Right on

It will be much better if the University of Washington use basic skills assessment test or proficiency exam in their holistic admission process and eradicate SAT [which has been holding African Americans and minorities down] in its application process.

David Robertson, Professor at SUNY, at 9:17 am EST on November 9, 2005

Slackers rejoice!

I see this as good. I know a lot of people who, by most standards don’t deserve a college education. They drank in high school. They watched TV. They don’t care about learning. Now, rather than have to cram for tests they will just put a few buzzwords on their applications and the admissions committee (usually made up of people that wouldn’t know good scholarship if they saw it) will buy it! This decision is a victory for slackers everywhere!

Larry, at 12:53 pm EST on November 9, 2005

Standardized Testing

What strengths and weaknesses can be evaluated reliably that aren’t on standardized tests?

Membership in racial groups? Is that a qualification?

What about motivation? Anyone can write “I am so darn motivated to go help my community” — and that should mean nothing because you have no means of evaluating it. Besides, this has little to do with academic ability.

And so forth.

We should be considering people’s abilities as they are, not guessing at what they could be, or making excuses for what they are.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 2:15 pm EST on November 9, 2005

pluses and negatives

While I have been continually frustrated by the inequities present in standardized test results (SAT or statewide assessments, etc). I must agree that having some common standard of measure is effective IN PART. A holistic review allows effectively trained professionals to assess GPA, couseload, testing, essays, involvement, recommendations, the whole portfolio that represents the most comprehensive review of an applicant that can be made. Those who criticize essays and recommendations make a swipe (sometimes justified, many times not) that admissions officers are untrained and unprofessional—to which I challenge those to actually participate in an application reading cycle at some point (or maybe read the “Gatekeepers"). What does the ACT or SAT actually measure? Ability to predict first year grades? to predict degree completion? Ability to predict proficiency? You’d be hard pressed to find overwhelming empirical data in any area (though first year grades comes perhaps closest).The move toward holistic admissions review is a labor intensive process but done right, it typically does include some assessment methods that BOTH quantitatively and qualitatively judge an applicant’s merits. And let’s not forget that this applies for the top 10% or maybe 20% of schools that are selective in the first place. Like the best scholarly work, a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment by trained professionals works better than an either/or process. Then, considering each institution’s priorities, the best decisions are more often than not made. Admissions is an inexact science and overemphasizing standardized tests over the ability of an applicant to advocate for their place, through leadership, superior writing, or honest interest in a personally tailored list of courses that actually interest the student, shortchanges the student—who should be as important as the institution in finding the best fit for a student’s skills and an institution’s opportunities.

former admissions counselor, at 5:07 pm EST on November 9, 2005

whole person schmole person

Don’t worry, most white people I know are able to convince an admissions officer that their “whole person” is interesting and even overcame adversity, even if they are spoiled party girls.

Larry, at 9:22 pm EST on November 9, 2005

standardized testing

kevin — perhaps you might want to do a bit of research on the topic of the predicitve validity of standardized testing wrt college success (defined as retention, achievement and graduation). simply put, they have little use beyond the first year, and even then it’s pretty weak. after that any predictive validity falls apart because of what happens during that first year and beyond. high school grades are a better predictive tool, particularly when put in a context like within-high school rank.

again, try doing a bit of reading. start with rebecca zwick’s “fair game". but dig deeper, and you’ll be surprised. and as an added bonus your opinions will be grounded and well-informed.

current ed policy researcher, at 3:22 pm EST on November 10, 2005

Current Ed, Perhaps you want to do some research on whether it is possible to manipulate college grades by taking easy classes. As much as it pains me to say it, Keven in spot on: when you get away from agreed-upon, written standards, it open the door for manipulation.

Larry, at 6:49 pm EST on November 10, 2005

so how come we admit all these losers ?

Frank, the idea of bipartisan empirical research is quite interesting. Does this mean that there are two partisan research who work together ?

From my perspective, I think that Keven is occasionally wise beyond his years. Schools are filled with party-girls, frat-boys, and people who do very little work. Most people know full well that admissions officers at schools that can’t attract people with high test scores as easily hoodwinked by personal statements describing motivation, drive, and interest. The fact is, most high school students spent most of their years, crying, partying, going to the mall, and not doing anything really great. Even the ones that “published” usually did so because of connections or a vanity publisher. Most of the ones into “public service” did so as part of a carefully-staged stunt. But, there is nothing wrong with us. Most of us can’t be famous authors or Mother Theresa by the time we are 18. Besides, it wouldn’t be much fun, and if everyone had a really strong personality, there would be no troubled teens, and with no troubled teens, the therapists would be unemployed.

Nevertheless, you admissions officers have to justify the fact that you are admitting bimbos and fratboys (as well as idiot kids of donors – which you do track), so you explain how everyone is special, different, and has superior qualities.

Larry, at 11:38 am EST on November 13, 2005