Reply to Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There are some truly dense people on DCUM who keep saying URMs are unqualified based test scores.  This isn't China!  If you want a system based entirely on test scores, you are in the wrong country. [/quote]

+1000

Anyone who's enlightened about the history of the United States and its implementation of standardized testing, and the racist objective should know this.

The SAT / ACT is fake " merit"

[/quote]

But SAT + GPA + Activities + Leadership + Intereview is most likely not  :wink: [/quote]

GPA and rigor is the primary basis for academic merit. Period.

The rest like ECs, leadership, interviews is to help elite colleges shape a class.[/quote]

I agree with MIT and think Test + GPA and rigor combination is the primary basis for acedemic merit.  
Schools want to throw in the other factors, so let it be.

What I don't agree is throwing in race.[/quote]

Good for you and MIT.

1800 other schools - including all of the Ivies - have a different opinion.[/quote]

Yes.

Like CalTech (#9 in USNWR), a peer of MIT:

"CalTech said an internal study revealed standardized test scores “have little to no power” predicting academic performance in required mathematics and physics courses for first-year students in the institute’s core curriculum."

Funny. Since MIT made its decision to reinstate standardized testing, how many elite schools followed them?

Crickets.[/quote]

That's called range restriction.  At a place where the 25th percentile kid has a 1530, I'm quite sure that SAT scores have "little to no power" to predict.  Let in 25% of the class with a 1200 and I'm quite sure that they will become very predictive.  The UC system did their own analysis on the SAT/ACT (280K plus kids go there, so lots of data) and they found that the SAT/ACT was the single best predictor of college performance.[/quote]

The point is that they aren't requiring the SAT. Good. They can still get super smart kids that are diverse.

The UC system is test blind.

[/quote]

It's test blind now.  The recommendation was to not remove tests, but the leadership ignored the recommendation from the team they put together.  People aren't against using SAT/ACT scores because they don't work, they're against them because they do.[/quote]

What was the world get along before SAT/ACT scores?[/quote]

How did the admissions world get along before test scores, I assume you're asking? Well, for a lot of colleges, their decision-making was less accurate. These are smart people deciding how to select a class, and they wouldn't use a metric that didn't help them get closer to what they want.[/quote]

Well, the college I attended would have been all male, virtually all white, and the majority of the students were from a relatively small number of prep schools.  Many, including at least one former president, were legacy students.  The “Gentleman’s C” was not viewed as an embarrassment, and mediocre grades were usually not an impediment to pursuing many quite lucrative careers.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics