Search News


Browse Archives

News

Provocative Theory on Merit

July 18, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

If you had to name the hot-button issues in admissions these days, they would almost certainly include affirmative action, standardized tests and rankings. Research released Tuesday in the flagship journal of the American Sociological Association combines those three issues in a way that challenges many assumptions.

The research argues that colleges with competitive admissions, motivated by the desire to improve their rankings, have put steadily increasing emphasis on SAT scores in admissions decisions. While this shift in emphasis was taking place, the colleges were also increasing their reliance on affirmative action in admissions, especially with regard to black students who, on average, do not do as well as other groups on the SAT. Further, the research argues, if elite colleges abandoned the SAT, they could achieve levels of diversity similar to what they have now -- without using affirmative action in admissions decisions. Not only that, the research goes on to say, but doing so would not result in a diminution of student quality.

The study is appearing in the August issue of American Sociological Review and is based on a series of longitudinal databases that provide statistics on the qualifications and admissions records of applicants and enrolled students.

"I think that this at least needs to call our attention to questions about the importance of SAT scores and to ask whether it is justified," said Sigal Alon, the lead author of the paper and an assistant professor of sociology at Tel Aviv University, in an interview. "The use of SAT is inflated and is not justified." Alon's co-author is Marta Tienda, a professor of demographic studies and sociology at Princeton University.

The findings are being praised as potentially significant by proponents of reform for college admissions. "This is very promising in that it brings together several issues," said Lloyd Thacker, founder of the Education Conservancy. Thacker said that this backed his point about what he calls "ranksteering" in which colleges base decisions on the potential to improve their rankings. In this case, he said, "the worship of the SAT well beyond any educational value" was leading colleges to make decisions about admissions priorities that "are not serving educational values or purposes."

A spokeswoman for the College Board said that officials there only learned of the study Tuesday afternoon and that no one was available to review or comment on it.

The authors of the new study use the phrase "shifting meritocracy" to describe the patterns they see in American higher education. Using two Education Department databases, they started by tracking the factors that were most important in getting in to colleges of different types. They based their analysis on statistical comparisons of students with otherwise similar qualifications except for in one area (changing that area for different comparisons). They wanted to find which factors could best predict whether a given student would be admitted to college based on actual decisions, not on what colleges say about how they make decisions.

Looking at the impact of class rank and SAT scores, they found that in a comparison for 1982 and 1992, they were of relatively equal value in predicting a given student's admission to non-selective and moderately selective colleges. As selectivity increased, however, the SAT became more important both years, with the increase in the SAT's importance being much more pronounced in 1992 -- a shift that the sociologists attribute to the influence of rankings.

Then the authors did a similar analysis for the admission of black, Latino and Asian students -- again asking the question of whether otherwise similar candidates were more or less likely to be admitted based on individual factors (in this case, race and ethnicity). Again, they found relatively similar impact of race on getting in to less selective institutions. But as selectivity increased, they found a key change. In 1982, Asian applicants were much more likely to get in. But by 1992, as the colleges had placed more emphasis on the SAT, the impact of being black was a key factor in getting in to selective colleges.

The view of Alon and Tienda is that colleges wanted to place more emphasis on the SAT to look good in U.S. News & World Report, but these same colleges didn't want to lose black enrollment so they increased the attention they paid to race in admissions during this period. Alon said that all available evidence suggests that all of these trends have only increased in the decade since 1992 -- except in places where affirmative action has been banned, which in some cases has led to admissions shifts that have decreased the importance of the SAT.

The key finding, Alon said, is that if one accepts the need to place considerable emphasis on the SAT, "there is a tension between merit and diversity." But the paper goes on to argue that this is a false choice. The two sociologists ran "counterfactual simulations" in which they use their findings to imagine an admissions world without the SAT or affirmative action. Running the numbers from the actual admissions years -- and removing the additional emphasis that they found colleges gave for high SAT scores and for being a member of certain groups -- they found that the two were balancing each other out, and that colleges need affirmative action to preserve current levels of diversity only if they stress the SAT.

Proponents of the SAT have historically argued that it is a necessary tool to help colleges evaluate students' readiness for college -- given that high school quality is so variable in the United States. So the authors also try to explore whether the type of shift they imagine, doing away with the SAT and affirmative action, would lead to a decline in academic quality. The authors acknowledge that there are limits to their ability to use their approach to predict what would have happened with a different set of admissions priorities. But they cite data from the longitudinal surveys to show that during the period highly selective colleges were apparently paying more attention to the SAT, their graduation rates fell slightly.

The sociologists also focus on the impact of the "10 percent plan" in Texas, which was adopted following a court ruling barring affirmative action. Under the plan, students in the top 10 percent of their high school classes could be admitted to any public university -- in effect making the SAT irrelevant. Students who enrolled this way at the University of Texas at Austin, the most competitive institution covered, not only performed as well academically, but in many cases were more likely to graduate, the study found. "Ignoring SAT scores does not have deleterious consequences for timely graduation likelihood," the authors write.

In the interview Tuesday, Alon stressed that the conclusions of the research do not necessarily mean that the SAT or affirmative action should be abolished. She said her main belief was that the SAT has too much power in the admissions process. "If you are relying more on the SAT scores, then this immediately will help you climb in the rankings," she said. "But not only will the obsession with SAT scores not promote diversity, but it will have the opposite effect."

She also said that she was struck by the sequence in which colleges increased emphasis on some forms of affirmative action at the same time they increased emphasis on the SAT. For all the criticisms from opponents of affirmative action that the practice is related to identity politics or liberal academics, Alon said that the real motivating force may be something else altogether. "What we're saying is that affirmative action is the inevitable result of relying on test scores," she said.

Alon said that she does not favor eliminating affirmative action.

"I would be happy if we didn't need affirmative action, but I don't think we have reached a situation where we can live without it. Equality of opportunity is still not here," she said.

Bob Schaeffer, public education director of FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing, a leading critic of the SAT, said he was not surprised by the sociologists' findings. He said that colleges that abandon the SAT as a requirement "report a broader pool of applicants, reflecting more increased diversity of all sorts, including ethnicity, geography, social class and academic interests." At the same time, he said, the colleges that have students admitted without the SAT "perform just as well as those who submitted test scores."

Alon said that many wonder about why someone teaching at an Israel university would focus on the SAT and the demographics of American higher education. She is a scholar of social inequality and is an American citizen who was a postdoc at Princeton, so she has seen close up the admissions frenzy of American higher education. But she said that in terms of considering a hypothesis that might surprise others (like the idea that colleges might not need affirmative action if they ignored the SAT), Alon said that being away from that admissions frenzy might encourage different ideas.

"Maybe a little distance helps," she said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Provocative Theory on Merit

  • Standardized tests.
  • Posted by Scott , Ast. Prof. on July 18, 2007 at 7:55am EDT
  • I have never felt that standardized tests are an accurate way of measuring student ability. In high school I was what can only be termed a miserable student, yet I always aced standardized tests while performing quite poorly in the classroom. Therefore, the SAT, ACT, ASVAB and on and on could not have been measuring what I knew at the time. AND if I had started college at 18, I would have been a miserable failure due to my lack of discipline. Only after some time in the Army and the workforce did I have the skill set necessary to succeed. Sure, this is one anecdotal case, but I've seen too many people who score well on such tests turn out to be marginally competent, while others who don't do so well as test takers demonstrate great intellectual depths. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect that dumping the SAT would be a good start.

  • Posted by Disgusted on July 18, 2007 at 8:10am EDT
  • So in order to rely on test scores institutions of higher learning practiced racial discrimination, got the Supreme Court to suspend the 14th Amendment for up to 25 years, stigmatized entire racial groups, pitted the working class against each other along racial lines, pushed the white-male victims of affirmative action toward the Republican Party as one of the founders of affirmative action Richard Nixon had hoped, and on and on. What a sordid business. When the history of this mess is written the conclusion will be that there is no 'good' racial discrimination.

  • Brilliant study, really!
  • Posted by B on July 18, 2007 at 8:20am EDT
  • "Equal opportunity is still not here..."

    The study authors want equal results, not opportunity, a major difference. Additionally, if we throw out any method of placing all cadidates on a test that examines a range of percentiles, then guess what, everyone is the same! We need to examine the production of creative elites (how many go on to eminence, top grad programs, inventions) instead of graduation rates. As anyone who graduated knows, sometimes that piece of paper doesn't really mean very much. Diplomas don't magically make civilization, something we all need to remember.

  • Influence of Rankings?
  • Posted by Jim on July 18, 2007 at 8:55am EDT
  • The notion that the search for higher college rankings causes colleges to elevate SATs in admissions criteria strikes me as a facile, but probably wrong explanation for the importance of SATs.

    SATs are designed to identify good students, and on average they do just that. There are many reasons colleges want to enroll good students. Good students are more rewarding to teach, they make it possible to attract better faculty, they do not need expensive remedial courses, and they cause fewer disciplinary problems. Good students graduate more quickly than poor students, they major in more demanding subjects, and after graduation they get better jobs and tend to give more money back to their institution at annual giving time. In other words, there are plenty of reasons why colleges prefer to enroll good students, and to the extent that SAT scores are a predictor for college academic success, they will continue to be used. I suspect ranking services play a pretty small role.

    What about the claim that colleges can enroll good students without relying on SAT scores? Maybe, but only by relying on things like Advanced Placement tests, and grades in honors courses, rigor of the high school curriculum, in admissions criteria. The problem is that people who do badly on SATs are also going to do badly in these other categores. The fact is tha, on average, SATs predict academic ability, whether we like it or not. Doing away with SATs may be socially or politicially desirable, but it will result in the admissions of weaker students.

  • Merit vs SAT
  • Posted by Michael on July 18, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • Pause for a moment and consider ... G.W. was accepted and graduated from Yale and Harvard. That should say all we need to know about admissions standards ... and, at the same time, propel every college and university to jettison their admission processes immediately.

    Generally, the admissions process in American higher education is irresponsibly biased and immoral ... and a quasi-business masked as protecting academic efficacy ... oh my, all quite silly.

  • Selling Magazines > Educating Students
  • Posted by Zach Marks at Campus Progress on July 18, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • Like the authors, I’m hesitant to generalize these findings to the entire nation. But also like the authors, I hope this study will help reduce the growing emphasis on test scores in admissions decisions. Such an emphasis only further disadvantages the disadvantaged who can’t afford SAT tutors and haven’t been taking test prep classes since middle school. Unfortunately, schools continue to inflate the importance of test scores in a desperate attempt to climb the U.S. News and World Reports rankings. As long as universities put the interests of a magazine which makes millions off of a single issue exploiting anxieties above those of students, we will never achieve equal access to higher education and equal opportunity to prosperity in America.

    Here's my blog post: http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/zachmarks/C24p

  • Circular
  • Posted by Buzz on July 18, 2007 at 9:55am EDT
  • Previously posited: students in highly competitive colleges are so highly motivated, cognitively and behaviorially, they would reach their goals in any field of their personal interest.

    Ugly truth about SAT: cold, hard, objective measure of students' verbal and quantitative skills.

    The validictorian (sp?) of the low-performing school wonders why he scored below the mean on the SAT -- he and his parents should ask the faculty and administration. It is they who should to answer for that outcome.

  • Posted by Andrew on July 18, 2007 at 10:20am EDT
  • The SAT is a standardized test that is utilized to evaluate all students on an equal level. There is no element of the test that is unfairly biased against black students. By subjecting all students to the same test, we gain insight as to the standings of each student, in regards to the student body as a whole, and their preparedness for higher learning.

    The authors of the report note that not all high schools are equal, and that almost all hold their students to different standards. The SAT, which is devised and constructed to test a students readiness to take on college level material, tests whether or not these schools have truly prepared their students for the challenges and rigors of college style education. Automatically accepting the top ten percent from every school would unfairly disadvantage a great number of students who are actually prepared for college. After reviewing a number of student’s academic records and educational development I can personally attest to the fact that the top ten percent of some schools wouldn’t rank in the top fifty percent of many schools that do in fact adequately prepare their students for the challenges ahead.

    This test is free from racial bias, unlike those that argue against it. Regardless of race, the same questions are administered to all ethnicities. The authors fail to note why it is that black students do not fair as well on the test, but instead take simple notation that they do, and the underlying implication that this calls for a method for admissions that does rely on race is imparted. The real question that we should be asking ourselves is “Why are black students testing lower than other ethnicities on the SAT?” and then work to rectify the disparity at that point. This is an indicator that we should be addressing the problems and shortcomings in earlier levels of education, not as late as college admissions.

    College rankings are not arbitrary. They exist and fluctuate based upon that quality and caliber of both institution and student body. In a world that is becoming increasingly competitive by the day, how can we consciously criticize a test that cultivates competition and replace it with a method that will undoubtedly lower our standards? To remain competitive we must bring the bottom up, rather than hold the top down.

  • Posted by Sara on July 18, 2007 at 10:35am EDT
  • This isn't news. Basic Statistics 101. Grades correlate with grades. Test scores correlate with the ability to take standardized tests. The don't measure the same thing. However, for most students, there is a strong correlation between the ability to take standardized tests and performance. Good test scores reflect good test takers, but not necessarily good students. High SAT, low high school rank students are the MOST unpredictable in college.

    I've been working with marginalized, high-risk students most of my career, and I can tell you, standardized test scores mean squat in the classroom even with "good" students if they aren't motivated, if they are dealing with major personal or financial issues, if they are intimidated or overwhelmed by a course or professor. Emotions win over skill a good deal of the time.

    We've known for a long time that standardized tests have some mystical social biases including race and poverty levels. It should be a surprise to no one that if you rely heavily on a test that reflects a racial bias for admissions, in order to maintain a diverse student population, you must find another way to compensate for that bias. So here comes Affirmative Action.

    My question is, why aren't we working at identifying better more innovative admissions standards rather than continue this annoying debate that it is either SATs or Affirmative Action that we rely on?

    Schools who have done that have thrown the US News and World Report rankings a major curve. And speaking of relying on things that don't work, I think those rankings are the worst things to happen to higher education in some time.

  • Posted by Peter Van Buskirk , Author/Consultant on July 18, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • This is good stuff! It’s nice to see independent data that seems to reinforce the absurdity of testing as a meaningful diagnostic. And, while this report doesn’t actually link the issues quantitatively, I applaud the assertion that growth in the importance of testing is an outgrowth of the race to maintain/improve college rankings.

    Unfortunately, the obsession with rankings has bred an institutional credentialing process that feeds off of numbers—high numbers. In reality, most students applying to most colleges can do the work if given the opportunity. Institutional validity studies have been demonstrating for years that the least useful variable (and most easily subtracted) in predicting success is the standardized test result. As a result, college admission committees could, if they so choose, exercise great latitude in determining who will be admitted. Enter the SAT as a competitive credential (the higher the better)—not a relevant diagnostic—and the concomitant need of institutions to engage in affirmative action.

    During my tenure as Dean of Admission at a selective liberal arts college, the faculty came to this same conclusion and voted to make testing optional in the selection process. Free from the tyranny of numbers, my colleagues and I were able to make better decisions about whom to admit based on other predictors of academic promise and success (courses, grades, interviews, graded writing samples and letters of recommendations). Moreover, we were able to become much more inclusive than had previously been the case when we worried about how a score result would look on the profile of entering students. The review process became more time intensive but the outcomes were palpable as we admitted scores of “good” students from all backgrounds (otherwise deemed “inadmissible” due to test results) who proved to be highly successful in the college classroom and beyond.

    The Alon-Tienda study adds an important and independent voice to the critique of the college-going process. As educational leaders contemplate reform, they should see in the findings more evidence of the insidious effect rankings have on the way they do business. Real reform will take place when they are able to find the courage to separate themselves and their institutions from the entire ranking process (not just the reputation survey) and all of its proxies, chief among them standardized testing.

  • Rank Order
  • Posted by thomassowellfan on July 18, 2007 at 11:05am EDT
  • I wonder if there is a difference in the rank order of questions answered correctly (or incorrectly) on the SAT between white and African-American students. If the test is biased towards one particular group we should see a difference between what one group answered incorrectly the most and what a different group answered incorrectly the most. For example the most difficult questions for whites would be questions 27, 35, 55, 62, 72 and 93 where the most difficult questions for African-Americans would be compltetely different, say 7, 43, 66, 78, and 88.

  • Thank you, Andrew
  • Posted by Ray on July 18, 2007 at 11:05am EDT
  • Very, very well said:

    "This is an indicator that we should be addressing the problems and shortcomings in earlier levels of education, not as late as college admissions."

    Would we even be discussing this question if this country spent $10 billion a month, or a week, or a day or whatever it is now, on efficiently improving K-12 Education instead of spending it on G.W.'s little middle east dustup? The problem didn't start at the admissions "portal" of higher education. The problem won't be solved at the admissions "portal," either.

  • how important is college?
  • Posted by David M. Fahey on July 18, 2007 at 12:10pm EDT
  • Colleges, especially selective ones, have a stake in assembling diverse student bodies. Society too. But I wonder if anybody has made a college degree study similar to the new one about the SAT. If the college degree weren't required to get one's foot in the door, would many people lacking a college degree fare as well as the majority of those with a diploma at most jobs, especially jobs that put a premium on creativity? The USA keeps raising the diploma bar: requiring high school diplomas, two-year college diplomas, bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, doctoral degrees for jobs that once required less formal education or none at all. We assume that this is progress. Is it? I don't mean to imply that formal education credentials have no value, but I do wonder whether in exaggerated forms they might hinder diversity a lot more than the SAT does.

  • Nicely said Andrew...
  • Posted by Kevin on July 18, 2007 at 12:15pm EDT
  • And you did so without finding it necessary to blame President Bush and evil corporate America...

  • Posted by Humbert on July 18, 2007 at 12:35pm EDT
  • "Would we even be discussing this question if this country spent $10 billion a month, or a week, or a day or whatever it is now, on efficiently improving K-12 Education "

    Well, actually we probably would be. The evidence for any correlation between dollars spent and improved educational outcomes is practically nil.

  • True
  • Posted by Buzz on July 18, 2007 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Well, actually we probably would be. The evidence for any correlation between dollars spent and improved educational outcomes is practically nil.

    ---------

    Spending on education, health care, and other human services increase -- with no visible improvement, much less any appreciation. Instead, it is "give us more and shut up."

    This is as insane as SanFran Int'l Airport during the dot-com era. Stop spending first -- fix at least three big problems -- then resume funding. Dad says so.

  • Test Taking
  • Posted by David , professor emeritus at USC on July 18, 2007 at 2:00pm EDT
  • Test-taking mainly tests the ability of students to take tests. That's why public schools waste so much time "teaching to the tests" in order to improve their school ratings for funding. That's why college applicants spend thousands of dollars on SAT-prep courses.

    I long ago quit giving exams in college courses (and I never gave fill-in-the-bubbles exams). Tests are a very artificial way of testing thinking and important knowledge. Papers, projects, reports, discussions--much better.

    My younger son, furthermore, is a clear instance of the inadequacy of testing. He is "highly gifted" and a very talented musician, but he has ADD and does not do well on timed pseudo-objective tests. We avoided colleges that considered SATs important--not that we were afraid of rejections, but that we didn't want colleges that considered tests very important--for intellectual reasons.

    My opposition is not personal, for I have always been a great test-taker, but I don't value something just because I'm good at it.

  • Posted by TM , Ditch tests? on July 18, 2007 at 4:15pm EDT
  • I disagree that tests only test test-taking ability. A well-designed test does much more.

    1/ Sometime you actually do need to assess students on facts they have learned. Multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank do well for that.

    2/ Not all students can write well. Assigning a paper necessitates that a student can actually form sentences and paragraphs. Considering some of my students whine "this isn't an English class" in their required-for-the-major course with "Writing" in the title, I must wonder how well many other students across the country actually do in non-test assessments.

    A pre-college student should have been taught how to read, write, study, take tests, craft essays, and acquire any other skill necessary to do well in Higher Ed. No one should be surprised when a college student lacks them.

    But I am. All the time. Shocked and appalled.

    What are they being taught in high school? Or...what are they learning [since it's not always the school's fault but rather the student's]?

  • No testing qualified
  • Posted by david at USC on July 18, 2007 at 5:40pm EDT
  • TM--Well, actually my courses are English courses and interdisciplinary ones (Literature and ....). Also I don't require students to have memorized facts, although I'm sure I would if I were teaching O-chem. I even have the luxury of students who can read and write, from reasonably well to very well. So, you are right. My elitist case does not generalize to all disciplines and all colleges. I sometimes forget my good luck.

  • SAT's
  • Posted by Allan Silberstein , Adjunct Faculty at Nazarene Bible College on July 18, 2007 at 6:05pm EDT
  • This article and the comments are very intriguing. I would like to know what form of assessment would be used in the admission process if the SAT/ACT was eliminated. You still need a defining line concerning the admission process.

  • Merit
  • Posted by JC at California State University on July 18, 2007 at 7:05pm EDT
  • Thank you Andrew for an insightful and non-political point of view. The SATs offer a means to standardize the measurement of learning across a wide variety of national and international high school environments. I know of no instance where a school uses these scores as the only means of evaluation.Nevertheless, we shuld not undermine the accomplishment of those students who, with or without study aids, score highly on these tests and go on to success in college. I am continually dismayed by the resistance of educators to any form of measurement. Here in CA we have protests to a high school exit exam, college accreditation measurements, and now SATs yet 60% of the students at the largest college system in the nation (CSU) need remedial math or writing. Let's focus back on issues of k-12 basics and stop blaming valid college standardized tests for our shortfalls in learning outcomes.
    JC

  • SAR and College Admissions
  • Posted by Rick , Standardized Tests on July 18, 2007 at 9:50pm EDT
  • Standardized tests, like the SAT, test many things. They test acquired knowledge, they test cultural knowledge, they test aspects of innate intelligence, they test the ability to work quickly, they test nervousness under pressure, they test vulnerability to negative self-stereotyping, they test how much experience one has had with other similar tests, they test the conditions under which one takes the test and how one is feeling that day, they test hand-eye coordination, they test the test taker's luck and guessing ability, they test how much time and money has been invested in test prep courses, etc.

    They are designed to test only a few of these things; mainly innate educationally relevant skuills and the mastery of academic learning, bt they give noisy and sometimes biased estimates of these traits because of the other factors they cannot help testing. One result is that when validated by grades given in college (or law school or medical school or business school) tests (tests which also test much that is not educationally or learning relevant) they are, on the one hand, highly imperfect predictors of performance and, on the other hand, impressively good predictors, depending on one's point of view. They are impressively good in that they explain far more of the variance in college, law school etc. grades than one might have explained by chance alone and usually more than even experts attempting to predict a student's grade prospects based on everything they know apart from the test can do. They are highly imperfect in that they typically leave between 3/4 and a half, and sometimes more, of the variance in later graded performance unexplained. They are also highly imperfect in that on an idividual basis many students do far worse than their test scores would lead one to expect while many others do far better.

    Properly used standardized test scores are a useful datum in the admisisons process, particularly if their use is confined to their intended purposes. A high school whose A students average 1300 on the combined SAT probably begins with more educationally advanced students or is giving its students a better education (or both) than a high school whose A students average 1000 on the combined SAT. A college admissions officer comparing A students from the two schools would probably be admitting a more educationally able student if she admitted a student with a combined SAT score of 1100 who attended the first school in preference to a student with a combined SAT score of 1100 who attended the second school. She would be on shakier ground if, assuming courses taken were the same, she strongly preferred an A student with an SAT of 1300 at the first school to a student with an SAT score of 1100 at the same school because both students would have done A work as validated by four years of testing using many different modalities whereas the SAT is a one time test of a special sort given under special conditions. She would very likely be making a mistake if she preferred a 1300 SAT A student at the first school who had taken only "soft: courses to an 1100 SAT A student at the same school who had taken the most rigorous AP courses the school had to offer. At least she would be making a mistake in judging likely student quality, but she would not be making a mistake if her only goal were to boost her college's US News Rankings. (This is one of their many pernicious effects; the rankings too are a test, but so imperfect that they make almost any academic test look great by comparison)

    Problems arise when test scores are overweighted and are taken to stand for unchangeable inate ability or very strong predictors of relative prospects for college success when they in fact explain only a small portion of what makes one student succeed and another struggle. I think this is part of the problem the studies' authors have with our testing regime and its apparently increased improtant over the past few decades. BTW I don't know the first author, but Marta Tienda is a top rate sociologist, demographer and methodologist. She works to a high standard and her findings should be taken seriously.

  • Standardized, at what scope?
  • Posted by Amon on July 18, 2007 at 9:50pm EDT
  • Several posts point to the need for *standards* like SATs so that students can be evaluated with respect to a common ruler. But a particular institution doesn't need the same ruler as another. The reason that everyone uses the same ruler is (1) it's easier for students, since they take just one exam, (2) it's easier for institutions, since they don't have to come up with their own rulers, and (3) it facilitates rankings across schools. Clearly, institutions (more and more) aren't interested in (3). Perhaps some feel that the increasing number of college applications each HS student submits is a symptom of another problem, the solution to which would eliminate (1). Then it's up to institutions to face up to (2). My point is really just that it's useful for an institution to compare students on a standard, but let's not mistake that need for an institution-wide standard for a need for a country-wide standard.

    On that note, this recent article in The Chronicle describes a kind of admission questions that every institution should be aware of:
    http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i44/44b01101.htm

  • SAT Scores in College Admissions
  • Posted by Eileen on July 19, 2007 at 4:30am EDT
  • Since SAT Prep courses have become a highly profitable industry, I can only imagine that they can point to some degree of success in raising their clients' scores. So if with additional preparation, students can raise their scores, what does that tell us about the test's abiity to measure future academic performance? And how fair a measure if there are many students who can't afford the prep courses? Wealthier students will always have the advantage, whether it be tutors, prep courses, enrichment programs, etc. A truly merit based admissions process would put the students' scores into context of their goals, motivation, work ethic, and life story. We should expect more from those who are given more.

  • SAT abolition??
  • Posted by Ghita on July 19, 2007 at 4:30am EDT
  • We have to stop fooling ourselves. Our literacy rate is shocking. Many of our college bound high school graduates are embarrassingly ignorant. We need educational standards in this country. We need to have a national matriculation exam, as is done in Britain. The SAT might not be it, but we need something. It is frightening to see how poorly many college freshmen fare in basic literacy skills as well as on menial tasks such as balancing a check-book!
    A Concerned Educator

  • college entrance exams
  • Posted by Amon on July 19, 2007 at 12:05pm EDT
  • This is a followup to my own comment above. How effective were college admission offices before standardized tests? I have not studied this, but certainly professional schools had their own entrance exams. Were there similar evaluations for entering undergraduates? If so, how many of them outperformed the SAT (or ACT) at predicting academic success? This seems like a worthwhile study.

    We shouldn't mistake the rise of the standardized exam as a supporting character in the increasing effectiveness of admissions offices. (Is increased effectiveness even the case?)

  • Cognitive Skill
  • Posted by Rick on July 19, 2007 at 5:05pm EDT
  • Standardized tests like the SAT, ACT, and the GRE, were designed to cognitive skill, and not success in a college career. Does that mean that if one has a higher level of cognitive skill as determined by a particular standardized test, one will be more successful in college. The answer is no.

    The SAT and GRE only are good predictors of success of most test taker for the first year or first semester/quarter of their undergraduate or graduate education. After that first period, the success rates fall dramatically to having no significance across all races and genders.

    However, these tests are great at segregating test takers by socioeconomic status, race, and gender. Guess what group does consistently best? Middle to upper income, suburban white males. Not exactly the democratic model believed to be all created equal.

    So if we know this, as this present study again asserts, why do we keep using an exclusionary and invalid test?

  • Multiple Choice Tests
  • Posted by Sam Wineburg , Professor at Stanford on July 20, 2007 at 10:10am EDT
  • Those, like TM, who claim that multiple-choice tests are essential for measuring facts ought to do a comparative analysis: Most European countries measure facts quite nicely in their education systems without using a single m.c. test (or as they are often called in European testing circles, “the American system.”) Multiple-choice tests are a particular artifact of the Taylorism that swept American psychometrics in the 20s and 30s. There is no legitimate educational reason for cooking up wily “distractors” (i.e., wrong or ‘almost right’ answers) and field testing them (as ETS does) to make sure they snare adequate percentages of unsuspecting victims. It is a scam justified only by the economics of machine scoring and inertia. To see just how sordid all this is, see “Crazy for History,” J. of American History, 2004, 90 (4), 1401-1414.

  • Posted by Half Sigma on July 22, 2007 at 3:50pm EDT
  • Has anyone bothered to read the US News ranking methodology:

    http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/07rank_brief.php

    SAT scores only count for 7.5% of the ranking score. So boosting incoming student SAT scores will NOT have very much effect on the college's ranking. At least not in US News, which is the most widely cited source of ranks.

    And I don't see why 7.5% is an inappropriately high weight for the SAT. Maybe it's too low of a weight?

  • Bigger Picture
  • Posted by Bigger Picture on August 18, 2007 at 3:15pm EDT
  • You cannot ignore that the SATs are sitting on top of a new age of student testing. Today's college applicants have been subjected to rigorous academic standardized tests for a number of years already. The SAT is just one more. Unfortunately, this testing movement has changed the type of student entering schools. There needs to be a more comprehensive application process where schools can truly gain insight on applicants.

    There needs to be a more comprehensive application

  • Posted by Marvin McConoughey on August 30, 2007 at 8:55am EDT
  • Thanks for the heartfelt comments. They were informative. A few points. 1) As a taxpayer, I want a cost-effective higher ed. system and that implies an affordable admissions system that is reasonably objective and repeatable. I agree with Andrew that the SAT is useful. Better testing would help and perhaps the ACT will prove better, or the SAT will improve.

    2. I don't want to help pay for nearly all HS grads to go to college. Projections of labor needs suggest that most jobs will not require a college degree. If only some HS grads will go college--our historical practice--then colleges must be selective. I favor objective testing over subjective decisions.

    3. I have not read the Alon/Tienda research and will do so. Details matter and without knowing much more I cannot properly assess their findings.