggest that perhaps those children should be given more choice about where to attend schools, or that incompetent teachers ought to be more easily fired? No mention of that in the article if they did.
There’s also no mention in the article that any of the panelists pointed out that seven out of ten black children are born out of wedlock, or that half of Latino children are (versus only one of four whites and less than that for Asians), and that growing up in a home without a father makes academic excellence less likely. See, e.g., my recent Phi Beta Cons posting: http://phibetacons.nationalreview…YmJlNmEwMTNjYTk5YjFmM2MyMzkwOWEzZTY=
As I’ve also written for NRO—hey, if I don’t cite myself, then who will?—“It is ironic but likely that preferences are themselves a critical element in keeping the [academic excellence] gap wide. They enable politicians to sweep the real problems under the rug by, to mix a metaphor, using preferences to paper over them; and preferences also remove the incentive for academic excellence at the same time that they stigmatize and encourage a defeatist and victim mentality among their supposed beneficiaries.” Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/clegg/clegg200401151004.asp
— Roger Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity Mar 26, 03:51 PM #
I think the concern that “promising minority students with lesser scores” requires that one ask in what manner is their promise displayed, if not in grades? If excelling does not display promise, what does?
— Thomas Hazlewood Mar 26, 04:34 PM #
Give them the SAT from 1963 and see if the scores are still high. Doubt it.
— jakoo Mar 26, 04:39 PM #
Diversity and Multicultural will be the end of this country. Isn’t it time that we stop with quotas. If everyone looks oriental at UC Berk, but is a US citizen, who cares. When the best and brightest is the the real criteria, then we all will be better off. No one is equal in the brains department, hell college is nothing more than 13th grade in this day and age.
— jakoo Mar 26, 04:45 PM #
“In 1979, by contrast, just one of the 30 institutions enrolled a freshman class in which more than 30 percent of the students had verbal scores above 700.”
Did they consider the impact of the great recentering which occurred in the early 90s. Before that scores over 720 were really scarce.
— Fat Man Mar 26, 04:58 PM #
Ah, recentering. I speak to the ACT. We had students get a 1 on the old ACT. Recentering changed that to 11. Why 11, because we gave special ed students who couldn’t read, an untimed ACT and they scored 11. Both the ACT and SAT have become reading tests. Hell the 60’s era ACT had general knowledge multipule choice questions, not just reading. Yeah, 70% of students were scoring below the 50th percentile. Hey, just recenter the scoring….what a country.Had a girl send for a transcript in 92, she graduated in 70. She had graduated with minimal credits, had “majored” in office work, took only 1 sci class, Alg 1, no language. She got a 21 on the old ACT, probably a 25 after recentering. Some students with “advanced placement” classes don’t get 25. Oh, poor test takers, go to STATE U. As Thomas Sowell says, with 3,000 universities, everyone can go to college or as we say collage.
— jakoo Mar 26, 04:59 PM #
A couple of entries suggest that some have read a cross-section of literature that touches on the many facets of the diversity argument. Has anyone researched the present bank of questions? A handful of people are developing the questions. I suspect that those who have weighed in could accurately describe the developers’ educational backgrounds. I place no fault at their feet. They tend to be sincere psychology/education majors. This career is a hidden gem …dolling out large CEO scale salaries. My point is that celestial beings are not drafting SAT questions. Your neighbor is.
University boards and presidents now understand this. The SAT I may very well be a tool that can predict college success. There are others. A few are mentioned above. I will echo an earlier sentiment. It is one third of entering freshman who have especially impressive scores. The other two thirds make up the balance of any given class. It seems that the less informed tend to focus on one indicia. Generally the one that highlights their strengths. Consider the facts. The higher the threshold for admission, the higher the minority graduation rate.
Although the focus here is the possible attenuation of minority enrollment through a misguided dependence on threshold scores, the development, legacy, athletic, networked, ultra wealthy admittee, et. al., are also graduating at similar rates. Ethnic minorities will, as stated in The Shape of River, likely join these alumni and send their children to fine preparatory programs and so, with time, progress …. Whatever the anointed magical score is, it isn’t a requisite for success.
— L. Harrison Mar 26, 05:11 PM #
Regarding the “recentering” of the SAT scores that is mentioned in several posts-the scores were not universally made higher for math and verbal. A 600 in verbal might ideed be adjusted to a 7oo in the recentered scores. However, a 650 in math would actually be lowered to around 580-600. Also, from my daughter’s recent SAT scores (old 2 section SAT, taken in 2004), 3 incorrect answers, and no answers left blank, gave her a 700 score.
— Hugh H. Mar 26, 05:35 PM #
AERA has its annual meeting this week. Yesterday’s AERA story was about white dominance and harmful advertising. Today’s is about the injury of pursuing high SATs. It’s Wednesday. I wonder what tomorrow brings.
— wm Mar 26, 05:55 PM #
This story is incomplete without data on the changes over the years in the percentage of the total SAT test-taking group that scores over 700. Has there been a change in this percentage?
— ERF Mar 26, 06:06 PM #
Here’s my experience from the other end: my own SAT scores were a joke. If SAT scores were the only indicia of one’s future academic success (as has been suggested elsewhere), I never would have graduated from college, grad school or law school. Thus, I think that overvaluing SAT scores at the expense of the student’s total package is very wrong headed and short sighted.
— H. Mickey Gill Mar 26, 06:21 PM #
I have been in the test prep business for close to 20 years. Here is what happened in the mid-90’s with “recentering.” The mean of the SAT had “drifted” down to 400 verbal, 480 math. The College Board decided to fix this by recentering the test. They changed the curve and, at the same time, changed the test. They dropped antonyms from the SAT and increased the amount of reading comprehension. They also added a new type of math question that wasn’t multiple choice but required the students to produce the answer themselves. I also observed that the questions got easier (I just asked the students to do both tests and looked at their results). The resule is that a verbal score from pre-1994 doesn’t really compare to one afterward but, if one pretends that it does, the verbal scores were inflated by about 120 points. Similarly, the math scores don’t really compare, but if they did they would be inflated by about 60 more points. Next, about 3 years ago, the College Board changed the test again. They eliminated analogies (so the test really doesn’t measure “ verbal g” anymore) and increased reading comprehension even more. They dropped the quantitative comparison in math (so much for “math g”). They also added a grammar section to the test, and the essay. They then reduced the curve a bit in both math and verbal, and dramatically for the grammar (as opposed to the old Writing SAT2). Also, the Reading Comprehension contains fewer science and history passages and more personal history passages. Students can now use a calculator on the math section and the questions are also easier, with fewer combinatorics, sequences, and “pattern” problems, as well as simplified geometry.
The end result is that the current SAT doesn’t measure intelligence very effectively, but it is a modest measure of one’s math and reading skills. A student who scores a 700 verbal now would probably have scored in the high 500’s a generation ago. Of course, some of them would have done just as well. As for math, a 700 now is probably about a 600. They don’t really correspond, but if they do, that’s about right.
If you want a better standardized test measure of how well prepared a student is for college, look at the ACT score.
The problem is that there is so much grade inflation and watering down of curricula that colleges really don’t know how to evaluate students, so they are using the standardized tests for lack of anything else. And, of course, they are playing games with the rankings. Maybe we should re-think what we mean by “elite.”
— david Mar 26, 06:33 PM #
The commenter who stated that the recentering lowered math scores is not correct. Both verbal and math scores were raised, but the verbal scores were raised considerably more. The main reason for the recentering was not to adjust the mean but to adjust the standard deviation. Many students, guidance counselors, and parents simply add up the verbal and mathematical scores, but, when one point on the verbal section was much larger than one point on the verbal section, this addition was bogus and misleading.
— Helen Mar 26, 06:34 PM #
More women on campus. Women score higher verbally. By noticing higher verbal scores, you’ve just acknowledged the increase of women on campus.
— Jaybee Mar 26, 08:35 PM #
Biottom Line is that this is just hypocritical BS. In the real world, intelligence and personality are what really counts…i.e. you need charisma as much as you need brains!
— Douglas W Graham Mar 26, 10:25 PM #
david (#48) nailed it. Admissions officers are looking at SAT scores more closely because grad inflation and recommendation inflation has rendered grades and recommendations less useful.
In a way, this is a good thing. Having a high school be responsible both for educating its students and for assessing their qualifications for higher education is a serious conflict of interest.
— Kent G. Budge Mar 27, 02:11 PM #
I’m glad to know that my 580/650 on the SAT’s in the mid-70’s compares favorably with my kids’ 700-800’s. My inferiority complex is history!
Clearly, this is a much more complex question than the research suggests. I’ll be interested to read more on this topic.
— Jane B. Mar 27, 03:24 PM #
paul a’barge, only a “g”-tard would take half of a sentence (totally misrepresenting the content) and then try to criticize the author for what he didn’t say. If you think you are so smart then why don’t you post something of substance?
If you had the IQ of a gnat you would have understood the point that one needs to think about why diversity is being sought and not just assume that diversity is always desirable. I guess my argument was too complex for your cognitive ability. Hopefully you can rely on something other than your mind to get by in life.
— Jeff Peterson Mar 28, 12:04 AM #
I work with a lot of parents like Jane B who make similar comments about their scores versus their kids. I remind them (us) that we had a different education in many respects. We didn’t have calculators, we were expected to read much more, and our curricula were narrower in scope and deeper in content. Thus the scores aren’t really comparable in any way. Overall, there are few measures of education that say that the current generation is outperforming previous ones. Yet the current students get higher scores on tests. This is because we have inflated grades, changed the scales of tests, and dramatically watered down our standards in reading, writing, math, and science. This may build self-esteem but we are creating a false sense in the students that they know more than they do. We were not expected to be A students at everything. Getting a B was perfectly respectable, as was your 1230 on the SAT. On the other hand, today’s students are exposed to a variety of cultural studies that we weren’t, they have to learn much more Biology than we did, and the calculators give them a chance to explore topics in Mathematics that we didn’t. Remember all that time we spent working with tables in Trigonometry? Or how long it took to write and type a paper? On balance, I prefer the education I received to the one that students get now, but I’m a product of my time. How could I feel otherwise?
If you want to know more about the SAT changes, you can look for my article in the May 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
BTW, colleges shouldn’t be relying on the SAT scores the way that they do. I see three ways to stop them from doing so: everyone could stop applying to schools that ask for SAT scores; the schools could stop requiring them; or people could stop buying the magazines that publish this crap. All of these are highly unlikely to occur.
— david Mar 28, 11:56 AM #