Why Caltech is now requiring test scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be controversial. I think it is because, Caltech type institutions usually rely on math olympiad/AIME type tests to identify MALES who are ready for their schools. However, if you have ever seen the results of these tests, winners/ high scorers are predominantly male. Like, heavily skewed male. Someone should have the numbers-- I was more familiar when DC was doing these tests. I think if you make it to the USJMO or similar as a female, you are automatically considered for the Caltech, MIT, etc.

If you are not a high scoring female in those Olympiads, I think they need to see other indicators that you can handle the coursework. They have probably decided SAT/ACT scores would do this (I am guessing, a female Math score will have to be perfect or otherwise high considering socioeconomic factors).

It does not mean that someone with an 800 Math SAT score can handle higher level math. It just means, they are pretty good at math and combined with high level courses, can probably handle the work at a Caltech (in lieu of consideration of scores from higher level competitions).

I think this is how females and URM may be considered only because they don't seem to have the same level of training/interest in studying for USJMO level math. That does not mean that they cannot handle higher level math. So, schools are just looking for other indicators.

Caltech used to have abysmal graduation rates when they required SAT back in the day. I’m sure they’ve improved it, because us news and all, but a lot of these colleges (looking at uchicago) are just plain miserable and difficult places filled with research egos who act as “teachers.”
I say this as an alum who really found my time there disdainful, and the red flag triggered for me when the professor states essentially that the students need to be cream of the crop and that they don’t create scientists-sure Caltech, tell that to literally every other college in the country omg.

In which field did you find UChicago teachers to be miserable egos? And don't you think it would be more egotistical for Caltech to claim they "create" scientists, as if they get all the credit for their students' accomplishments? I think recognizing the selection effect is far more humble.

I think it's more just feigning/performative than anything. Caltech creates scientists-they teach them scientific literacy, introduce them to the field, and track students towards research careers. Nothing arrogant about it. Wharton also creates business professionals-those kids entering aren't Investment Bankers by their high school extracurricular lists.

They can't just claim it. As SCIENTISTS, they should prove it, with statistically valid analysis of variance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m on the fence about reinstating SAT. I’m all for moving toward tests as GPA’s can vary widely based on school policies/retakes/ grade inflation and vary even among teachers within schools. However, college board is a racket. It’s a poorly constructed test and frankly any test that signing up for an expensive prep course can raise your score 200 is not an effective test. I wish the US had something similar to the British school model with A levels.

The faculty are missing the mark. Correlation does not mean causation. Test blind or optional occurred at the same time during the pandemic. The sophomores that are so deficient missed foundational upper level math skills spending half their freshman and sophomore years in virtual. They jumped into junior year after 2 years of basically self learning and then crammed to get good scores on their tests and AP exams.

To get into Cal Tech, kids need AP Calc BC, Physics etc. Don’t tell me that a kid who can get an A in those classes and a 4 or 5 on the AP wouldn’t have been able to prep for the SAT.

I heavily agree and have been waiting patiently for the pro-Test crowd to begin promoting Harder tests, not just testing for testing. We need a math section that tests beyond pre cal, and there needs to be an associated level of skill with your SAT score (710 means student knows X-level of information would be a great start). Right now, I really don't think there's much difference between a 1400 scorer and a 1570 scorer, one just needs to brush up on their finding a determinant skills or read a little quicker.

But there is a big difference between 14xx scorer and a 13xx scorer, and TO Caltech was admitting the latter. Also, a harder math test already exists; it's called the AMC 12 - the only issue is awareness among both highschool students and college admissions officers.

There's also anecdotal evidence that in the SAT math, the harder sections 2 has a higher difficulty ceiling than the paper SAT - this may give the top 100 points in the math section more distinguishing power, but of course without studies this is just speculation

Before TO, Caltech wasn't even admitting 14xx. 25%ile was 1530 in 2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, the text above is from a faculty petition to restore a requirement for standardized testing.

Having said that, PP is correct that Caltech is once again requiring standardized tests for students applying this fall.

Here's the official announcement:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-restores-standardized-test-requirement-for-undergraduate-admission

Thats racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

Caltech only admits under 250 students. 14 is a substantial sample.

And there were two different professor's class reports.

(Also the Putnam thing, which is a silly side note because Caltech is a tiny polytechnic school with no Putnam coach so of course they won't do well against larger schools with larger math departments and coaches and students that are friends from high school and want to go to college together).

The Putnam quote is silly -- they haven't had a top 100 finisher in years. Don't need a coach for that. Kids from BYU and Nevada-Reno (<<the well-known powerhouses in math>> have had more top 100 finishers in the past few years. Most MOPers do pretty well on the Putnam, which means that they aren't picking Caltech. Again, it's fine if Caltech hasn't had a top 100 finisher in a while -- most places in the US News top 50 haven't. But they brought it up in this report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

Caltech only admits under 250 students. 14 is a substantial sample.

And there were two different professor's class reports.

(Also the Putnam thing, which is a silly side note because Caltech is a tiny polytechnic school with no Putnam coach so of course they won't do well against larger schools with larger math departments and coaches and students that are friends from high school and want to go to college together).

The Putnam quote is silly -- they haven't had a top 100 finisher in years. Don't need a coach for that. Kids from BYU and Nevada-Reno (<<the well-known powerhouses in math>> have had more top 100 finishers in the past few years. Most MOPers do pretty well on the Putnam, which means that they aren't picking Caltech. Again, it's fine if Caltech hasn't had a top 100 finisher in a while -- most places in the US News top 50 haven't. But they brought it up in this report.

Yes, you do need coaches for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.

Can you explain how the SAT remedies their issue? They have an applicant pool filled with math competition winners and students with advanced coursework beyond BC calc. They reasoned students are falling behind because a class that typically has 10-15 students resulted in poor scores within the Electrical Engineering department-not even a core class. Then, they also
don't mention any other contexts-what's the change in class composition? As someone noted, their current class coming up is going to be 50% women, that's not typical for Caltech. For a long time they didn't let anyone in with a sub 700 SAT score, then they dropped that. What happened during that period? So much missing context from the writers, it's shocking that this is a professor.

Dp, pretty clear they looked at the evidence and decided they needed standardized test scores, regardless of whether the petition was well written.

Yes, I understand the conclusion. I'm asking for the DCUM to look at the clear logical gaps and to question the intentions of bringing back these standardized scores outside of just what a college AO says (in this case, a professor).

There aren’t clear logical gaps, we simply don’t have access to all the information the school did when deciding to abandon test blind and return to test required.

Oh my god, you are dense. Neither did the professors writing the letter, basing their decision off of a couple exam scores and a few meetings where they ate at students.

Well, one of us is dense, but it isn’t me.

NP. Good comeback. (Not -- in case you were too dense to get the sarcasm).

Can’t believe someone took the time to type this out a day later, “np.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m on the fence about reinstating SAT. I’m all for moving toward tests as GPA’s can vary widely based on school policies/retakes/ grade inflation and vary even among teachers within schools. However, college board is a racket. It’s a poorly constructed test and frankly any test that signing up for an expensive prep course can raise your score 200 is not an effective test. I wish the US had something similar to the British school model with A levels.

The faculty are missing the mark. Correlation does not mean causation. Test blind or optional occurred at the same time during the pandemic. The sophomores that are so deficient missed foundational upper level math skills spending half their freshman and sophomore years in virtual. They jumped into junior year after 2 years of basically self learning and then crammed to get good scores on their tests and AP exams.

To get into Cal Tech, kids need AP Calc BC, Physics etc. Don’t tell me that a kid who can get an A in those classes and a 4 or 5 on the AP wouldn’t have been able to prep for the SAT.

I heavily agree and have been waiting patiently for the pro-Test crowd to begin promoting Harder tests, not just testing for testing. We need a math section that tests beyond pre cal, and there needs to be an associated level of skill with your SAT score (710 means student knows X-level of information would be a great start). Right now, I really don't think there's much difference between a 1400 scorer and a 1570 scorer, one just needs to brush up on their finding a determinant skills or read a little quicker.

But there is a big difference between 14xx scorer and a 13xx scorer, and TO Caltech was admitting the latter. Also, a harder math test already exists; it's called the AMC 12 - the only issue is awareness among both highschool students and college admissions officers.

There's also anecdotal evidence that in the SAT math, the harder sections 2 has a higher difficulty ceiling than the paper SAT - this may give the top 100 points in the math section more distinguishing power, but of course without studies this is just speculation

Before TO, Caltech wasn't even admitting 14xx. 25%ile was 1530 in 2019.

Before test blind, CalTech as test blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be controversial. I think it is because, Caltech type institutions usually rely on math olympiad/AIME type tests to identify MALES who are ready for their schools. However, if you have ever seen the results of these tests, winners/ high scorers are predominantly male. Like, heavily skewed male. Someone should have the numbers-- I was more familiar when DC was doing these tests. I think if you make it to the USJMO or similar as a female, you are automatically considered for the Caltech, MIT, etc.

If you are not a high scoring female in those Olympiads, I think they need to see other indicators that you can handle the coursework. They have probably decided SAT/ACT scores would do this (I am guessing, a female Math score will have to be perfect or otherwise high considering socioeconomic factors).

It does not mean that someone with an 800 Math SAT score can handle higher level math. It just means, they are pretty good at math and combined with high level courses, can probably handle the work at a Caltech (in lieu of consideration of scores from higher level competitions).

I think this is how females and URM may be considered only because they don't seem to have the same level of training/interest in studying for USJMO level math. That does not mean that they cannot handle higher level math. So, schools are just looking for other indicators.

Caltech used to have abysmal graduation rates when they required SAT back in the day. I’m sure they’ve improved it, because us news and all, but a lot of these colleges (looking at uchicago) are just plain miserable and difficult places filled with research egos who act as “teachers.”
I say this as an alum who really found my time there disdainful, and the red flag triggered for me when the professor states essentially that the students need to be cream of the crop and that they don’t create scientists-sure Caltech, tell that to literally every other college in the country omg.

In which field did you find UChicago teachers to be miserable egos? And don't you think it would be more egotistical for Caltech to claim they "create" scientists, as if they get all the credit for their students' accomplishments? I think recognizing the selection effect is far more humble.

I think it's more just feigning/performative than anything. Caltech creates scientists-they teach them scientific literacy, introduce them to the field, and track students towards research careers. Nothing arrogant about it. Wharton also creates business professionals-those kids entering aren't Investment Bankers by their high school extracurricular lists.

They can't just claim it. As SCIENTISTS, they should prove it, with statistically valid analysis of variance.

They likely did, as every other school returning to test required has. They don’t have any obligation to release their work, and have incentive not to of it shows certain demographics of students admitted test blind performing particularly poorly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

Caltech only admits under 250 students. 14 is a substantial sample.

And there were two different professor's class reports.

(Also the Putnam thing, which is a silly side note because Caltech is a tiny polytechnic school with no Putnam coach so of course they won't do well against larger schools with larger math departments and coaches and students that are friends from high school and want to go to college together).

The Putnam quote is silly -- they haven't had a top 100 finisher in years. Don't need a coach for that. Kids from BYU and Nevada-Reno (<<the well-known powerhouses in math>> have had more top 100 finishers in the past few years. Most MOPers do pretty well on the Putnam, which means that they aren't picking Caltech. Again, it's fine if Caltech hasn't had a top 100 finisher in a while -- most places in the US News top 50 haven't. But they brought it up in this report.

Yes, you do need coaches for that.

And Caltech has one (as well as.a Putnam class - Math 17).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ask a question and don't want any pitchforks from the crowd.
What's the correlation between doing well on the SAT and being able to even do half-well in the Caltech curriculum? Doesn't Caltech check for AP Physics, Chem, Calc, Bio, etc.-all better measures for if someone can even begin the curriculum? Caltech students should be coming in with advanced material that the SAT just doesn't cover.

Disadvantaged high schools don't offer these courses.

At any rate, Caltech thought they could do without scores and were test blind for three years. They tried. It didn't work out.

Is Caltech reasonably accepting students from disadvantaged high schools now to warrant this? They aren't some great social mobilizer. It's a school producing future researchers who tend to be wealthier or have parents of advantaged backgrounds. I think it's strange to cover up the story by trying to shut down any questioners with claims of not uplifting the poor-the poor are hardly at all in the conversation to begin with.

NP. What is your guess as to why they went back to requiring test scores?

Isn’t the answer in the petition? The professors don’t really know how to teach. They rely on students being extraordinary. Reading between the lines, they need the kind of students who can teach material to themselves if the prof misses or can’t teach it properly on their own.

No, that’s not what they say. They say the mission is to teach extraordinary students at an extraordinary level, and that it is in fact no possible to make the non-extraordinary students extraordinary. There are plenty of other school where the failing students would be at the top or where the mission is to meet them where they are at.

Can you explain how the SAT remedies their issue? They have an applicant pool filled with math competition winners and students with advanced coursework beyond BC calc. They reasoned students are falling behind because a class that typically has 10-15 students resulted in poor scores within the Electrical Engineering department-not even a core class. Then, they also
don't mention any other contexts-what's the change in class composition? As someone noted, their current class coming up is going to be 50% women, that's not typical for Caltech. For a long time they didn't let anyone in with a sub 700 SAT score, then they dropped that. What happened during that period? So much missing context from the writers, it's shocking that this is a professor.

Dp, pretty clear they looked at the evidence and decided they needed standardized test scores, regardless of whether the petition was well written.

Yes, I understand the conclusion. I'm asking for the DCUM to look at the clear logical gaps and to question the intentions of bringing back these standardized scores outside of just what a college AO says (in this case, a professor).

There aren’t clear logical gaps, we simply don’t have access to all the information the school did when deciding to abandon test blind and return to test required.

Oh my god, you are dense. Neither did the professors writing the letter, basing their decision off of a couple exam scores and a few meetings where they ate at students.

Well, one of us is dense, but it isn’t me.

NP. Good comeback. (Not -- in case you were too dense to get the sarcasm).

Can’t believe someone took the time to type this out a day later, “np.”

A day isn’t that long. Now you’re just being catty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

That's because their brief analysis matched the much larger and more robust institutional data, as evidenced by Caltech's decision to require test scores for future classes.

I was interested and you'd be surprised how thin the "robust" data is: https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/apply/first-year-applicants/standardized-tests. It was based after this recommendation from faculty, that they then had to apologize to the students for, because of how sour it made the Cal tech community. Lacking much data or evidence for such a science-based tech institute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

That's because their brief analysis matched the much larger and more robust institutional data, as evidenced by Caltech's decision to require test scores for future classes.

I was interested and you'd be surprised how thin the "robust" data is: https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/apply/first-year-applicants/standardized-tests. It was based after this recommendation from faculty, that they then had to apologize to the students for, because of how sour it made the Cal tech community. Lacking much data or evidence for such a science-based tech institute.

Again, they haven’t disclosed the complete data set, so not sure what you are continuing to complain about. Some just can’t accept the end of the test blind/test optional experiment at top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

That's because their brief analysis matched the much larger and more robust institutional data, as evidenced by Caltech's decision to require test scores for future classes.

I was interested and you'd be surprised how thin the "robust" data is: https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/apply/first-year-applicants/standardized-tests. It was based after this recommendation from faculty, that they then had to apologize to the students for, because of how sour it made the Cal tech community. Lacking much data or evidence for such a science-based tech institute.

Again, they haven’t disclosed the complete data set, so not sure what you are continuing to complain about. Some just can’t accept the end of the test blind/test optional experiment at top schools.

Well they did release the faculty decision, and no where does it say that there is a missing data set. The argument is that more students were taking the SAT, while admissions officers cannot see the scores. That's the only data point the school was using, and the two courses they analyzed that everyone's arguing about in here. This is not an institutional report like Dartmouth or UT that has actual data analysis or questions that even posit much data at all. They seem to want transparency on as many data figures, which is reasonable, just not really data intensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s hilarious how a professors rant on 14 students warrant any of this conversation

That's because their brief analysis matched the much larger and more robust institutional data, as evidenced by Caltech's decision to require test scores for future classes.

I was interested and you'd be surprised how thin the "robust" data is: https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/apply/first-year-applicants/standardized-tests. It was based after this recommendation from faculty, that they then had to apologize to the students for, because of how sour it made the Cal tech community. Lacking much data or evidence for such a science-based tech institute.

Again, they haven’t disclosed the complete data set, so not sure what you are continuing to complain about. Some just can’t accept the end of the test blind/test optional experiment at top schools.

Well they did release the faculty decision, and no where does it say that there is a missing data set. The argument is that more students were taking the SAT, while admissions officers cannot see the scores. That's the only data point the school was using, and the two courses they analyzed that everyone's arguing about in here. This is not an institutional report like Dartmouth or UT that has actual data analysis or questions that even posit much data at all. They seem to want transparency on as many data figures, which is reasonable, just not really data intensive.

No they didn’t. They quote one line from it on the website. It’s truly ironic that you are critiquing their analysis when your own is so lacking.