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

[Anonymous]

I think the OP and some of you are counting your chickens before they're hatched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all just want to keep black people out of college. God I hate my race...

No. I want more ADOS black people in college.

Hispanics absolutely should get zero affirmative action tho.

I support doubling the black population at hypsm and putting Latinos in the Asian and white bucket to compete

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all just want to keep black people out of college. God I hate my race...

who are you talking to precisely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all just want to keep black people out of college. God I hate my race...

No. I want more ADOS black people in college.

Hispanics absolutely should get zero affirmative action tho.

I support doubling the black population at hypsm and putting Latinos in the Asian and white bucket to compete

Why the focus on those schools? Please don't tell me you buy the 'ranking' BS. That is a huge part of what is driving all of the problems with admissions. Too many people think there are only 10 schools worth attending, and if they can't go there they have been cheated out of an education opportunity, and it is flat out wrong. The whole premise is wrong. Princeton is not the best college in the U.S.A., and you will be more than fine if you don't go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all just want to keep black people out of college. God I hate my race...

No. I want more ADOS black people in college.

Hispanics absolutely should get zero affirmative action tho.

I support doubling the black population at hypsm and putting Latinos in the Asian and white bucket to compete

You gotta be kidding. At Harvard blacks are already slightly over-represented at 15%. Indeed the only group under-represented there is whites

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at a R1 public university and good friends with two AOs at an ivy and one T25. The shared outlook for this small sample is a continuation of test optional and increased emphasis on first gen students to meet institutional goals. I don’t think our institutions our outliers.

What about low income?

First gen usually acts as a proxy for low income. Obviously, that is not always the case but there is a correlation--at least the data I've seen at conferences/meetings on student success/admissions. The problem is that most private colleges, including the elite colleges with billion-plus endowments, must balance full pay, heavily discounted (merit), and/or students that need financial aid. Consequently, there isn't much economic diversity in the top 30 colleges and a higher concentration of low-income students in community colleges/state schools. Maybe the SC decision may shift this dynamic and encourage elite schools to consider low income status in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court should get rid of AA and then eventually legacies will go away too as it is difficult to defend. Colleges will continue to not require standardized testing to enable them a bit of leeway in getting less qualified VIP kids into their uni's but overall Asian percentages admitted will rise, others will fall. In time, this will force more rigor (and less excuses) in kids that want to attend top unis.

[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.

Didn't MIT say something like the SAT scores helped them figure out which URM kids to accept, or something like that. I can't remember but the idea seemed to be it helped them build a diverse class.

[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.

Didn't MIT say something like the SAT scores helped them figure out which URM kids to accept, or something like that. I can't remember but the idea seemed to be it helped them build a diverse class.

Basically GPA alone sucks in picking real qualified students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't MIT say something like the SAT scores helped them figure out which URM kids to accept, or something like that. I can't remember but the idea seemed to be it helped them build a diverse class.

Basically GPA alone sucks in picking real qualified students

They never did look at gpa alone, even in test optional environment. More important is where the gpa sits relative to the other applicants from that school. A student at the top of the class is notable.

[Anonymous]

They never did look at gpa alone, even in test optional environment. More important is where the gpa sits relative to the other applicants from that school. A student at the top of the class is notable.

Correct. And the AOs are regional reps who know every HS in their territory so they have all the info they need to assess qualifications. It's so funny that people think they know more about which students should be selected and how to assemble a successful class than AOs do. They're marketing and selling a product, if you don't like it, pick a different school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't MIT say something like the SAT scores helped them figure out which URM kids to accept, or something like that. I can't remember but the idea seemed to be it helped them build a diverse class.

Basically GPA alone sucks in picking real qualified students

GPAs are a better indicator of student success than standardized test scores and yes, test scores can be raised through prep/tutoring. But grades often reflect a student's socioeconomic status and, depending on the teacher/high school, can be subjective (e.g., earning points for perceived effort and attitude), whereas a test score is more objective and allows for comparison of kids coming from different high schools. That being said, I'm okay with TO policies.

[Anonymous]

Test scores can be raised somewhat by prepping and the great news is it is free for anyone that wants to do it via Khan Academy. Unfortunately, most kids have not developed the work ethic to spend the time doing it and their parents only want to take them to soccer practice, etc as opposed to parenting and ensuring they prioritize academics.

I would think MIT/Caltech would not care about SAT/ACT and instead would look to AIME or USAMO type scores. We need a few top colleges that are merit based only! Top kids do not have an issue with getting 750 plus on SAT exams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn't MIT say something like the SAT scores helped them figure out which URM kids to accept, or something like that. I can't remember but the idea seemed to be it helped them build a diverse class.

Basically GPA alone sucks in picking real qualified students

They never did look at gpa alone, even in test optional environment. More important is where the gpa sits relative to the other applicants from that school. A student at the top of the class is notable.

?? if you are TO, then bunch of students don't submit scores, then you have to look GPA alone for those students.
MIT said that's bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Nope, by headcount, there are many, many more poor whites than poor URMs. I think it's a fallacy of people who live in liberal urban areas on the coasts that the poor people are overwhelmingly black. Rural poverty actually looks very different.

I think they're going to add zip code into the equation. In America your zipcode is pretty much your destiny.

Poor white children live in better neighborhoods than middle class black kids. That alone speaks volumes.

Trust... affirmativeaction will go away but still exist lol