Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Impact of Dropping the SAT

March 26, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A new research study -- based on simulations using actual student applications at competitive colleges that require the SAT or ACT for admission -- has found that ending the requirement would lead to demonstrable gains in the percentages of black and Latino students, and working class or economically disadvantaged students, who are admitted.

The finding is consistent with what admissions officers have reported at many colleges that have gone SAT-optional. But the basis of this new research goes well beyond the anecdotal information reported by colleges pleased with their shifts. Scholars at Princeton University's Office of Population Research obtained actual admissions data from seven selective colleges that require the SAT or ACT. Using the actual admissions patterns for these colleges, the scholars then ran statistical models showing the impact of either going SAT-optional or adopting what they called the "don't ask, don't tell" approach in which a college says that it won't look at standardized test scores.

These models suggest that any move away from the SAT or ACT in competitive colleges results in significant gains in ethnic and economic diversity. But the gains are greater for colleges that drop testing entirely, as opposed to just making it optional. (To date, only one institution -- Sarah Lawrence College -- has taken that step.)

In terms of other measures of academic competitiveness, the study found that going SAT optional would result in classes of students with higher grade point averages. Dropping testing entirely, on the other hand, would result in higher levels of academic achievement in the entering classes at the public institutions studied, but not the privates. The research will be formally presented next month at a conference at Wake Forest University about college admissions, but the Princeton researchers released the findings Wednesday.

Parts of the findings may be controversial with both SAT critics and fans. The study found that, as the College Board has long argued, the SAT is a good way to predict the first-year academic success of students. But the study's findings on the impact of dropping the SAT as a requirement provide an independent analysis to show that dropping the SAT as a requirement does lead to increased diversity -- and that is something many colleges want to promote.

The study was conducted by Thomas J. Espenshade, a professor of sociology at Princeton, and Chang Young Chung, a statistical programmer there. Espenshade said in an interview that he started the work without strong feelings about whether the SAT should be required, and that the work received no financial support from the College Board or entities engaged in either encouraging or discouraging use of standardized tests in admissions.

One conclusion of the new study that is sure to be closely watched by admissions offices is this one: "The results show unambiguously that increased racial and socioeconomic diversity can be achieved by switching to test-optional policies." This may be particularly important because the colleges studied by the Princeton researchers were all selective. Some defenders of the SAT, noting that the colleges going SAT-optional include a wide range of institutions, not all of them selective, have suggested that selective institutions may not see the desired changes by dropping their testing requirements.

The study was based on a variety of models, all based on actual admissions data for the institutions studied (which were promised anonymity) and patterns in applications once institutions go SAT-optional. (There is much less of a track record, of course, for the "don't ask, don't tell" model, since Sarah Lawrence is alone in that approach and is known for having a highly individualized admissions process.)

In the modeling, the researchers assumed that at SAT-optional colleges, those with high SAT scores would continue to submit them, and be helped by them. Only at "don't ask, don't tell" institutions, the researchers found, would there be no advantage for having high SAT scores. For both groups, the researchers created models of two (partly overlapping) shifts in the applicant pool -- both based on the track records of other colleges, but adapted for the specific colleges studied. One shift would involve a 30 percent increase, in the applicant pool, of various groups that tend to be discouraged by SAT requirements: black and Latino students and low-income students. The other shift would be an increase of 30 percent in applications from students whose SAT scores are lower than the institutional profile.

The findings appear to confirm what SAT critics have said for years: that reliance on the SAT in college admissions favors applicants who are white and/or wealthier than other applicants. At the private colleges studied (mean SAT score 1405), the percentage of admitted applicants who are black would increase from 8.3 percent to 11.3 percent in the scenario in which more minority students apply and the SAT becomes optional.

In this scenario, if the SAT is not considered at all, the percentage of admitted applicants who are black would go up to 13.8 percent. For Latino students, the percentage would go from 7.9 percent to 10.6 percent in an SAT-optional system and to 12.0 percent when the SAT isn't considered at all. Most of the corresponding drops would come in the white applicant pool, although Asian numbers would also go down modestly.

In terms of the class shifts of such a move, gains would be seen (in all the scenarios) for lower, working and middle class students. Upper and upper-middle class students would decline, while still representing a majority of those admitted.

At the public institutions studied (mean SAT 1206), similar shifts would take place with regard to race and ethnicity. The percentage of admitted applicants who are black would go from 7.8 percent to 9.9 percent if (as projected) minority and low-income applicants increased by 30 percent after a college shifted to SAT-optional admissions. In terms of class shifts, publics differed from privates, in that the gains would come from both the top and bottom of the wealth scales, while the middle would lose a bit.

Another key finding of the study is that the "cost" of going SAT optional or even abandoning the SAT completely is relatively small in terms of non-testing academic measures. For instance, the percentage of admitted applicants at private colleges who have high school grade-point averages of A+ would go up (very modestly) under the SAT-optional models, while dropping slightly under the "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

Going SAT optional at private colleges would result in gains (of less than 1 percentage point) in the 81.1 percent of admitted applicants who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school class. If colleges were to drop the SAT entirely from consideration, the competitive private colleges studied would end up with declines of about 4 percentage points in the share of their new classes in the top 10 percent. For competitive publics, however, either going SAT optional or dropping all consideration of the SAT results in gains in the share of the admitted class from the top 10 percent of high school classes.

Espenshade did have some cautions for those considering changes in SAT policies. One was that there are questions about whether the application gains anticipated by going SAT-optional would continue as more colleges enact such policies. If the application pools don't continue to increase, there is some danger, he said, that colleges might not have as many academically talented (but test-averse) applicants.

Another caution is that Espanshade said that for the colleges studied, the SAT is in fact an excellent way to predict the first-year academic success of applicants. So removing the SAT would take away that tool. (Espenshade acknowledged that the study did not examine whether other measures, such as class rank or grades in college preparatory courses, might have the same predictive value.)

Finally, as with all projections in higher ed these days, the study notes ways in which the current economic woes facing the United States could affect admissions trends. "It is unclear how the current economic downturn will affect application rates to schools that have recently adopted test-optional admission policies," the study says. "The diversity-inducing effects of these newly instituted policies could be blunted if lower-income students are discouraged from applying.

"Admission policies, too, might need to be adjusted to reflect new economic realities. In particular, constraints on financial aid budgets could mean that schools can no longer afford to admit as many students from lower social class categories, even if these students make it into the applicant pool. In short, the current economic climate could produce greater racial diversity at colleges with test-optional admission policies but little more (or even less) socioeconomic diversity."

So where does that leave the authors of the report? Espenshade said that for him, the findings reinforce the views of a special committee of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, which in September called for all colleges to reconsider whether they need standardized testing as a requirement in admissions. The panel did not call for the end to standardized testing in admissions, but suggested that a real review would lead many colleges to abandon requirements. The "one size fits all" approach, in which many colleges have considered testing the norm and thus appropriate, needs to be challenged, the admissions officers' report said, and Espenshade said he has the same feeling.

A spokeswoman for the College Board said Wednesday that the organization's researchers were not familiar with the new study.

Robert Schaeffer, public education director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, a leading critic of the College Board, said he wasn't bothered by the findings on SAT validity because his organization has never said that the SAT has no predictive value, only that there are better ways to predict college success without the negative impacts of testing.

Schaeffer said he saw the report as significant. "My initial reaction is that the authors confirm the core arguments of advocates for test-optional admissions," which are that "test-optional admissions unquestionably increase racial diversity at the institutions where it is adopted" and "when students with strong high school records are admitted in place of those with top ACT or SAT scores, there is no negative impact on undergraduate academic performance."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Impact of Dropping the SAT

  • Dropping standardized tests
  • Posted by MrMojo at SUNY on March 26, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • Well, I suppose one benefit would be that no one could say that education majors have the lowest scores on campus.

    Seriously, this leaves the door wide open for poorly-prepared kids to enter college based on inflated grades from substandard schools, and to have them flunk out. Texas has had a similar problem with their top 10% admissions rule. Kids from the border and 5th Ward automatically get in based on class rank, and flunk out, and smart, well-prepared kids from rigorous schools end up waiting to see if they get into UT , Tech, or A&M, or have to pay through the nose to go to Trinity, SMU, or TCU.

  • No kidding . . .
  • Posted by Dave Stone , Professor of History on March 26, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • This study, it seems to me, falls squarely in the "no kidding" school of results. Blacks and Latinos on average have lower SAT scores than whites and Asians, so OF COURSE eliminating the SAT would result in more of the first group and less of the second.

    And since the SAT was created to try to get around the problem of uneven high schools, OF COURSE getting rid of it would bring in more students who rank high in their classes. The problem, as stated in the first comment, is whether top 10% of the class means the same thing at every school.

  • Posted by Parent on March 26, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Some questions:

    What is the four year difference in academic achievement, if any, between standardized test  and non- or optional standardized test admissions?  

    Has anyone ever studied colleges that use a "menu" approach to standardized tests (a choice of submitting some combination of SAT, ACT, SAT2s, APs, IBs) and those that require a graded school composition?  

    What is the influence on SAT use in admissions of college rankings and bond rating agencies? In other words, are there externalities that lead to over-use of the SAT in admissions decisions? 

  • It's Discrimination
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on March 26, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Let’s give the article just a slight – very slight – twist: Suppose the issue were whether to stop using the SAT because too many Asians and Jews were getting into selective universities, and getting rid of the SAT would be a good way to keep their numbers down. Would everyone be okay with that? Would the question whether the SAT is actually a good way to help select the most academically qualified students still be considered only in passing?

    I don’t particularly care how colleges select students, so long as they don’t engage in racial or ethnic discrimination. And I don’t know if the SAT is always the best tool to ensure that the academically most qualified students are selected (although its predictive value always seems to hold up pretty well, and it is telling that schools seem to have no problem with it except for its racial results). But I am confident of this: If schools are throwing out selection devices because they are getting in the way of politically correct racial and ethnic results, then they are engaging in discrimination and they won't be selecting the best students.

  • Retention???
  • Posted by Sally , Director of IR on March 26, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • As mentioned by MrMojo this article focuses solely on getting students in the door. It doesn't mention what happens to them once they are at our institutions. SAT scores have been shown over and over to be related to retention. If we can flag students that might be at risk at our institution coming in the door, I say we keep the scores. We can continue to admit students in the "at-risk" zone based on other factors in their application that suggest they could be successful but these scores allow us to flag them and keep an eye on them providing extra help when they need it.

  • Posted by revisionist on March 26, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Roger Clegg asks,

    "Suppose the issue were whether to stop using the SAT because too many Asians and Jews were getting into selective universities, and getting rid of the SAT would be a good way to keep their numbers down. Would everyone be okay with that?"

    In California, everyone _is_ ok with that. It is the Latino Caucus in the State Legislature and their "Progressive" allies who have been the loudest promoters of changes to the state university admissions systems. A group of Asian-American state legislators has just announced they are pushing UC to re-evaluate the new 9% rule that will result in a reduction of Asian-American admits. Mr. Clegg might also look at the many instances of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, UCLA and Berkeley, sometimes and sometimes not disguised as anti-Zionism to see that excluding Jews is viewed as a beneficial side-effect of de-emphasizing the SAT.

  • Nationally Normed
  • Posted by Maureen , Assoc. Prof. on March 26, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • The SAT, ACT, SAT2s, and APs are nationally normed and provide crucial information about a student's ability in various fields. Meanwhile, the G.P.A. only applies to a given school: a 3.6 from a school filled with illiterate children is NOT the same as a 3.6 from a school with children who can read and write. Admissions directors will be setting up quite a number of students for failure if their universities do not run some other diagnostic exams when the students arrive as freshmen, so that adequate tutoring can be provided. 

  • Posted by Bob on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Roger, the selective UC schools in California already discriminate against Asian students by using criteria for admission other than academic ability. It is estimated that Asians would become an overwhelming majority at Berkeley and UCLA if they didn't suffer the current discrimination.

    As noted by others, of course all of this movement toward not utilizing standardized tests is so that minorities with lesser academic abilities can be admitted. The same thing is happening with medical school admissions and I assume with other professional schools.

  • what are "best" students?
  • Posted by jayvee , professor on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Who should go to college?  What do you mean by "the best students"?  If higher education's purpose is solely to take the academically best-qualified students and make them even more academically proficient, then the SAT is a valuable tool.  But if the purpose of higher education is to provide all sectors of American society with well-educated and thoughtful leaders, the net should be cast more widely.  

    It is much easier to rank people by SAT scores -- after all, 800 is obviously larger than 650 -- than it is to answer questions about who "should" get her or his share of a scarce resource like admission to a first-rate college.  But it is not at all clear, at least it is not clear to me, that marginally superior pre-college performance, which is so closely linked to class and race and parental involvement and high-school quality, should be the criterion that decides college admission.

    I've personally seen students from marginal high schools with initially poor preparation struggle for a year or so, and then, in the atmosphere of college, blossom and succeed and go on to graduate or professional school, or to brilliant careers.  It's good for the country that this happen.

  • SAT weakly correlated with college success
  • Posted by Faculty Person on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • The SAT is only weakly coordinated with success in college. Measures such as HS rank, SAT II scores, AP scores are better predictors. See this list of articles on the subject: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/592879.html

  • Posted by Jamie on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • For a good perspective on this subject, read Peter Wood's book on diversity.

  • Alternatives
  • Posted by Bob Bontrager , Director of Consulting at AACRAO on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • It is remarkable that we continue to discuss the use of standardized test scores in college admissions as an either/or proposition, while generally failing to consider alternatives. Along the way we perpetuate the false notions 1) that SAT and ACT exams are fair because they treat everyone the same and 2) that they are legitimate indicators of academic ability for students and of academic prestige for the schools that admit them. The real issue is the ability to fairly predict success in college -- with success defined as completing a degree while fully meeting the institution's requirements for doing so. Even the College Board acknowledges that the SAT has its limitations and recommends it not be used in isolation. Many schools attempt to add fairness with letters of recommendation and essays that themselves carry significant levels of bias in many cases.

    Meanwhile, a few institutions are improving student success rates with the innovative assessment of noncognitive variables in admissions. These include student characteristics such as the ability to set and fulfill goals and personal support systems that don't show up in many traditional admission assessments. These types of assessments introduce fairness by cutting across socioeconomic levles, learning styles, ethnicity, and quality of secondary training. Schools like Missouri Univeristy of Science and Techology and Oregon State have used this approach with great success. It deserves more attention in the ongoing dialogue on college admissions.

  • Strange...
  • Posted by ndsmith on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • This study poses a weird problem. What it basically authorizes, as many comments have noted, is getting Affirmative-Action in through the back door. But at what cost?

    It does seem strange to be discussing ending the SAT or ACT--virtually the only recognized standardized test of aptitude in secondary ed.--at the same time as there is a push for standardizing educational assessment across the board. Do we think that we need more or less standardized educational assessment? Or is this study suggesting that the SAT is simply not the vehicle we want? What is going to take its place? GPA, as has been noted, is ludicrous. (Anecdotally: I graduated from the inaugural class of an IB program with a 1440 SAT score--the old test--and a 3.4 unweighted GPA. I was accepted to a selective private institution and basically breezed through my first two years, graduating magna cum laude in the honor's program, with graduate level coursework on my transcript. If it weren't for the SAT, I may never have had a chance.)

  • With friends like these...
  • Posted by Thomas on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Here's the gist of what I've learned from reading the work of Richard Sander.

    1. Law schools all admit students according to more-or-less the same combination of grades and LSAT scores.

    2.The legal education system is extremely hierarchical, with the best students going to Harvard and Yale, the next best to Stanford and Chicago, and so on down the line.

    3. Law schools all want more "diversity" than they would get if admissions were race-blind, so they all have a two-track admissions scheme, with minority students subjected to far lower standards than other students. This results in a "cascade" effect, with Harvard and Yale grabbing minority students who would otherwise go to schools farther down the hierarchy, and lower-tier schools in turn dipping ever-farther down in the minority admissions pool to replace minority students who were taken by higher-tier schools.

    4. The result of two-track admissions is that there is a mismatch between most minority law students and the standards of the law schools they attend. The degree of mismatch is so great that half of black law students have grades in the bottom ten percent, with the great majority of the rest still in the bottom half.

    5.Sander estimates that more blacks would successfully become lawyers if they were less of an "advantage" in admissions, thereby lessening the mismatch problem.

    6.Efforts by Sander to obtain data in California to better test his theories have been thwarted by defenders of racial preferences, whose reasons for defending racial preferences don't seem to include the well-being of the "beneficiaries" of those preferences.

    Certain changes in undergraduate admissions practices may predictably increase "diversity" at various institutions, but that does not mean that "diverse" students as a whole (or anyone else) will necessarily benefit from those changes.

  • Admissions based on class rank (with tweaking) could work.
  • Posted by Ken D. on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • -
    A system of offering admissions based on high school rank could work and would yield representative student bodies. But of course the top students at the worst high schools can't (on average) be expected to be as academically well-prepared as the top students from the best high schools, so some form of systematic remediation needs to be built into the system. But basically, this is what we were already trying to do anyway via the JCs, so its more a question of marketing what we already have rather than of needing to make a fundamental change to the system.

    A good analogy might be UC's recently adopted "Blue and Gold plan". The "Blue and Gold plan", was really more of a clarification of already existing access to the best in public higher education rather than it was a major system change at UC. The reality was that for the most part this level of financial aid for families earning below certain levels was already being provided prior to the announcement of the "Blue and Gold" plan, so it really cost UC relatively little to implement this major "new" plan.

    Similarly, we have today a system where disadvantaged and minority students can more easily gain access to the top universities if they are willing to spend a little time at a community college. The reason more disadvantaged students don't attempt to gain admission to the top universities via the JC route, one suspects, have more to do with social status than pragmatic logic.

    So it would seem that universities could make the system of basing admission on high school rank work, and thus achieve more representative student bodies, if they could follow the example of the "Blue and Gold Plan" and simply do a better job of marketing or labeling already existing educational opportunities within the status quo.

  • Posted by Tod on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Sally, we have a way of flagging under-prepared students, its called "Pell Eligible." Students on pell have lower graduation rates than students with non-need based aid or no aid at whatsoever. When this is pointed out, colleges generally reply, "Well, yeah, poor students usually don't have the same preparation." BUT THEY RARELY DO ANYTHING TO INTERVENE.

    When the new reporting of graduation rates by Pell status required by the HEOA hit the streets in the next year, we'll have a new ballgame.

  • Some things to remember
  • Posted by Alex , Associate professor at Big 10 on March 26, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • MrMojo seems to assume that each year, admissions offices evaluate candidates without regard to prior knowledge about a school. But in fact they have access to information about the courses available and the relative rigor of a student's curriculum. More importantly, they can observe how admitted students from a given school actually perform and factor that into future decisions. Also, they are not constrained in the same way that public universities are under the percent-plans.

    Second, let's not exaggerate the predictive validity of the SAT. As I recall, College Board research shows the SAT correlates with first-year grades on the order of .53 or .55. That means SAT explains about 30 percent of the variation in first-year college grades (square of the correlation). The prediction of overall college performance is worse, or course. Not so great, and not much better than using high school GPA alone.

  • Roger and Maureen
  • Posted by Educator , educator/admission professional on March 26, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Roger and Maureen,
    Your assumptions seem to be that admissions directors will be discriminating and setting students up for failure instead of success if the SAT is eliminated. My apologies, but I'm not seeing your logic here. A reasonable conclusion from your comments is that educators who've been reading applications, evaluating transcripts, curricula and school resources (let alone all the unquantifiables that motivate individuals to higher education) for decades will just start failing to recruit successful classes if they stop using the SAT. It seems to me that either you have little faith in the ability of admissions professionals or in the students that we serve. SAT or not, they know what it takes to succeed in their respective environments. Roger, why not mention that another good predictor of freshmen and college success is the high school GPA and rigor of program? The admissions profession is much better at gathering and evaluating information on secondary schools than ever before. If you don't care how colleges select students, then what's the problem with eliminating a tool that helps to predict the economic resources of a student/family as much as predicting first year success? Colleges want more diverse classes and there are legitamate debates on the best ways to attain this educational goal, or even what diversity might mean to a particular community. There are some educators who see the SAT as a barrier to equal, if not balanced, opportunities in higher education. Some of them even believe that they can recognize human and educational potential without this particular tool. Higher education professionals did it for decades prior to the advent of the SAT. Why not admit that you have a particular and biased agenda with regard to your comments? I'll admit mine. I am confident of this: The best educational environments are more diverse, not less. Furthermore, I think the best students are products of institutions that have found a way to marry compelling educational resources (physical and human) to their diversity initiatives, whatever they may be. I also think that racial and ethinic diversity should be a part of the conversation, debated amongst the other legitimate topics.
    Maureen, schools filled with illiterate children. Really? I'm sure that admissions directors know what it takes to succeed at their respective colleges. I'm also confident that admissions professionals are interested in strengthening the student body and not in making students less competitive or incapable of contributing well to society. So far, eliminating the SAT (if a school opts to go that route) hasn't deminished the educational mission or resources of colleges in the US. The opposite seems to be happening (if one believes in diversity as a worthy educational goal.) At all levels, even students with traditionally high SATs seek tutoring or assistance at points in their educational careers. Something encouraged at even the most competitive institutions. I'm not sure if your consternation is well placed here given all the schools filled with illiterate children out there.

  • Tests only punish the unprepared
  • Posted by Common Sense on March 26, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • It's interesting that people continue to perpetuate the myth that tests are inherently biased against the amount of melanin in your skin. Supporters of these crazy theories fail to prove why white or asian students continue to score higher, whether they are from Japan, China, India, Chile, Russia, France, Spain, Austrailia or the United States. It certainly isn't a cultural phenomenon if the only characteristic that is shared is light skin color. Income based differences certainly make a little more sense, however, there are more total whites in the US than poor blacks or hispanics, and yet, they seem to do fine on these test as well, so long as they study and remain prepared.

    2+2 is always going to equal 4....it is fact and cannot be disputed. The answer will never change and math doesn't care who you are or what you look like. If a disproportionate amount of blacks or hispanics score poorly on questions such as this, then it most clearly shows that a disproportionate amount of blacks and hispanics did not study or do their homework, or if they did, were not able to effectively grasp the concepts due to genetic limiations. It doesn't make sense to keep dropping standards (the dumbing down of America) in order to admit or promote undeserving applicants for the sake of justifying a government controlled skin color balance. Its not fair to the high acheivers of all races, who look upon the applicants with disdain and sarcasm. Its also not fair to the applicant, who finds they cannot compete at such a complex level once admitted, and fail anyways.

    In ridicule of their thinking, Perhaps people with greek ancestery can understand the pythagoreum theorem better? Get real! Tests only punish the unprepared. Prepare yourself, and you will succeed.

  • Posted by Lucy Stone on March 26, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • I teach at a state university that does not use SAT or ACT scores. although students submit them. Some commenters assume that in the absence of standardized tests universities will dispatch a hive of dedicated admissions professionals to perform some "innovative assessment of noncognitive variables." I don't know about other institutions, but here, it's 3.0 HSGPA and you're in. We can see that for our students, SAT is a strong predictor of things like first year retention and likelihood of going on academic probation. Maybe there isn't a huge difference between the student who scores 650 and the one who scores 800, but I am convinced that below a certain cutoff (I'd put it around 400 or 450), a student is highly unlikely to succeed.

  • Time For A Little Analysis
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on March 26, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Today, as is invariably the case after my first glass of Johnny Walker Red in the afternoon, I had an epiphany.

    I decided to partition the timeline of each American college graduate into three imaginary categories; to wit, (1) the time prior to attending college, (2) the college experience, and (3) the post-collegiate experience.

    Then, being one of the world’s foremost experts on assessment, I used an Einstein-like thought experiment and employed the famous Manley Function to measure the impact of higher education on the American experience by aggregating over all students since the SAT’s inception in 1901. I did that twice, once under the assumption that the collegiate acceptance of every student was dependent upon hir SAT score … and once under the assumption that no one had ever taken the SAT. Notice that the decision to take (or not take) the SAT occurs in Segment 1 and impact on the American experience is assessed in Segment 3. What happens in Segment 2 is not an issue.

    Finally, based on the difference between the two Manley Function scores, I made a list of all of the ways the American experience would differ with and without the SAT.

    Here is my list …

  • Interesting Data
  • Posted by Phronesis , Academic Advisor at Wright State on March 26, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • I found this data on Kansas State's website:

    http://www.k-state.edu/pa/statinfo/retention/

    Note how the six-year graduation rate rises with ACT scores. I know that this is just one institution so what happens at K-State may not be generalizable to a larger population but the outcomes show a positive correlation between ACT scores and graduation rates (No Pearson's r provided so we don't know the strength of the correlation). For example the six-year graduation rate for students who entered the institution in 1997 with an ACT below 19 is 30.75 percent (from th begining of seventh year column). The six-year graduation rate for students who entered the institution in 1997 with an ACT of 32 or above is 83.16 percent. Quite a difference.

    Even year-to-year retention numbers are correlated with ACT scores. From 1997 to 2006 the percentage of students returnin for the second year among those who entered with an ACT score of 22 to 26 never exceeds 84.10 percent for any given year. In the same years those with ACT scores of 32 or more the retention rate does not drop below 92.77 percent.

     

    The outcomes found a K-State needs to be addressed by those who argue against the use of ACT as an assessment tool in admissions.

  • Get Rid of It
  • Posted by Anon , Consultant at Business Owner on March 26, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • I really do believe they should get rid of the SAT/ACT. I have worked as an admissions counselor and in various other areas of higher education and now work as a workplace learning professional and business owner. As an African American, I was a horrible test taker and succeeded in college and graduate school. Obviously, there were other aspects that admissions counselors could consider such as GPA balanced with academic rigor of the high school, extracurricular activities, community service, and per determination. While working in admissions, we consistently found that students with high SATs and low GPAs flunked out their first year while students with high GPAs and lower SATs succeeded through their 4 years in undergrad. It's not about a test, it's about how hard you are willing to work to succeed. If a student can show me scholastic achievement and persistence based on their portfolio and interview (which I propose in the place of SAT/ACTs), they should be admitted.

  • Good to hear!
  • Posted by Pell Grad on March 26, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • As a graduate of a liberal arts college who received the Pell Grant (and thus was in the "less likely to succeed" section of the class), I am so glad to read over this article. The preparation available to rich students and the emphasis and time spent preparing for the SAT in the upper classes is impossible to match for a student in a low-income high school who has a job to hold down.

    Peter Sacks recently wrote a book called "Tearing Down the Gates," in which he shows how the SAT is an imperfect measure of college success, but an almost perfect measure of socio-economic background. I would encourage more schools to drop the SAT if they are interested in increasing their diversity. Of course, once you actually get those Pell-Eligible student on campus, I would also encourage you to make an effort to keep them there.

  • What Happens Later?
  • Posted by Shazamm on March 26, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Point #1 - One of the commenters above pointed out that the study does not address what happens to these lesser-qualified students after they get in the door. What happens is that many of them rack up large loans (up to $9,500 in the first year and as much as $20,000 by the end of the second year), and then they flunk out or leave because they weren't academically qualified to be there in the first place. They then default, wreck their credit for years, and saddle the taxpayers with the costs. If you don't believe me, check out the long-term default rates in the Stafford Loan program (the long-term rate with the ethnic component thrown in, not just the one-year cohort rate). Contrary to the utopian fantasies of the politically-correct crowd, we aren't doing these students or society any favors. In fact, we are doing them a huge disfavor in the long run.

    Point #2 - The next time I have a life-threatening medical condition, I can't wait to go to one of those doctors who got into medical school based on political correctness. Driving over bridges designed by lesser-qualified students gives me great comfort also. Thanks a lot.

     

  • What is the real purpose of all this?
  • Posted by GD on March 26, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • There's so much to write about this subject, a lot of it based upon my own experiences, which include growing up in public housing, seeing the very few academically gifted people around me aspire to better colleges and what happened to them because they were ill-prepared, eventually attending an elite school myself as a graduate student, marrying someone who attended such a school as an undergraduate, seeing our own children go through prep school, then attend highly competitive colleges, and my own relatively small amount of teaching at a state university.

    It seems to be that in none of these efforts to admit a greater number of "disadvantaged minorities" (and that's obviously what it is as others have made clear) do I see an interest in outcome studies--what happens to students from differing strata, with different socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds, and different test scores? Are they helped due to the extremely talented competition in elite academic environments, or harmed? I once asked my elite university alumni magazine editor to do a story on the result of affirmative action admits, the successful and unsuccessful. This idea came from my experience working with a younger disadvantaged minority graduate from that university who was embittered by the experience. In person, the magazine editor seemed very interested, but so far no story--and this is a monthly so there have been lots of opportunities. We should ask the critical question: is this effort to "diversify" talent pools based on academic talent designed to a) provide a better education for those disadvantaged minorities who are helped by attending an elite university?; b) provide a diverse environment for students who come from upper socio-economic environments so that their learning can be enriched; c) provide academic administrators with bragging rights for their liberal colleagues?

    I fashion myself a liberal, too, but because I'm not in such an academic administration position I gain nothing from such bragging rights, yet I remember my own experience in a ghetto high school (although I'm white) and see the vast, vast difference between how I was educated and how my wife and our children have been educated in better neighborhoods and even in college prep schools. Saying that there is an uneven playing field among high schools in terms of academic challenge is like saying there is T-Ball and there are the Yankees. So, how does a T-Ball athlete compete in the major leagues? How can he or she possibly be helped when he or she is completely swamped by unprecedented demands, embittered by the better preparation and higher course grades of others, daunted by the simple lack of acculturation to the ways by which post-college jobs are found resulting in a positive outcome from the experience. Without such evaluation, all this talk about removing one strong measure of talent is a very risky venture, more likely to provide benefit, as a group, to cohorts b and c above and relatively little to a. Where are the extensive outcome studies of these affirmative action babies vis a vis their peers from more academically enriched backgrounds? Since I'm not a professional sociologist I may not know about such studies. But I must say that in all my reading in an area of interest, I have never seen them. What do they show, if they exist? And if they don't exist, why not? Shouldn't this be all about helping move disadvantaged people move upward through our stratified society in a productive way? And is it about that? I, for one, would feel better about such efforts to diversify classes with students of differing academic talent if I knew that it really helped those who received the benefit of those efforts.

  • Got class?
  • Posted by Theron on March 27, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • One elephant (not the only one) hidden in many of these posts is the role of class and how it is entangled in the selection process. The sub text is blaming victims for the circumstances in which they must work/study. I base this on two assumptions: the tests in question measure at best exposure to specific academic and cultural texts and rituals; 2. money spent in school districts, in specific schools and even in higher education determine in part what that exposure is. In this State, we see the politicians cut spending to the university system time after time...each of the 10 years I have been here.

    At this urban, regional State school, I see underprepared students entering the school...but with an enthusiasm that is catchy. Yet, we also see class size increase, tuition go up (forcing students already working 16+ hours/week to work more), and then hear proposals to increase SAT/ACT scores for admission.

    To cast this socio-economic issue soley in ethnic terms (a second elephant in this discussion) ignores the role of social and income class markers...and ignores the "Catch-22" in which many of our students are caught.

    The outcome studies proponents of the ACT/SAT cite beg the question: could underprepared students make it if there was the support for them in the transition process?

    I would suggest a recasting of this entire discussion, looking at the structural issues built into who gets what education at a high school level: who are tracked in what direction. How is public education funded and what strata benefits? To simply rely upon a cut-off, no matter what it is, ignores fixes that might improve performance across the board.

  • Field
  • Posted by Jack Spear , Prof at UC on March 28, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • Reactions to this type of proposal tend to break down by field.

    For those in the sciences, who want the strongest students in order for scientific knowledge to be advanced as far and as efficiently as possible, the SAT serves an essential role.

    For those in other areas, looking for warm bodies to fill classrooms and regurgitate jargon, it is less important to get the most qualified.

  • A few untoward comments
  • Posted by DFS on March 28, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Revisionist: The man was not trying to disparage any particular group -- in fact, he was using any such implicit subterfuge to exhibit the neutral impact of any such argument, and therefore alerting all of us to this possible utility -- and therefore stating his explicit opposition to it.

    Frizbane: I keep inputting your stuff into my BS-meter, and coming up empty. I just don't understand how you arrive at the correct point from an incorrect universe. I will continue to try, however. Perhaps my meter should be adjusted toward "reality." There must be some kind of differential eauation, or inequality, involved here.

    Theron: I see your points, and, after some cold considerations, I have come to the conclusion that you have to re-examine the original elephant among us. In fact, standards (pre) do matter. (However, I am in daily admiratiion at how the pre-failing requirements are negated by the post- or current performance, once they're here at my CC. That's what keeps me coming back, after all, day after day.)

  • SAT Optional
  • Posted by Greg Antoine , Assoc. Prof at Boston University on March 29, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • As I see it as an African American. I'm fine with the SAT or ACT. I do think though that in states that have flagship institutions like the UC system the the second tier Cal State system should be funded by the equitable distribution of the citizens tax dollars. Since the majority of latinos, african american and impoverished students go to the Cal State system that's where the majority of these students tax dollars should be shifted to ensure they are funded with the best available resources for their tax dollars. The tax code will solve this problem of first and second tier educators and educations. I have asked Mr. Clegg this question before and he has artfully dodged it. It harkens back to taxation with out representation. the private schools can adopt whatever method they see fit for themselves as long as they don't receive any federal or state tax money. Also California should not be admitting any out of state undergrads until they have admitted everyone form there own state. While this may sound far fetched someone is going to use the tax code to get to this admission question in state schools. I would say this is not about asians and Jews, blacks an latinos but whose tax money for higher education is supporting whom? I may even ask Justice Department and IRS to do a preliminary investigation to get the dialogue started.

  • alternative explanation
  • Posted by Mike C , Prod Strat on March 30, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • There are a variety of reasons that schools consider test-optional policies, many of them positive and altruistic. One that is not mentioned is a more self-serving an interest. Schools may want to increase enrollment from students with lower scores but ability to pay without lowering the schools rankings by decreasing their avg test score. By going test-optional, they can lower their standards but keep it private and maintain their rankings

  • the future lies ahead
  • Posted by fred lapides , none at none on March 31, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • We will find that many universities will soon give preference not to overly bright students but rather to those whose families are willing to pay the full tuition without asking for scholarship money. Many schools have lost bundles of endowment money and by favoring the wealthy, they can replenish the coffers while rationalizing that in so doing they will be able to use endowment money to help minority students and gifted but poorer students.
    This is smart financially and will further widen the gap between the haves and the have nots--will also add to the growing intake of out of state students, who pay much more, and in so doing deprive state tax payers of what they paid for but can not use for their students because places taken by non-state students.

  • At Jack Spear...
  • Posted by J.T. Kent on April 3, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • Jack Spear ....What? You comment astounded me. I am used to seeing this type of elitism from self important science undergrads but from a (supposed) professor? You speak of the sciences as if they were all making a meaningful contribution to our world. Take for example, Astrophysics. I adore astrophysics, I think it is one of the most interesting areas of study that can be found, but, it is almost entirely unpractical. Compare this to your "other areas" who are "looking for warm bodies" and they seem downright practical. Someone with a sold understanding of English can do more to shape the people's perceptions of the world then an Astrophysicist. If is not the elitist "science majors" who drive the change in this country. In fact it is the gifted few who excel at both that change the world. It is the Darwin's and the platos that change the world. It is the political science and history majors who govern and guide this world. If that is the case why should college not care about finding and training the very best? A truely healthy society is one that fosters and encourages study into things that aree "useless" or not applicable in the so called real world. Funding in needed for CERN, Pure Math, Astrophyiscs, Literature, writing, music painting as well as the engineering and computer sciences and bussiness majors. Notice how the "sciences" that you seem to refer to are put with the Humanities, where they belong. They are ther realm of the esoteric and all of them require the best and brightest minds working in them.

    To return to the actual discussion. Abolishing the SAT to increase diversity is a band aid for the underlying problem. The education of the lower classes must inmprove. We are more likely to damage and toss out underprepared students but eliminating the SAT. The problem lies not in College Admissions but in Primary and Secondary education. We have lost several generations of potentially great students to horrible primary and secondary education. Unitll that chages, this issue will always remain. These types of programs hide the truth. We are failing minority students. Most impoverished minority students can not keep up with the rigors of a high level programs because they were never given the chance. The SAT is not the problem. Obama wants everyone to go the college. How is that possible when most so many people don't even recieve a true High School education? The SAT is a excellent test that, when taken in conjunction with other factors, is an excellent tool for college admissions. It is an effective tool that is saying that minoritys are underprepared for college but instead of fixing the problem we abolish the tool! Since when is out of site out of mind and acceptable method dealing with and education crisis?

  • WAKE UPPPPPPP!!!
  • Posted by april , parent on July 28, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • as a parent of a rising senior at a public california high school, i am angered by the percentage of out-of-state students admitted to our top-tier california universities. this needs to stop! SAT/ACT tests are not evil... equal access to prep courses must be made available to truly level the proverbial playing field. we all know that these tests are highly 'preppable', so if all school districts are offering free test prep to juniors, there's no problem.

    stop scapegoating blacks and latinos. keep the SAT/ACT but provide EQUAL ACCESS to preparation oppotunities.

    ENROLL CALIFORNIANS IN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITIES !!!!

  • ***Get Rid of a Unfair Test****
  • Posted by Beverely on January 16, 2010 at 6:45am EST
  • This test hold too much weight on people future.....and they know this....they are bias in this test and try to say that certain students test lower and certain students test higher...when you hear this...then you know THEIR MINDSET......if you look on testing booklets you will find lots of number on it......batches of numbers in a few places.....I believed these numbers are assign to neighborhoods...and if you live in a rich neighborhood...your score become higher etc.....this is a way of them tracking where you live and other information...they drop off these booklets to different schools...so they have a tacking system where they know whih booklet is where.......they use to calculate your score...they also ask about your parents education, what's your family income, are you the first to graduated form college.....That's none fo their business...........this has nothing to do with YOUR EDUCATION information about your parents ......it has nothing to do with your abilities...so SAT people have a lot of tricky questions they used to find out information to either raise your score or lower your score.......I say GET RID OF THIS TEST.......they have a lot of law suits too....

  • ***Kids at College****
  • Posted by Frank on January 18, 2010 at 5:30am EST
  • Certain Privilge kids from wealthy families go to college only to get high, have sex parties and Drink alcohol...because they know they system looks out for them....so they don't have to study...they know they will get a good GRADE regardless.....The SAT give them higher scores, the teacher gives them higher grades most of the time...without them earning it.....that's why they have the time to party, get high, have sex parties and do drugs.....

    That is why you see plenty of Doctors cutting off the wrong leg, taking out the wrong kidney etc.....

    Most of these kids are not passing their class and I've seen it with my eyes......they teachers are giving GRADES according to your last name.......

    That's why you have lots of unquified people holding Good jobs...such as Bush...who was not quilifed for their Job....but got in because they came from "wealthy or influence families..and look what he did....mess up the whole country.....

    Then you have Talented Kids from inner cities or working class families and you have this Bull Shit SAT...that's trying to keep these kids down.........

    Well I say ....keep on being unfair...you might end up being a patient of one of these kids who didn't pass his tests, but was pass thru because of his skin color.....

    I say be fair to all kids who is qulified.....