Are we ready to admit that Woke & DEI and woke wasn’t what was holding you back from success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1 Colleges and universities need to go back to requiring SAT/ACT and using them in admissions decisions along with grades and course rigor. Everyone needs to submit all attempts.

And if the new class of comp sci students ends up being all Asian and male, so be it. It should be crystal clear about who gets in and why. Tests are not secret. There are plenty of practice tests out there and online tools.

As a female, it should be no secret why I didn't get in. Schools should make applicant data public (no names, of course). If there are too many applicants with similar scores, courses and grades, then use a lottery.

Believe it or not, there are other majors besides math, physics, and comp sci that aren’t easily quantified and ranked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges value geographic diversity. That’s reality.

That being said, at most colleges applicants have to first clear the “can this student hack it here” hurdle. They aren’t going to automatically take a kid from Alaska just because they’re from Alaska. Anybody who makes it past that first step is by definition considered to be qualified to attend that college.

Once they’ve cleared that hurdle, then geography might give them an edge over the dozens of candidates with similar test scores from the Bay Area. But that isn’t any different than someone who can catch a ball or run fast getting a spot over someone with higher test scores. SLACs can have classes that are 30-40% recruited athletes. Odd how you never hear people complaining about the unfairness of athletes getting preferential admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges value geographic diversity. That’s reality.

That being said, at most colleges applicants have to first clear the “can this student hack it here” hurdle. They aren’t going to automatically take a kid from Alaska just because they’re from Alaska. Anybody who makes it past that first step is by definition considered to be qualified to attend that college.

Once they’ve cleared that hurdle, then geography might give them an edge over the dozens of candidates with similar test scores from the Bay Area. But that isn’t any different than someone who can catch a ball or run fast getting a spot over someone with higher test scores. SLACs can have classes that are 30-40% recruited athletes. Odd how you never hear people complaining about the unfairness of athletes getting preferential admissions.

What's the first hurdle? BTW I don't care what the Ivys do. They are for the wealthy and will remain that way.

I'm just concerned about getting my kids into a decently regarded state school. Their admissions processes should not be so opaque.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

I think you're stereotyping smart people. I work with plenty who are fantastic.

If your law school set aside your LSATs and looked at other things, then they need to do the same for those white LAX players and donor legacy applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

I think you're stereotyping smart people. I work with plenty who are fantastic.

If your law school set aside your LSATs and looked at other things, then they need to do the same for those white LAX players and donor legacy applicants.

It's just a Luxury brand anymore. Like those dumb people that buy Tesla.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 Colleges and universities need to go back to requiring SAT/ACT and using them in admissions decisions along with grades and course rigor. Everyone needs to submit all attempts.

And if the new class of comp sci students ends up being all Asian and male, so be it. It should be crystal clear about who gets in and why. Tests are not secret. There are plenty of practice tests out there and online tools.

As a female, it should be no secret why I didn't get in. Schools should make applicant data public (no names, of course). If there are too many applicants with similar scores, courses and grades, then use a lottery.

Believe it or not, there are other majors besides math, physics, and comp sci that aren’t easily quantified and ranked.

I asked AI to quantify student characteristics as predictors of college success.

SAT scores by themselves contribute 25% to 35% of college success in the first year. So they are a powerful factor but not the whole story.

Income predicts 15% to 25%.

Parents having both completed college is 20% to 30%.

Gender: 5% to 15%

Race: 20% to 30%--but to a large degree this is race as a proxy for income.

High school GPA is the strongest predictor--55% to 60%, but the school level SES (i.e. the overall socio-economic status of a particular high school) has a 30% to 40% effect on GPA.

But: Income alone explains 20% to 25% of SAT scores. Both parents having completed graduate school adds, on average, a 300-pt increase in SAT scores.

Bottom line: when you measure SAT scores, you are also measuring many other things. So if you reduce everything to SATs and GPAs you are CREATING a structure which will tend to select the most advantaged bright students, which will simply perpetuate the disparity in advantage over time. A few of the disadvantage people will make it into that elite group, but their numbers will be far less that that of those who were elite to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

As another (well, 98 on the math and verbal SATs both, but I also had fuill blown strep and 102 temp--I never had test prep, I only had a vague idea of what the SAT was even for, I just took every test they told me to take; GRE was 99) I agree.

Frankly, as a 98-percentile SAT person with high GPA, I did fine with college academics but as far as all other aspects of college social life or career planning or anything, I was hopeless. I grew up in a working class family (1970s) in a small town where the only careers for women were teaching, nursing, retail, and restaurants. I didn't even know what you did with a college major regardless of the major. I was shy and introverted and my own family was a mess. My post-college life reflects that more than anything else. I'm willing to bet that there are many 90th percentile SAT black women from working class--or poorer--neighborhoods who went to college who have done a ton more with their education and careers than I ever did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 Colleges and universities need to go back to requiring SAT/ACT and using them in admissions decisions along with grades and course rigor. Everyone needs to submit all attempts.

And if the new class of comp sci students ends up being all Asian and male, so be it. It should be crystal clear about who gets in and why. Tests are not secret. There are plenty of practice tests out there and online tools.

As a female, it should be no secret why I didn't get in. Schools should make applicant data public (no names, of course). If there are too many applicants with similar scores, courses and grades, then use a lottery.

Believe it or not, there are other majors besides math, physics, and comp sci that aren’t easily quantified and ranked.

I asked AI to quantify student characteristics as predictors of college success.

SAT scores by themselves contribute 25% to 35% of college success in the first year. So they are a powerful factor but not the whole story.

Income predicts 15% to 25%.

Parents having both completed college is 20% to 30%.

Gender: 5% to 15%

Race: 20% to 30%--but to a large degree this is race as a proxy for income.

High school GPA is the strongest predictor--55% to 60%, but the school level SES (i.e. the overall socio-economic status of a particular high school) has a 30% to 40% effect on GPA.

But: Income alone explains 20% to 25% of SAT scores. Both parents having completed graduate school adds, on average, a 300-pt increase in SAT scores.

Bottom line: when you measure SAT scores, you are also measuring many other things. So if you reduce everything to SATs and GPAs you are CREATING a structure which will tend to select the most advantaged bright students, which will simply perpetuate the disparity in advantage over time. A few of the disadvantage people will make it into that elite group, but their numbers will be far less that that of those who were elite to begin with.

I don't know I came from a rural area, mediocre school, parents well below poverty line doing drugs. I worked throughout the school year. I aced the math portion of the ACT. Just studied a couple of practice exams. I don't know what your problem is. If it weren't for Grades and GPA. I wouldn't have even been able to go to school. Here it is you're whining about not even being able to get into school because your grades and GPA are so bad.

I categorically reject your assertion, that using GPA and SAT scores is an advantage for the well off. You think they would have given me a full ride if I had written an essay. Yah right. You don't think counselors would write an essay for their students.

BTW your percentages don't add up.

You want to be like China have a portfolio system. Do you know how corrupt that is? They steal people's portfolio all the time there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 Colleges and universities need to go back to requiring SAT/ACT and using them in admissions decisions along with grades and course rigor. Everyone needs to submit all attempts.

And if the new class of comp sci students ends up being all Asian and male, so be it. It should be crystal clear about who gets in and why. Tests are not secret. There are plenty of practice tests out there and online tools.

As a female, it should be no secret why I didn't get in. Schools should make applicant data public (no names, of course). If there are too many applicants with similar scores, courses and grades, then use a lottery.

Believe it or not, there are other majors besides math, physics, and comp sci that aren’t easily quantified and ranked.

I asked AI to quantify student characteristics as predictors of college success.

SAT scores by themselves contribute 25% to 35% of college success in the first year. So they are a powerful factor but not the whole story.

Income predicts 15% to 25%.

Parents having both completed college is 20% to 30%.

Gender: 5% to 15%

Race: 20% to 30%--but to a large degree this is race as a proxy for income.

High school GPA is the strongest predictor--55% to 60%, but the school level SES (i.e. the overall socio-economic status of a particular high school) has a 30% to 40% effect on GPA.

But: Income alone explains 20% to 25% of SAT scores. Both parents having completed graduate school adds, on average, a 300-pt increase in SAT scores.

Bottom line: when you measure SAT scores, you are also measuring many other things. So if you reduce everything to SATs and GPAs you are CREATING a structure which will tend to select the most advantaged bright students, which will simply perpetuate the disparity in advantage over time. A few of the disadvantage people will make it into that elite group, but their numbers will be far less that that of those who were elite to begin with.

My understanding is that schools look at scores relative to other kids of similar socioeconomic background. They aren't comparing elite to disadvantaged straight against each other, but looking for outliers vis-a-vis their peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 Colleges and universities need to go back to requiring SAT/ACT and using them in admissions decisions along with grades and course rigor. Everyone needs to submit all attempts.

And if the new class of comp sci students ends up being all Asian and male, so be it. It should be crystal clear about who gets in and why. Tests are not secret. There are plenty of practice tests out there and online tools.

As a female, it should be no secret why I didn't get in. Schools should make applicant data public (no names, of course). If there are too many applicants with similar scores, courses and grades, then use a lottery.

Believe it or not, there are other majors besides math, physics, and comp sci that aren’t easily quantified and ranked.

I asked AI to quantify student characteristics as predictors of college success.

SAT scores by themselves contribute 25% to 35% of college success in the first year. So they are a powerful factor but not the whole story.

Income predicts 15% to 25%.

Parents having both completed college is 20% to 30%.

Gender: 5% to 15%

Race: 20% to 30%--but to a large degree this is race as a proxy for income.

High school GPA is the strongest predictor--55% to 60%, but the school level SES (i.e. the overall socio-economic status of a particular high school) has a 30% to 40% effect on GPA.

But: Income alone explains 20% to 25% of SAT scores. Both parents having completed graduate school adds, on average, a 300-pt increase in SAT scores.

Bottom line: when you measure SAT scores, you are also measuring many other things. So if you reduce everything to SATs and GPAs you are CREATING a structure which will tend to select the most advantaged bright students, which will simply perpetuate the disparity in advantage over time. A few of the disadvantage people will make it into that elite group, but their numbers will be far less that that of those who were elite to begin with.

My understanding is that schools look at scores relative to other kids of similar socioeconomic background. They aren't comparing elite to disadvantaged straight against each other, but looking for outliers vis-a-vis their peers.

Also, it's true that the affluent will tend, as a gross generality, to make better grades and scores. The problem is gaps in advantage need to overcome before college. A college can't often make up for 15 prior years of a student being way under-served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

As another (well, 98 on the math and verbal SATs both, but I also had fuill blown strep and 102 temp--I never had test prep, I only had a vague idea of what the SAT was even for, I just took every test they told me to take; GRE was 99) I agree.

Frankly, as a 98-percentile SAT person with high GPA, I did fine with college academics but as far as all other aspects of college social life or career planning or anything, I was hopeless. I grew up in a working class family (1970s) in a small town where the only careers for women were teaching, nursing, retail, and restaurants. I didn't even know what you did with a college major regardless of the major. I was shy and introverted and my own family was a mess. My post-college life reflects that more than anything else. I'm willing to bet that there are many 90th percentile SAT black women from working class--or poorer--neighborhoods who went to college who have done a ton more with their education and careers than I ever did.

But that's how it goes. DH's family went to college, and I mean everyone. The people in my family, if they went, bumbled along cobbling together a degree from this and that college. I managed to get my degree at one place but I know I missed a bunch of opportunities. Yet, here I am in a better place than other family members. And I can guide my kids to do better than I did or so I thought. They did so much better than I did but here we are.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 Colleges and universities need to go back to requiring SAT/ACT and using them in admissions decisions along with grades and course rigor. Everyone needs to submit all attempts.

And if the new class of comp sci students ends up being all Asian and male, so be it. It should be crystal clear about who gets in and why. Tests are not secret. There are plenty of practice tests out there and online tools.

As a female, it should be no secret why I didn't get in. Schools should make applicant data public (no names, of course). If there are too many applicants with similar scores, courses and grades, then use a lottery.

Believe it or not, there are other majors besides math, physics, and comp sci that aren’t easily quantified and ranked.

I asked AI to quantify student characteristics as predictors of college success.

SAT scores by themselves contribute 25% to 35% of college success in the first year. So they are a powerful factor but not the whole story.

Income predicts 15% to 25%.

Parents having both completed college is 20% to 30%.

Gender: 5% to 15%

Race: 20% to 30%--but to a large degree this is race as a proxy for income.

High school GPA is the strongest predictor--55% to 60%, but the school level SES (i.e. the overall socio-economic status of a particular high school) has a 30% to 40% effect on GPA.

But: Income alone explains 20% to 25% of SAT scores. Both parents having completed graduate school adds, on average, a 300-pt increase in SAT scores.

Bottom line: when you measure SAT scores, you are also measuring many other things. So if you reduce everything to SATs and GPAs you are CREATING a structure which will tend to select the most advantaged bright students, which will simply perpetuate the disparity in advantage over time. A few of the disadvantage people will make it into that elite group, but their numbers will be far less that that of those who were elite to begin with.

My understanding is that schools look at scores relative to other kids of similar socioeconomic background. They aren't comparing elite to disadvantaged straight against each other, but looking for outliers vis-a-vis their peers.

Also, it's true that the affluent will tend, as a gross generality, to make better grades and scores. The problem is gaps in advantage need to overcome before college. A college can't often make up for 15 prior years of a student being way under-served.

And it doesn't help for a college to admit an under-served student if s/he can't demonstrate objectively about having the capacity to handle the work. In so doing, a college is denying that seat to someone who can handle it. Thus, and as you point out, the problem is gaps in advantage needed to overcome before college. School choice and charter schools could help with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

I think you're stereotyping smart people. I work with plenty who are fantastic.

If your law school set aside your LSATs and looked at other things, then they need to do the same for those white LAX players and donor legacy applicants.

I don't understand your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 Colleges and universities need to go back to requiring SAT/ACT and using them in admissions decisions along with grades and course rigor. Everyone needs to submit all attempts.

And if the new class of comp sci students ends up being all Asian and male, so be it. It should be crystal clear about who gets in and why. Tests are not secret. There are plenty of practice tests out there and online tools.

As a female, it should be no secret why I didn't get in. Schools should make applicant data public (no names, of course). If there are too many applicants with similar scores, courses and grades, then use a lottery.

Believe it or not, there are other majors besides math, physics, and comp sci that aren’t easily quantified and ranked.

I asked AI to quantify student characteristics as predictors of college success.

SAT scores by themselves contribute 25% to 35% of college success in the first year. So they are a powerful factor but not the whole story.

Income predicts 15% to 25%.

Parents having both completed college is 20% to 30%.

Gender: 5% to 15%

Race: 20% to 30%--but to a large degree this is race as a proxy for income.

High school GPA is the strongest predictor--55% to 60%, but the school level SES (i.e. the overall socio-economic status of a particular high school) has a 30% to 40% effect on GPA.

But: Income alone explains 20% to 25% of SAT scores. Both parents having completed graduate school adds, on average, a 300-pt increase in SAT scores.

Bottom line: when you measure SAT scores, you are also measuring many other things. So if you reduce everything to SATs and GPAs you are CREATING a structure which will tend to select the most advantaged bright students, which will simply perpetuate the disparity in advantage over time. A few of the disadvantage people will make it into that elite group, but their numbers will be far less that that of those who were elite to begin with.

My understanding is that schools look at scores relative to other kids of similar socioeconomic background. They aren't comparing elite to disadvantaged straight against each other, but looking for outliers vis-a-vis their peers.

Also, it's true that the affluent will tend, as a gross generality, to make better grades and scores. The problem is gaps in advantage need to overcome before college. A college can't often make up for 15 prior years of a student being way under-served.

And it doesn't help for a college to admit an under-served student if s/he can't demonstrate objectively about having the capacity to handle the work. In so doing, a college is denying that seat to someone who can handle it. Thus, and as you point out, the problem is gaps in advantage needed to overcome before college. School choice and charter schools could help with this.

They make sure the student can do the work. You don't hear a lot about kids who get there and flunk out. I have a colleague whose son is at Choate. The school kept saying that he was going to struggle b/c he is from Prince George's County. They thought the kid would make it, but were concerned he wouldn't do as well. He is black and did ok on his standardized test. He has straight As. He is there favorite student. They love to trot him out. He just needed that push. This kid is going to find the cure to cancer. He is brilliant. Again, merit comes in all forms. We will do ourselves a disservice if all we do is look at test scores.

Imagine being so caught up that we miss the truly special kids.