3 ms·
Most of that shit was designed (originally) with racist intent. I don't think modern admissions committees are racist; at this point, it's more of a "how things
by michaelochurch 13y ago
Most of that shit was designed (originally) with racist intent. I don't think modern admissions committees are racist; at this point, it's more of a "how things were always done" dynamic, and it's taken for granted that nonacademic factors should have a huge influence over college admissions. (One problem is that grade point averages aren't standardized and the SATs don't go high enough for as competitive as college admissions are. The bullshit gets such a high weight because so many students are 2400/valedictorians, now that admissions are a national pool with many students submitting 20+ applications.)
Admissions tests (such as the SATs) made college admissions "too" meritocratic in the 1920s-30s and prep-school boys started losing spots to ethnically diverse applicants from public schools. For example, student bodies went from 0-3% to 20-25% Jewish in a year. Many of the professors and administrators welcomed the change (the quality of students improved) but wealthy donors went into race panic and demanded that WASP-biased extracurricular factors (what would be called "pattern matching" in modern VC-istan) be injected back into the process.
- maxerickson 13y agoCollege Board publishes test results: http://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tables http://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tables This is the interesting one for this question: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2013.pdf http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/S... 494 students scored a 2400 in 2013. ~8,300 students scored better than 2300, the tippy top of the 99th percentile. So SAT scores might not be serving the most selective institutions, but what about the thousands and thousands of spots available at what are reasonably called good schools?