How stupid rich kids can still attend a good college

According to the NY Times, a disturbing trend is that small liberal arts college are making the SAT and other standardized tests optional for admission.

It's disturbing to me, but the tone of the article sounds gleeful.

“Test scores are a much weaker predictor of how students will do in college than their high school transcript,” said Mark Gearan, the president of Hobart and William Smith

Now that's only true if high schools can be compared and the transcripts are meaningful. Many high schools are withholding class rank, thus making the transcripts meaningless.

Furthermore, it has been shown that high school grades plus SAT is a better predictor of how students will do in college than just the high school grades by themselves.

One parent, who I'm sure only votes for Democrats, had this to say:

I think SAT-optional is great, it’s wonderful,” said Lynne Brandes, of Hanover, Mass., who took her daughter, Jacqueline, on a New England college tour this summer. “Some families have the money to pay for tutoring, but some don’t. I’d love to see the SAT’s abolished.”

Lynne Brandes clearly has a complete lack of understanding of how college admissions work. The SAT allows middle class and even working class students to demonstrate they are as smart as upper middle class students. Without the SAT, the upper middle class students will have a huge advantage over the lower classes because they will go to upper middle class high schools where they are encouraged to take the right classes, participate in the right extra-curricular activities, and have the right summer experiences (such as paying $7,000 to learn about poverty). The working class and middle class kids will have a crappy application in comparsion to the rich kids. When you add on top of that the fact that the rich kids' parents can afford to pay full tuition, it's hard to see how how eliminating the SAT benefits the kids of less well off parents.

Maybe the no-test trend has the racist intent of keeping high scoring but undesirable Asian students from invading the small liberal arts colleges?

* * *

One factor the article mentions is that "the revamped, longer SAT" is contributing to "growing disenchantment" with the test. Now what did I say about the new SAT in the past? In November, 2003 I wrote, "The SAT has done a good job for many decades. Messing around with the SAT seems more likely to make things worse than to make anything better."

It turns out that I was right! Why doesn't anyone ever listen to me?

In other SAT news, SAT scores are falling, either because of "test fatigue," or because the longer test is discouraging test takers from retaking the test.

Comments

[superdestroyer]

HS,

Ignoring test scores for a "holistic" application benefits rich white kids at the expense of Asian, "nose-to-the-grind-stone" kids. The upper middle class suburban white kids have, the last few years, lost places at upper level universities to hard working kids named Kim, Patel, and Nguyen. So the solution is to ingore the metrices that benefit the Asian kid (class rank and test scores) and empahsize the metrices (volunteer work, "leadership", and "well roundedness"" that prep schools are the best at producing.

A holistic application matched with having Lacrosse, field hockey, and crew teams, give the rich white kids a tremendous advantage.

[michael vassar]

More innanity about the Democrats. Give it a break. Do you honestly look out the window and see a world where Republicans support meritocracy or value intelligence?! Huh?
The problem here is primarily that most of America is confused abour intelligence and knows that they aren't allowed to think about it and still remain within the limits of polite society, Democrat or Republican. It goes against our egalitarian mythology.

[mickslam]

George Bush.

[Peter]

Girls might be the main beneficiaries of no-SAT admissions policies. For as long as high schools have existed, there have been girls who get better grades than their abilities would merit because they are teachers' pets.

[superdestroyer]

Michael,

White Republicans in California overwhelmingly supported the end to affirmative action at state universities even though the data showed that the number of whites at places like Berkley would not go up but that virtually all of the slots lost by blacks and Hispanics would go to Asians.

I think what HS is trying to say that the argument against objective measures and for subjective measures (in 2006) is much more of a Democrat idea that a Republican idea.

[The Superfluous Man]

Party loyalties are best abandoned. But, "Republicans support meritocracy," relative to the Democrats, yes.

"Ignoring test scores for a "holistic" application benefits rich white kids at the expense of Asian"
I would say 1st or 2nd generation Asians, and probably not 3rd or later, but on that count. Of course, there is still that box checked Asian no matter how established you are. That's where Jews luck out.

It's both sad and ironic that the minorities least deserving of prejudice get the most of it.

I've had trouble deciphering the reasons for latent racism towards Asians. Perhaps colleges want to preserve the lazy atmosphere - I'm in my first week of college now, and it's more akin to summer camp than highschool. The same would explain why athletes are recruited for so many marginal teams - why would you have a team for wrestling and lacrosse when people only go to your hockey games? Forgoing that may give your school the reputation of the U of Chicago, universally labeled as depressing and over-intellectual (my translation: less libertine/Epicurean and less apathetic). Note: Chicago is known for not having discriminated against Jews, which surely contributed to its current reputation (just swap neurotic with depressing).

[SFG]

superf: go play on a team, even a stupid one. this will really help you in the workforce. don't waste time studying unless you are going for med school or law school.

[JewishAtheist]

One parent, who I'm sure only votes for Democrats,

Lol. You're really reaching to blame the Democrats for this one. I bet the Dems are to blame for the Yankees, too.

[sfg]

Actually, if she's from Brookline that's a pretty safe bet.

[sfg]

Actualy, the Democrats are to blame for the Yankees. The Yankees' unholy winning streak is due to their enormous payroll, which is in turn due to the size and wealth of New York City, which is mostly Democratic.

[Half Sigma]

I'm a Mets fan.

[RobertHume]

Everyone seems to be missing the elephant in the living room. Not counting SATs enables admission of blacks from black schools who were class presidents. They will do well in politics, etc.

[The Superfluous Man]

RobertHume, they were recieving affirmative action I suppose, so getting rid of the SATs wouldn't matter as I see it (unless, of course, the adcoms do care about SAT scores).

[Sscabo]

Affirmative action has little to nothing with getting into college. I'm black, go to an all black school and know.

SATs, however do, and they are holding a lot of people back. We can do well within our own schools, but the SATs have already been proven to be culturally biased.

[Frank N Stein]

How are SATs culturally biased? Do you want them printed in ebonics?

Half, do some of your number crunching, and make a post that discusses supposed bias in the SAT (and other exams where blacks do not do well as whites).

[Sscabo]

The fact is that poor people, usually minorities, do not have all the advantages that people higher up economically (usually whites)tend to have.

Upper and middle class people tend to have better educations. On top of that, they're the ones that can afford the SAT prep courses and the tutoring and every thing else that comes along with it.

I myself have been to schools where they don't even have computors, electives OR teachers for mandetory classes like English and Math. My cousin went to school in Philadelphia, and her sixth grade class didn't have a teacher for the whole year.

How can we consider the test equal when people aren't even offered an equal education? That doesn't make sense.

America is not, nor with it ever be equal for everyone. There will always be a rich upper class that dominates society and a lower poor class that must work hard for low pay to survive. This is what America is all about, exploiting the poor people so the rich can get richer and live off the labor of the poor class.

The idea that a poor person can work hard, go to school, and get a better life is an American Myth. Unless you are born into the millionare class there is almost no chance you will ever reach that level. I see so many people who think that with enough hard work they can work their way out of poverty but in reality it is very unlikely that you will ever leave the class you were born into. Between School Debt, Credit Card Debt, Morgage debt, car payments, insurance, child care, etc. etc. the poor drown in interest and every cent they earn is spent before they ever make it. Most poor kids graduate from college with $5000.00 in credit card debt and $25,000 in school loans. They are already upside down in debt before they even start! The rich kids however graduate with zero debt, perfect credit, and a brand new car that is reliable. The rich will always win against the poor because they simply have too much of an advantage over poor people. America is the land of the rich taking advantage of the poor people. It always has been and always will be.

[Frank N Stein]

Oh my god, get out the Marxist violin! Boo hoo, not everyone is exactly equal in every measure, or will have the exact same opportunities (and outcomes!) as everyone else. Someone hold me!
What's this, those who have money are able to use that money to get things they desire? And those who have more money are able to get more things than other people?? Oh cruel world, why hast thou forsaken me?!

A "poor" person in America lives better than the majority of the rest of the world. So get your liberal schooling and pampered ass off the soapbox, and try to realize that America is as successful as it is only because it has the strongest semblance of a free market found (on a large scale) in the world today. No one "uses" any one else when transactions are based on consent, not government decree.

[SFG]

Funny how they always compare America to poor countries in the 3rd World and never to comparable rich countries like Sweden or France, with slightly lower GDPs and longer life expectancy, shorter work hours, etc?

[Frank N Stein]

I didn't think it fair to compare the United States to a socialist slave-state like France. The citizens may be happy with their state provided soma, but since no one there is actually free to live their life without approval by the Minister of Cultural Affairs or the like, it's really an apples/oranges kind of thing. I will grant that the French on the whole are more happy and better fed than the black slaves were in the antebellum South (except during mild heat waves where the government health workers are on their state-mandated month long vacation and thousands end up dying from lack of care). C'est la vie!

[superdestroyer]

SFG,

I always suspect individuals who want to compare the US to Sweden, Norway, Finland, have a lot of latent bigotry that they are not really aware of. I have developed this belief after having everyone I knew who lived in Germany coming back and telling me what a great place it is to live.

I wonder how well Sweden would function if it was 12% black, 12% hispanic, 4% Asian, and had a long border with a third world country. Would the ethnic swedes still support a huge welfare state with Sweden had the same level of ethnic diversity that the US has?

Finland is over 92% ethnic Finns with most of the rest being ethnic Swedes. I wonder what the US would be like if the population was 92% Anglo-saxon and 5% Irish?