Several decades ago, French educators noted an unusual development in middle schools (collèges), mostly in well-to-do neighborhoods: record numbers of students were suddenly opting for German as their principal foreign language. Was it because of West Germany’s economic prowess? A desire for post-war reconciliation? A craze for the poetry of Goethe and Schiller? In fact, the answer was much more prosaic. The French government had recently decided to end ability tracking in middle schools in the hope of creating a more level playing field for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. But upper middle-class parents quickly realized that the schools would now group children together according to… foreign language choice. So:
I too think that eliminating the SAT would exacerbate inequalities rather than alleviate them. I like the solution of replacing the test with a more content base exam like the French Baccalaureate. In Israel students take a few subject tests at a variety of levels (based on individual preferences) plus an SAT style test, so that the admission process is less "subjective." (Of course, affluent families trump this system as well). But in any alternative we come up with we need to account for cost. Sure, it would be great if every application will be reviewed by an intelligent, considerate, and fair minded person who is not exhausted by reading 10 similar applications in the previous few hours. That would be possible at elite institutions, perhaps. They have the funds to pay all these salaries. But most institutions will move to subcontract the application process to AI which will make impersonal decisions about admissions based on some parameters fed into the program. And once again, as David writes, privileged parents will find the right formula to trump the AI. The subject centered solution, however flawed (and it is very flawed), offers the best path.
It's hard to argue with your reasoning here, David. But I think it's missing an analysis of the pressures on admissions officers and the unfortunate truth that not all universities are entirely well-intentioned. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say their good intentions do not conform to my good intentions.
You are right that SATs do not cause but reflect the savage inequalities of American life. In a better world they (or preferably yet the better test you would design) would simply be a measure. They might point to outliers that would allow admissions officers to take notice of people they might otherwise have missed. To take risks and create opportunities. They would help make the system more equal rather than more unequal.
The problem as I see it is that the admissions officers do not have a very free hand. They experience relentless pressure from their bosses to increase average SAT scores so that the institution's ranking can go up. I would guess this kind of pressure is relatively low at Princeton. (Princeton and a handful of truly elite places after all measure the quality of the ranking not the reverse. Any ranking that would put them in the mid-tier would be ignored.) Alas, the pressure is quite a bit higher at a place like JHU (where its administrators want to be Princeton or maybe just at Princeton) and it's exponentially worse at places falling further down the US News rankings. And given the weight US News puts on SAT scores that means universities are doing just as much gaming as applicants and their parents.
All that leads to perverse situations. Many amazing kids who would flourish in a first-rate college or university are not able to get in because their collective SAT scores would bring the institution's rankings down. Sorry wish we could help. Admissions folks can make one or two exceptions, maybe, but not many. Better to play it safe, and safe means higher SAT scores and since that is so completely correlated with class and race and other factors it means exclusion.
Even worse, as I'm sure you know, many places will give scholarships to attract the high SAT scorers coming from families that don't have the highest need but will happily take the money. Parents of those kids can shop around as though buying a used car. All this diverts scarce financial aid to artificially boost SAT rankings by favoring families that, again, correlate to high SAT scores.
Anyway you get it. I don't see how creating a better test would solve this part of the puzzle. The challenge here is getting universities to abandon the moronic rankings systems that rely on flawed metrics. But sadly these rankings systems seem to be how senior administrators prove their value to boards of trustees that need metrics because that is the language they speak. And given that dynamic, I fear we are stuck with this system.
All that is why I think it makes sense to give up SAT scores. It's true that we then get a more opaque system, and maybe the cure will be worse than the disease. I guess that remains to be seen. But surely seems to mean that we have become even more dependent on the good intentions of the admissions folks.
Consider this a segue/request. I recently attended a meeting at the University of Saint Quentin-Versailles (on LBJ). Someone mentioned that it’s illegal in France to keep statistics by race. Does that reflect a desire to deemphasize race/slavery/imperialism themes and or a more positive view of French notions of fraternity integration etc?
I too think that eliminating the SAT would exacerbate inequalities rather than alleviate them. I like the solution of replacing the test with a more content base exam like the French Baccalaureate. In Israel students take a few subject tests at a variety of levels (based on individual preferences) plus an SAT style test, so that the admission process is less "subjective." (Of course, affluent families trump this system as well). But in any alternative we come up with we need to account for cost. Sure, it would be great if every application will be reviewed by an intelligent, considerate, and fair minded person who is not exhausted by reading 10 similar applications in the previous few hours. That would be possible at elite institutions, perhaps. They have the funds to pay all these salaries. But most institutions will move to subcontract the application process to AI which will make impersonal decisions about admissions based on some parameters fed into the program. And once again, as David writes, privileged parents will find the right formula to trump the AI. The subject centered solution, however flawed (and it is very flawed), offers the best path.
It's hard to argue with your reasoning here, David. But I think it's missing an analysis of the pressures on admissions officers and the unfortunate truth that not all universities are entirely well-intentioned. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say their good intentions do not conform to my good intentions.
You are right that SATs do not cause but reflect the savage inequalities of American life. In a better world they (or preferably yet the better test you would design) would simply be a measure. They might point to outliers that would allow admissions officers to take notice of people they might otherwise have missed. To take risks and create opportunities. They would help make the system more equal rather than more unequal.
The problem as I see it is that the admissions officers do not have a very free hand. They experience relentless pressure from their bosses to increase average SAT scores so that the institution's ranking can go up. I would guess this kind of pressure is relatively low at Princeton. (Princeton and a handful of truly elite places after all measure the quality of the ranking not the reverse. Any ranking that would put them in the mid-tier would be ignored.) Alas, the pressure is quite a bit higher at a place like JHU (where its administrators want to be Princeton or maybe just at Princeton) and it's exponentially worse at places falling further down the US News rankings. And given the weight US News puts on SAT scores that means universities are doing just as much gaming as applicants and their parents.
All that leads to perverse situations. Many amazing kids who would flourish in a first-rate college or university are not able to get in because their collective SAT scores would bring the institution's rankings down. Sorry wish we could help. Admissions folks can make one or two exceptions, maybe, but not many. Better to play it safe, and safe means higher SAT scores and since that is so completely correlated with class and race and other factors it means exclusion.
Even worse, as I'm sure you know, many places will give scholarships to attract the high SAT scorers coming from families that don't have the highest need but will happily take the money. Parents of those kids can shop around as though buying a used car. All this diverts scarce financial aid to artificially boost SAT rankings by favoring families that, again, correlate to high SAT scores.
Anyway you get it. I don't see how creating a better test would solve this part of the puzzle. The challenge here is getting universities to abandon the moronic rankings systems that rely on flawed metrics. But sadly these rankings systems seem to be how senior administrators prove their value to boards of trustees that need metrics because that is the language they speak. And given that dynamic, I fear we are stuck with this system.
All that is why I think it makes sense to give up SAT scores. It's true that we then get a more opaque system, and maybe the cure will be worse than the disease. I guess that remains to be seen. But surely seems to mean that we have become even more dependent on the good intentions of the admissions folks.
Always love reading your stuff, mon ami!
Hi David
Consider this a segue/request. I recently attended a meeting at the University of Saint Quentin-Versailles (on LBJ). Someone mentioned that it’s illegal in France to keep statistics by race. Does that reflect a desire to deemphasize race/slavery/imperialism themes and or a more positive view of French notions of fraternity integration etc?
Thank you