4 ms·

Average ACT scores have declined six years in a row and are at their lowest level in 30 years. This isn't necessarily the strongest argument because of potentia

by 1980phipsi 3y ago

Average ACT scores have declined six years in a row and are at their lowest level in 30 years. This isn't necessarily the strongest argument because of potential changes in the composition of the test takers. Particularly as schools go test optional. However, I think that is broadly in line with what other test scores are showing. You can pair that with surveys of how much college students are studying and it is down significantly from 30-40 years ago. You might make the case that they are better prepared now, but the other side of that would be that less may be expected of them.

surge 3y ago
I also believe this is a side effect of "everyone has to go to college", you're no longer getting the most academically gifted (of which I am not a part either). It's far more likely with a larger portion of the populace or diverse populace going to college you're going to get several students that struggle because in certain majors you can't coast through college like you can many high schools.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  And when "everyone" goes to college, you get people that aren't really able to do college-level work. A college can fail them out, often leaving them with some amount of debt from the time they were there. (Worse, it can string them along for as much as they can afford, but never let them graduate, maximizing their debt as they chase the carrot of a degree.) Or it can use grade inflation to get them to "pass", but at the price of making the degree meaningless. The better answer would be not to admit them in the first place. But there are people who, after not doing well in high school, find motivation or grow up or whatever, and are able to do college-level work, and do it well. They need a place to go. So there's not really a great answer. But I think that grade inflation might be the worst answer, because it destroys the institution, not just the individuals.
  - surge 3y ago
    I think, the top schools should remain academically rigorous, even if that means some kids even those from disadvantaged backgrounds don't cut it, I'm of the opinion they're probably better off going to a more average school anyway, being the first in your family to get a degree, for instance is a huge leg up. There's kind of an expectation that some schools (MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc) have more academic rigor. As you said it makes the degree meaningless, if an A at a community college is the same as an A at Stanford, what is even the point of all the added tuition and debt?
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    > They need a place to go. That place, in the US at least, is community college with a setup to transfer once they've established themselves and acquired basic study habits and so forth, also there is much less non-academic distraction coming from greeks, athletics and campus lifestyle organizations. This is actually better for everybody at all levels because it's hard to justify paying full tuition rates, even at a state school, for lower div classes offered at a community college for one fifth the cost or less. Interestingly, at this level community colleges are in some ways even -more- rigorous than "real" universities because classes are very cheap so the financial penalty of retaking is much lower, and at the institutional level there is no ranking pressure to get students to graduate in 4 years. On the other hand the peers that students will be mingling with are a much wider spread from highest to lowest in terms of ability, than at a school that has at least a minimal selection funnel. There will be a small group capable of work at the very top (ivy/MIT/cal etc) echelon who attend community college to save money or for other practical (commute, unpredictable family situations, etc) reasons, and of course a much larger cohort of people at a barely functional level of ability, but these tend to discover that they may not be a fit for college after the first year or so.
    - twiddling 3y ago
      <Interestingly, at this level community colleges are in some ways even -more- rigorous than "real" universities because classes are very cheap so the financial penalty of retaking is much lower, and at the institutional level there is no ranking pressure to get students to graduate in 4 years. I have also seen local community colleges near me actually have Profs from the R1 Flagship school "moonlighting" teaching courses in the evening. They often are freer in how work with students and also try out new material for textbooks they are authoring.
20239uejd 3y ago
On the other hand, GPAs remain about as predictive of later criteria as standardized scores. In some studies they're even slightly more predictive. Each have their issues. Even with grade inflation, GPA is reflective of a long-term process that unfolds over years. ACT is an afternoon when who knows what can be going on.
- scarmig 3y ago
  It's pretty simple: use both GPAs and standardized scores. To prevent rampant grade inflation, normalize each school's GPA (and for ones where the top-end indicates significantly less rigorous coursework than other schools', use the standardized tests to fill in the gaps). That'll outperform both GPA alone and SATs alone.

surge 3y ago

I also believe this is a side effect of "everyone has to go to college", you're no longer getting the most academically gifted (of which I am not a part either). It's far more likely with a larger portion of the populace or diverse populace going to college you're going to get several students that struggle because in certain majors you can't coast through college like you can many high schools.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
And when "everyone" goes to college, you get people that aren't really able to do college-level work. A college can fail them out, often leaving them with some amount of debt from the time they were there. (Worse, it can string them along for as much as they can afford, but never let them graduate, maximizing their debt as they chase the carrot of a degree.) Or it can use grade inflation to get them to "pass", but at the price of making the degree meaningless. The better answer would be not to admit them in the first place. But there are people who, after not doing well in high school, find motivation or grow up or whatever, and are able to do college-level work, and do it well. They need a place to go. So there's not really a great answer. But I think that grade inflation might be the worst answer, because it destroys the institution, not just the individuals.
- surge 3y ago
  I think, the top schools should remain academically rigorous, even if that means some kids even those from disadvantaged backgrounds don't cut it, I'm of the opinion they're probably better off going to a more average school anyway, being the first in your family to get a degree, for instance is a huge leg up. There's kind of an expectation that some schools (MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc) have more academic rigor. As you said it makes the degree meaningless, if an A at a community college is the same as an A at Stanford, what is even the point of all the added tuition and debt?
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  > They need a place to go. That place, in the US at least, is community college with a setup to transfer once they've established themselves and acquired basic study habits and so forth, also there is much less non-academic distraction coming from greeks, athletics and campus lifestyle organizations. This is actually better for everybody at all levels because it's hard to justify paying full tuition rates, even at a state school, for lower div classes offered at a community college for one fifth the cost or less. Interestingly, at this level community colleges are in some ways even -more- rigorous than "real" universities because classes are very cheap so the financial penalty of retaking is much lower, and at the institutional level there is no ranking pressure to get students to graduate in 4 years. On the other hand the peers that students will be mingling with are a much wider spread from highest to lowest in terms of ability, than at a school that has at least a minimal selection funnel. There will be a small group capable of work at the very top (ivy/MIT/cal etc) echelon who attend community college to save money or for other practical (commute, unpredictable family situations, etc) reasons, and of course a much larger cohort of people at a barely functional level of ability, but these tend to discover that they may not be a fit for college after the first year or so.
  - twiddling 3y ago
    <Interestingly, at this level community colleges are in some ways even -more- rigorous than "real" universities because classes are very cheap so the financial penalty of retaking is much lower, and at the institutional level there is no ranking pressure to get students to graduate in 4 years. I have also seen local community colleges near me actually have Profs from the R1 Flagship school "moonlighting" teaching courses in the evening. They often are freer in how work with students and also try out new material for textbooks they are authoring.

20239uejd 3y ago

On the other hand, GPAs remain about as predictive of later criteria as standardized scores. In some studies they're even slightly more predictive. Each have their issues. Even with grade inflation, GPA is reflective of a long-term process that unfolds over years. ACT is an afternoon when who knows what can be going on.

scarmig 3y ago
It's pretty simple: use both GPAs and standardized scores. To prevent rampant grade inflation, normalize each school's GPA (and for ones where the top-end indicates significantly less rigorous coursework than other schools', use the standardized tests to fill in the gaps). That'll outperform both GPA alone and SATs alone.