Colleges Discuss the Inherent Weaknesses of ACT and SAT Tests

The big show at last week’s conference of the National Association for College Admissions Counseling was a report by NACAC examining the role of SAT and ACT tests in the college admissions process.  Essentially, the report called upon colleges to look more carefully at the role of these tests, and called into question their true importance in predicting college success.


The New York Times today carries an excellent analysis of the report in an article titled, “Study of Standardized Admissions Tests is Big Draw at College Conference.”


Colleges and universities know that there is not a lot of convincing research-based evidence that SAT or ACT tests measure academic aptitude or act as good predictors of a student’s success during the first year of college.


However, many of the same colleges that question the tests’ true value will continue to use them because they are useful short cuts to comparing one student against the next.


I wrote a while back about a point raised by Dartmouth’s retiring dean of admission:  while the number of applications had skyrocketed in the past decade, his admissions staff had not grown.  Of course, computers have simplified much of what admissions offices used to do by hand.  But my sense it that many college still rely on the SAT and ACT to make it simpler to reject those whose scores are on the lower end of the scale.  And given the conclusion in the Times article, it seems that most of our most selective colleges and universities will continue to use the tests–flawed though they may be.


Mark Montgomery

College Admissions Counselor




Technorati Tags: NACAC, SAT, ACT, Fairtest, Dartmouth Del.icio.us Tags: NACAC, SAT, ACT, Fairtest, Dartmouth

National Counseling Association Considers Value of SAT & ACT

The National Association for College Admissions Counseling is releasing a report this week to coincide with its national convention that questions the importance of standardized testing in the college admissions process.


For the first time, NACAC takes the stance that standardized testing may not, actually, be essential in evaluating candidates for admission, and encourages colleges and universities to more carefully consider how standardized testing is used.


One of my personal pet peeves is the fact that these tests may serve to keep quality minority students from applying to college–and may prevent them from entering more selective ones.  White and Asians score higher, generally, than Blacks and Latinos.


The College Board and ACT insist that any discrepancies in scores among these groups is due to differnences in the quality of education that these different groups receive.  This is the “achievement gap” that we continue to hear so much about in relation to No Child Left Behind.  The College Board and ACT seem to say say that the “achievement gap” is not their problem, and that the tests are still relevant.


Whether or not you buy their argument, the NACAC report calls on colleges and universities to control the conversation more, and not to let it be dominated by the organizations that administer (and profit from) the tests.  Colleges may, for example, desire to enroll more Black and Latino students.  But how will selective colleges do this–especially when using race as an admissions criterion is frowned upon?


I’m happy to hear that colleges are starting to take this issue more seriously.  Clearly the fact that over 700 colleges are now test optional, plus the fact that even some selective schools no longer require the tests (e.g., WPI, Wake Forest) is a sign that perhaps there are other ways to glean enough information about the quality of an applicant–from high school grades, teacher recommendations, essays, graded work, and whatnot) that are at least as good and perhaps more wholistic than the use of standardized tests.


What do you think?


Mark Montgomery
College Counseling





Technorati Tags: SAT, ACT, standardized tests, NACAC, college counseling, FairTest, Wake Forest, WPI Del.icio.us Tags: SAT, ACT, standardized tests, NACAC, college counseling, FairTest, Wake Forest, WPI

Socio-Economic and Racial Disparities Reflected in SAT Scores

It it no surprise whatsoever that black and brown students score lower on standardized tests than their white and yellow peers. This fact is one more indicator of the “achievement gap” between minority students and white students in the United States. (For more on this, see the article from Inside Higher Ed).

Some analysts are more careful to draw socioeconomic distinctions, rather than racial ones. The fact is that poorer students generally have fewer educational opportunities, inadequate schools, and are held to lower standards than kids in wealthier areas–where parents raise tens of thousands of dollars each year in silent auctions and other fundraisers–all to ensure that their kids continue to get the best of the best.

The College Board has announced that more young people–including ones from lower socioeconomic backgrounds–are taking the SAT test than ever before. Even so, the average score for each component of the test has remained about the same: critical reading (502), mathematics (515) and writing (494).

This steady average masks some uncomfortable realities. First, even though more poor students are taking the tests (which might bring scores lower, on average), more rich students are also taking the tests–sometimes 2 or 3 times. So just because the average is steady does not mean that scores among students at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder or performing better.

Further, African American, Native American, and Latino students consistently score well below Anglo and Asian American students. Here are the averages for those groups:

African Americans: Critical reading: 430; Math: 426; Writing: 424

Hispanics: Critical reading: 455; Math: 460; Writing: 447

Native Americans: Critical reading: 485; Math: 491; Writing: 470

Note that scores for each of these groups went DOWN this past year over the previous year, while average scores for Anglos and Asian student went UP.

No wonder more and more colleges are making standardized tests optional in the admissions process, or are finding some other ways to evaluate the potential of minority students. There is no getting around the fact that students from poorer communities score worse on these tests than wealthy students. So how can colleges correct for these tests–legally–and recruit and retain more qualified minorities onto their campuses?


TAKE THE POLL!

n

n

n

n

n

{democracy:2}



Mark Montgomery
College Admission Counselor

Technorati Tags: SAT, ACT, standardized tests, minorities, achievement gap, socio-economic Del.icio.us Tags: SAT, ACT, standardized tests, minorities, achievement gap, socio-economic

SAT II Subject Tests Required or Recommended

A colleague in the college counseling business compiled a comprehensive list of the colleges that require or recommend SAT II subject tests.  The list is very helpful and comprehensive.  If you’d like a copy, please contact me.  The author of the list, Cigus Vanni, is a member of the New Jersey Association for College Admissions and is active in the National Association for College Admissions Counseling.
Mark Montgomery
College Counselor

SAT Will Allow Students To Submit Best Scores To Colleges

The recent announcement by the College Board, the owner of the SAT test, to allow students who take the test two or more times to submit individual scores to the colleges to which they apply, will have absolutely no effect on the way colleges evaluate applicants.
As reported in the LA Times, the College Board is adopting the same policy of the ACT, which has always allowed students to decide which set of scores to submit with their application.
Some are wringing their hands about this decision. And it is clear that one of the primary motivations behind the College Board’s decision is based on market competition: the ACT has been gaining in popularity. College Board wants to maintain its market share in a marketplace in which students have a choice as to where to spend their test-taking dollar.
Students and parents will welcome the decision: they will perceive that they have more control over their own destiny if they are allowed to choose which scores to submit. But the fact is that nothing will really change.
The reason this decision will have no real impact is that colleges already use the highest scores submitted in evaluating applicants. When a student submits multiple scores on either the SAT or the ACT, colleges have an incentive to report the highest scores submitted. Colleges appear more selective when they report the high scores: higher scores move colleges up in the various rankings created by US News & World Report and other media organizations (as well as the government’s National Center for Education Statistics).
So in my travels and in my discussions with admissions officers, nearly all have told me that they cherry pick scores, even going so far as to recalculate composite scores for the ACT. (Neither the ACT nor the SAT will allow students to cherry individual scores on the various sections of each test–but I predict that day will come). Armed with prodigious computing power, admissions offices everywhere give their applicants the benefit of the doubt because the colleges themselves want to report out the highest scores possible. High scores make everyone look good.
If there is any real downside to the College Board’s decision, it is the one voiced by Bruce Poch, the director of admission at Pomona College. As with so much in life, the advantage goes to wealthier students who can take these test multiple times and who can afford pricey prep courses and tutors.
But even in this area, the advantage is not so huge and is sometimes a matter of choice. First off, only about 15% of students take standardized tests three times or more, and research indicates that there is no statistical gain in scores for students who are serial test takers.
In addition, students of limited means can apply for fee waivers for these tests. Moreover, some motivated students will do whatever it takes to compete for a place at a selective college.
For example, I am working with a first-generation Latino student on a pro bono basis who has decided to spend some of the money he makes as a busboy at a local restaurant on a tutor and on test fees. He is very ambitious, and will do whatever it takes to give himself the best shot possible.
Perhaps this student should apply to Pomona?
At any rate, the College Board’s decision will be popular with the people who matter most to the College Board: the consumers of standardized testing services. If students and their parents perceive that this is a good decision that will allow them more control in the admissions process, then College Board can maintain its market share.
As Deep Throat said to Woodward and Bernstein during the Watergate investigation: “Follow the money.” This decision, like so many in the world of college admission, is about economics–not about lofty ideals.
And I’m okay with that.
Mark Montgomery
College Counselor in Colorado
Technorati Tags: College Board, SAT, ACT, standardized test, college admission, Los Angeles Times, Pomona College Del.icio.us Tags: College Board, SAT, ACT, standardized test, college admission, Los Angeles Times, Pomona College

The SAT, ACT, and “Test Optional” Admissions

Wake Forest, a small selective college in North Carolina, recently made the decision to allow applicants to not submit ACT or SAT scores. Thus Wake Forest joins the list of “test optional” colleges, a list that includes Smith College, Bowdoin College, Connecticut College, and hundreds of others.
One of the main reasons colleges cite for making tests optional is that lower income students generally perform less well on these tests than their more affluent counterparts. And poorer students tend to be less white, generally speaking, than the general population. Further, students with lower test scores tend to self-select, and avoid applying to colleges where they might actually get in because they have excellent academic records and a bevy of extracurricular activities.
So a college that goes “test optional” is likely to be interested in attracting more students of color to apply–and matriculate.
CNN published an excellent article last Friday, that provides a very balanced explanation of the pros and cons of using standardized tests in the admissions process.
Basically the debate can be summarized this way”

  1. Different schools grade differently.  An A in the wealthy part of town is not the same as an A in a poorer school.  This should not be, but it is.
  2. Standardized tests are a way to compare students across schools, across districts, and across states.  They are an imperfect measure of aptitude or intelligence.  But they are useful in comparing apples to apples.
  3. Students with lower scores, many of whom are black, brown, and red, are attend college at much lower rates than their whiter counterparts.  Yet most colleges, especially private, selective ones, truly want to recruit and retain more students of color.  Thus if they stick to test scores as a key to admission, they will effectively block admission to large numbers of minorities.
  4. In order to improve minority recruiting, then, some colleges choose to make the tests optional in hopes of attracting more minority applicants.

My view is that SAT scores are a useful way to compare apples to apples.  But the problem is our national education system is anything but standardized, and while “separate but equal” is no longer allowed on racial grounds, we certainly have, de facto, a segregated education system in which the poor and the rich do not enjoy the same educational opportunities.
Therefore I like the idea of “test optional” schools.  As it turns out, most of the selective colleges that are test optional (like Bowdoin) receive scores from about 80% of their applicants.  So the tests aren’t going away.  But if being a test-optional college gives more talented minority kids more hope that their application will be given a fair shake, then I think Wake Forest and the rest are making a good decision.
The SAT and ACT are not in any danger of going away, however.  The NCAA will still use the scores as a requirement for athletic eligibility. A recent story on ESPN explains that scores are important, but grades are probably more important.
If you’re looking for a defense of the proper use of standardized tests in college admission, you might want to take a look at an article by Steve Farmer at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.  He recently wrote a piece that rightly pointed out that there is still a lot we don’t know about how to predict success in college.  Grade point averages (GPAs) are only slightly better predictors of success than the standardized tests. But neither is really all that great.
So, my advice?
Take the SAT and / or the ACT.   Plan on reporting your scores to the college of your choice.  However, if you really bomb the test, you can (and should!) consider a test-optional school.
Mark Montgomery
College Counselor

ACT vs. SAT

Clients ask all the time whether they should take the ACT or the SAT tests to prepare for college. Here is what my colleague, Nancy Nitardy, has to say about these tests.
Nancy Nitardy is the author of Get Paid to Play, THE book for student athletes as they navigate the athletic recruiting process.

Nancy and I work together with student athletes to ensure that they get the best of both worlds: the athletic experience they desire, as well as the academic preparation they require. For more information about Nancy, click here.
Mark Montgomery
Montgomery Educational Consulting
Great College Advice for Athletes