What the admissions looks like after Supreme Court band affirmative action?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

PP. also, one can very easily design a multiple choice test for math that eliminates most educated guesses, rendering the strategies taught at prep classes useless. I've taken these types of tests, it's much harder when you can't really guess. I wish the SAT math would go that way.

Are you referring to a guessing penalty? Earlier versions of the SAT penalized had a guessing penalty, but test prep was still effective.

A lot of the moms who's kids are good test tskers want the tests renormed around a much lower mean. Looks like the College Board et al have decided against that. (And if they do it, it won't be for the math section only.)

No, I am referring to a different design. On SATs (and most other standardized tests in US), there is the right answer and the wrong answers are the results of the common mistakes. Very often you can deduce how they are trying to catch you, i.e. the stupid thing they did to get 3 of 5 answers, and even if you don't know how to get to the right one, you now have 50% chance of getting it right. Prep teaches you to spot those stupid answers. Another great one is the geometry problems where the figures are drawn to scale. If you just measure with a ruler and scale it, you are likely to eliminate a few wrong answers as well, sometimes all 4 of them.

In an alternative design, all the answers are given as ranges, so you can only guess on the magnitude, if it helps (it may not). E.g., the correct answer is 14, and the answers are given as a) less than 5, b) [5, 10), c) [10, 15), d) [15, 20), e) 20 or more. You need to answer c). But the ranges given for each question may or may not correspond to the true magnitude of the answer. In the example above, you know that if you calculated it multiple times and you are still getting a 1014, you may be right, the answer doesn't have to be between 0 and 25. Those ranges sometimes do capture the common mistakes, e.g. dividing by 100 instead of multiplying, but the bottom line, you don't get that many hints by just looking at the answers.

I went through a math exam system where the first few exams are done the SAT way and then there are a few with ranges. There is a noticeable drop off in scores among very smart people once they encounter the ranges. You can argue that educated guesses also allow you to demonstrate your knowledge, but when the prep courses spend lots of time on "strategy", it's better to use the range based answers to equalize the outcome for the non-prepped ones.

The trend will be LESS emphasis on standardized tests.

The SAT is lower stakes now via test optional.

The flagship University of California colleges are test blind.

MIT research shows Test gives them better measure so MIT reinstated test required. More elite schools will follow that.

Doubtful. MIT and Georgetown (the two schools of note that are not test-optional) have always done things their own way. They're the only two major schools not on Common App. No one is going to be following them.

TO has been great for colleges. They get more applications, can advocate for students they want without getting hung up on low test scores, and now have lower acceptance rates (more selective.) From an admissions standpoint, what's not to love?

I wouldn't buy stock in College Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will just change the admittance criteria to ensure that they can select a diverse community before each incoming class. This is the mission they want to accomplish.

Exactly. They will just pick names out of a hat before they give up affirmative action, legal or not.

If you attempt to do de facto affirmative action, that will just set up the next lawsuit, and with this SCOTUS, it will be successful. They will have to come up with new criteria--but with some rejiggering the First Gen, income, geographic diversity will probably more or less get you there anyway...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

They should base affirmative action on socioeconomic status alone.

Why? Cost of living is a thing. $60k/year in flyover country is a comfortable life while $100k/year in large metros in the coasts still isn't.

People that live in large metros in the coasts already pay much higher taxes and receive far less benefits because taxes and benefits are not income-adjusted.

[Anonymous]

I hadn't heard about the Texas model. I'm going to look into that to see if it means it keeps highly qualified candidates in the state after graduation.

West Virginia has a similar program, or programs, really. In-state residents with qualifying ACT scores qualify for the Promise Scholarship, then there's also a WV Invest program and a higher education grant. Their goal has always been to educate the citizens and then retain them as WV citizens after graduation to better the state. Except that happens less than 5% of the time. What happens is that they give free tuition to all these highly qualified candidates and then after graduation (and even after Masters and PhD programs), they leave the state for better jobs elsewhere.

The difference is that TX has more universities than WV and is an overall more prosperous state than WV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

PP. also, one can very easily design a multiple choice test for math that eliminates most educated guesses, rendering the strategies taught at prep classes useless. I've taken these types of tests, it's much harder when you can't really guess. I wish the SAT math would go that way.

Are you referring to a guessing penalty? Earlier versions of the SAT penalized had a guessing penalty, but test prep was still effective.

A lot of the moms who's kids are good test tskers want the tests renormed around a much lower mean. Looks like the College Board et al have decided against that. (And if they do it, it won't be for the math section only.)

No, I am referring to a different design. On SATs (and most other standardized tests in US), there is the right answer and the wrong answers are the results of the common mistakes. Very often you can deduce how they are trying to catch you, i.e. the stupid thing they did to get 3 of 5 answers, and even if you don't know how to get to the right one, you now have 50% chance of getting it right. Prep teaches you to spot those stupid answers. Another great one is the geometry problems where the figures are drawn to scale. If you just measure with a ruler and scale it, you are likely to eliminate a few wrong answers as well, sometimes all 4 of them.

In an alternative design, all the answers are given as ranges, so you can only guess on the magnitude, if it helps (it may not). E.g., the correct answer is 14, and the answers are given as a) less than 5, b) [5, 10), c) [10, 15), d) [15, 20), e) 20 or more. You need to answer c). But the ranges given for each question may or may not correspond to the true magnitude of the answer. In the example above, you know that if you calculated it multiple times and you are still getting a 1014, you may be right, the answer doesn't have to be between 0 and 25. Those ranges sometimes do capture the common mistakes, e.g. dividing by 100 instead of multiplying, but the bottom line, you don't get that many hints by just looking at the answers.

I went through a math exam system where the first few exams are done the SAT way and then there are a few with ranges. There is a noticeable drop off in scores among very smart people once they encounter the ranges. You can argue that educated guesses also allow you to demonstrate your knowledge, but when the prep courses spend lots of time on "strategy", it's better to use the range based answers to equalize the outcome for the non-prepped ones.

The trend will be LESS emphasis on standardized tests.

The SAT is lower stakes now via test optional.

The flagship University of California colleges are test blind.

MIT research shows Test gives them better measure so MIT reinstated test required. More elite schools will follow that.

Doubtful. MIT and Georgetown (the two schools of note that are not test-optional) have always done things their own way. They're the only two major schools not on Common App. No one is going to be following them.

TO has been great for colleges. They get more applications, can advocate for students they want without getting hung up on low test scores, and now have lower acceptance rates (more selective.) From an admissions standpoint, what's not to love?

I wouldn't buy stock in College Board.

What’s not to love? The sheer volume of applications which allows even less time to review when holistic approach requires more. I think test optional will become more niche as schools see how it pans out in student performance. Ivies will likely keep it though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

PP. also, one can very easily design a multiple choice test for math that eliminates most educated guesses, rendering the strategies taught at prep classes useless. I've taken these types of tests, it's much harder when you can't really guess. I wish the SAT math would go that way.

Are you referring to a guessing penalty? Earlier versions of the SAT penalized had a guessing penalty, but test prep was still effective.

A lot of the moms who's kids are good test tskers want the tests renormed around a much lower mean. Looks like the College Board et al have decided against that. (And if they do it, it won't be for the math section only.)

No, I am referring to a different design. On SATs (and most other standardized tests in US), there is the right answer and the wrong answers are the results of the common mistakes. Very often you can deduce how they are trying to catch you, i.e. the stupid thing they did to get 3 of 5 answers, and even if you don't know how to get to the right one, you now have 50% chance of getting it right. Prep teaches you to spot those stupid answers. Another great one is the geometry problems where the figures are drawn to scale. If you just measure with a ruler and scale it, you are likely to eliminate a few wrong answers as well, sometimes all 4 of them.

In an alternative design, all the answers are given as ranges, so you can only guess on the magnitude, if it helps (it may not). E.g., the correct answer is 14, and the answers are given as a) less than 5, b) [5, 10), c) [10, 15), d) [15, 20), e) 20 or more. You need to answer c). But the ranges given for each question may or may not correspond to the true magnitude of the answer. In the example above, you know that if you calculated it multiple times and you are still getting a 1014, you may be right, the answer doesn't have to be between 0 and 25. Those ranges sometimes do capture the common mistakes, e.g. dividing by 100 instead of multiplying, but the bottom line, you don't get that many hints by just looking at the answers.

I went through a math exam system where the first few exams are done the SAT way and then there are a few with ranges. There is a noticeable drop off in scores among very smart people once they encounter the ranges. You can argue that educated guesses also allow you to demonstrate your knowledge, but when the prep courses spend lots of time on "strategy", it's better to use the range based answers to equalize the outcome for the non-prepped ones.

The trend will be LESS emphasis on standardized tests.

The SAT is lower stakes now via test optional.

The flagship University of California colleges are test blind.

MIT research shows Test gives them better measure so MIT reinstated test required. More elite schools will follow that.

Doubtful. MIT and Georgetown (the two schools of note that are not test-optional) have always done things their own way. They're the only two major schools not on Common App. No one is going to be following them.

TO has been great for colleges. They get more applications, can advocate for students they want without getting hung up on low test scores, and now have lower acceptance rates (more selective.) From an admissions standpoint, what's not to love?

I wouldn't buy stock in College Board.

^
This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

PP. also, one can very easily design a multiple choice test for math that eliminates most educated guesses, rendering the strategies taught at prep classes useless. I've taken these types of tests, it's much harder when you can't really guess. I wish the SAT math would go that way.

Are you referring to a guessing penalty? Earlier versions of the SAT penalized had a guessing penalty, but test prep was still effective.

A lot of the moms who's kids are good test tskers want the tests renormed around a much lower mean. Looks like the College Board et al have decided against that. (And if they do it, it won't be for the math section only.)

No, I am referring to a different design. On SATs (and most other standardized tests in US), there is the right answer and the wrong answers are the results of the common mistakes. Very often you can deduce how they are trying to catch you, i.e. the stupid thing they did to get 3 of 5 answers, and even if you don't know how to get to the right one, you now have 50% chance of getting it right. Prep teaches you to spot those stupid answers. Another great one is the geometry problems where the figures are drawn to scale. If you just measure with a ruler and scale it, you are likely to eliminate a few wrong answers as well, sometimes all 4 of them.

In an alternative design, all the answers are given as ranges, so you can only guess on the magnitude, if it helps (it may not). E.g., the correct answer is 14, and the answers are given as a) less than 5, b) [5, 10), c) [10, 15), d) [15, 20), e) 20 or more. You need to answer c). But the ranges given for each question may or may not correspond to the true magnitude of the answer. In the example above, you know that if you calculated it multiple times and you are still getting a 1014, you may be right, the answer doesn't have to be between 0 and 25. Those ranges sometimes do capture the common mistakes, e.g. dividing by 100 instead of multiplying, but the bottom line, you don't get that many hints by just looking at the answers.

I went through a math exam system where the first few exams are done the SAT way and then there are a few with ranges. There is a noticeable drop off in scores among very smart people once they encounter the ranges. You can argue that educated guesses also allow you to demonstrate your knowledge, but when the prep courses spend lots of time on "strategy", it's better to use the range based answers to equalize the outcome for the non-prepped ones.

The trend will be LESS emphasis on standardized tests.

The SAT is lower stakes now via test optional.

The flagship University of California colleges are test blind.

MIT research shows Test gives them better measure so MIT reinstated test required. More elite schools will follow that.

Doubtful. MIT and Georgetown (the two schools of note that are not test-optional) have always done things their own way. They're the only two major schools not on Common App. No one is going to be following them.

TO has been great for colleges. They get more applications, can advocate for students they want without getting hung up on low test scores, and now have lower acceptance rates (more selective.) From an admissions standpoint, what's not to love?

I wouldn't buy stock in College Board.

Nope. vast majority will at least go with TO, then students would still take it, so stock will do fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens on applications? Do they just stop asking race?

It will still be on applications because the federal government requires it under Title VI. This will not change if the Supreme Court overturns affirmative action in college admissions. For example, CA and TX don't consider race in admissions but must collect the information via applications and later during enrollment if accepted.

So race cannot be checked off on the application but talking about race or being discriminated against can still be mentioned in essays and can certainly be considered as a positive in the context of character development - overcoming adversity and confronting a challenge. If the Supreme Court holds that diversity is not a compelling interest in college admissions and that race cannot be a factor, however small, it cannot be considered. If that happens, hopefully colleges and universities will eliminate geographic diversity and eliminate the huge preference provided to athletes, legacies, and children of donors and faculty.

Your logic fails. Many people from many races and walks of life can face adversity and challenges. Race based adversity is only one example of adversity. There are white males who have faced adversity and they can write about the challenges that they faced and how they overcame them. It will then be up to the subjective process of reviewing those application essays for the AO to determine which candidates will help achieve whatever balanced community the institution is looking for. What the ruling states is not that race cannot be included in the application process, but that race cannot be used as a metric for determining the placement of individuals. So, someone who faced adversity and overcame it, even if the adversity was race-based, is being compared to other students who faced other forms of adversity. That's valid as long as they are not solely basing the decision on the individuals race and also not placing a higher priority or emphasis on facing racial adversity over other types of diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens on applications? Do they just stop asking race?

YES just like you don't specify your race on resume, housing application, etc.

Not true-- Title VI requires race on college applications for colleges that receive federal funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

Not a single thing will change. Colleges have many sly ways to continue with their social engineering goals and compensate even if SCOTUS band AA. One simple way is to do race neutral admissions by giving preference to certain zip codes. Voila, AA through the backdoor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

Not a single thing will change. Colleges have many sly ways to continue with their social engineering goals and compensate even if SCOTUS band AA. One simple way is to do race neutral admissions by giving preference to certain zip codes. Voila, AA through the backdoor

They better be very careful, there might be big law suits coming.

[Anonymous]

Living in Cambridge, the caliber between MIT students and Harvard students keeps getting wider

[Anonymous]

All these kids doing well on tests but can't spell, string two words together coherently, or calculate change or interest. I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

I would not be shocked if there is Massive Resistance similar to Dobbs. Especially with Biden as POTUS, even if the Supreme Court issues an opinion striking it down, it will be years before the dust settles.

[Anonymous]

Really doubt it. The numbers just aren't there. AA is widely unpopular.