4 ms·

Did you read TFA? It's not talking about "dramatically underqualified" students. > If you compare college students with the same standardized-test scores who c

by nandemo 12y ago

Did you read TFA? It's not talking about "dramatically underqualified" students. > If you compare college students with the same standardized-test scores who come from different family backgrounds, you find that their educational outcomes reflect their parents’ income, not their test scores.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
The article is talking about supporting students who are admitted to a flagship school in their affirmative-action program despite being below the 25th percentile for students at that school. It specifically calls them out as being in the bottom quartile. It lists the human-interest protagonist's appallingly low standardized test scores. What more do you want here? According to http://www.parchment.com/c/college/college-1572-University-of-Texas-at-Austin.html http://www.parchment.com/c/college/college-1572-University-o... , the 25th percentile student at UT Austin (entering in 2011, I think) scored 540 verbal and 580 math on the SAT (annoyingly, this doesn't mean that the 25th percentile student scored 1120 overall, but it's the closest thing I could find). The girl in the article scored the ACT equivalent of 90 points lower. But she's not dramatically underqualified?
- logicallee 12y ago
  It's an endemic problem - I heard that even at Ivy league schools nearly a quarter of the students are now below the 25th percentile.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    We like to think the Ivies have a narrower range, though. This girl was admitted under UT's explicit policy of admitting unqualified students as long as they come from awful schools. That sort of thing can cause quite a large gap between, say, the 25th percentile student and the modal student. update: for reference: UT Austin 25th-75th percentile SAT math scores: 590 - 710 Cal Tech 25th-75th percentile SAT math scores: 770 - 800 How significant do you think it is that a quarter of Cal Tech students are below the 25th percentile? How far below do you think they range?
    - logicallee 12y ago
      this follow-up is better. But you're asking me to guess! >How significant do you think it is that a quarter of Cal Tech students are below the 25th percentile? How far below do you think they range? I don't know. It would help if your figures didn't cut out at the bottom-quarter mark, i.e. if you gave some figures on the lowest SAT math score (and what about verbal?) admitted to these institutions, or some other indication rather than asking what we 'like to think' about the range or having me guess :) I'm not saying you're wrong, but the way you expressed it, "despite being below the 25th percentile for students at that school" and "It specifically calls them out as being in the bottom quartile" in your original comment is probably not a great way to show your case. Your range comment is much better, but stops short of indicating what the full range is or where this student falls. Basically, I am directly saying that being in the bottom quartile is not itself an indication of sub-standard performance - at any school. Because nearly a quarter of students will be below the bottom quartile - at every school.
      - thaumasiotes 12y ago
        I'm talking in terms of 25th and 75th percentiles because those figures are public. You're more than welcome to provide other numbers if you have a way of getting them. And I provide exact numbers for the girl under discussion. Someone else was nice enough to point out that the ACT average for students at UT Austin is 28 (91st percentile nationwide), and the 25th percentile is 25 (80th). This girl got 22 (62nd). Compared to the average student at her school, that's abysmally low. From memory, the range for verbal scores at caltech was 720-800, and the range at UT Austin was 120 points. The "true top end" at caltech probably isn't that far above 800, since the writing range was 720-790, so UT Austin is displaying much much more variation (120 points compared to 80). In contrast, there's going to be a lot more variation in math ability at caltech than the 30-point math range implies, due to the very low ceiling on the SAT-math. That makes it impossible to say how much variation there really is by looking at SAT scores. On the other other hand, caltech being a technical school, you might suspect that they're targeting math ability, and the range should be narrower than it is for verbal. ;p > Because nearly a quarter of students will be below the bottom quartile - at every school. You could change this to exactly a quarter and you wouldn't be wrong (except in cases like, as we've seen, caltech and other high-end schools, where well over a quarter of the students are in the top 25th percentile by math SAT score). But the sentence preceding it is obviously false. Yes, a quarter of the group will always be in the bottom 25%. Does that mean they're not performing as well as the rest of the group? Of course it does. That's how we measured them. If your top students and your worst students are very close in ability because of restriction in range, you can sensibly put them in the same classes. If, as at UT Austin, they're very far apart, you can't. I went to a large public university myself, and the course catalog was full of classes covering the same material but differentiated by "difficulty". What's wrong with describing the students who can't succeed outside of the bottom tier as "substandard"?

by nandemo 12y ago

thaumasiotes 12y ago

The article is talking about supporting students who are admitted to a flagship school in their affirmative-action program despite being below the 25th percentile for students at that school. It specifically calls them out as being in the bottom quartile. It lists the human-interest protagonist's appallingly low standardized test scores. What more do you want here? According to http://www.parchment.com/c/college/college-1572-University-of-Texas-at-Austin.html http://www.parchment.com/c/college/college-1572-University-o... , the 25th percentile student at UT Austin (entering in 2011, I think) scored 540 verbal and 580 math on the SAT (annoyingly, this doesn't mean that the 25th percentile student scored 1120 overall, but it's the closest thing I could find). The girl in the article scored the ACT equivalent of 90 points lower. But she's not dramatically underqualified?

logicallee 12y ago
It's an endemic problem - I heard that even at Ivy league schools nearly a quarter of the students are now below the 25th percentile.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  We like to think the Ivies have a narrower range, though. This girl was admitted under UT's explicit policy of admitting unqualified students as long as they come from awful schools. That sort of thing can cause quite a large gap between, say, the 25th percentile student and the modal student. update: for reference: UT Austin 25th-75th percentile SAT math scores: 590 - 710 Cal Tech 25th-75th percentile SAT math scores: 770 - 800 How significant do you think it is that a quarter of Cal Tech students are below the 25th percentile? How far below do you think they range?
  - logicallee 12y ago
    this follow-up is better. But you're asking me to guess! >How significant do you think it is that a quarter of Cal Tech students are below the 25th percentile? How far below do you think they range? I don't know. It would help if your figures didn't cut out at the bottom-quarter mark, i.e. if you gave some figures on the lowest SAT math score (and what about verbal?) admitted to these institutions, or some other indication rather than asking what we 'like to think' about the range or having me guess :) I'm not saying you're wrong, but the way you expressed it, "despite being below the 25th percentile for students at that school" and "It specifically calls them out as being in the bottom quartile" in your original comment is probably not a great way to show your case. Your range comment is much better, but stops short of indicating what the full range is or where this student falls. Basically, I am directly saying that being in the bottom quartile is not itself an indication of sub-standard performance - at any school. Because nearly a quarter of students will be below the bottom quartile - at every school.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      I'm talking in terms of 25th and 75th percentiles because those figures are public. You're more than welcome to provide other numbers if you have a way of getting them. And I provide exact numbers for the girl under discussion. Someone else was nice enough to point out that the ACT average for students at UT Austin is 28 (91st percentile nationwide), and the 25th percentile is 25 (80th). This girl got 22 (62nd). Compared to the average student at her school, that's abysmally low. From memory, the range for verbal scores at caltech was 720-800, and the range at UT Austin was 120 points. The "true top end" at caltech probably isn't that far above 800, since the writing range was 720-790, so UT Austin is displaying much much more variation (120 points compared to 80). In contrast, there's going to be a lot more variation in math ability at caltech than the 30-point math range implies, due to the very low ceiling on the SAT-math. That makes it impossible to say how much variation there really is by looking at SAT scores. On the other other hand, caltech being a technical school, you might suspect that they're targeting math ability, and the range should be narrower than it is for verbal. ;p > Because nearly a quarter of students will be below the bottom quartile - at every school. You could change this to exactly a quarter and you wouldn't be wrong (except in cases like, as we've seen, caltech and other high-end schools, where well over a quarter of the students are in the top 25th percentile by math SAT score). But the sentence preceding it is obviously false. Yes, a quarter of the group will always be in the bottom 25%. Does that mean they're not performing as well as the rest of the group? Of course it does. That's how we measured them. If your top students and your worst students are very close in ability because of restriction in range, you can sensibly put them in the same classes. If, as at UT Austin, they're very far apart, you can't. I went to a large public university myself, and the course catalog was full of classes covering the same material but differentiated by "difficulty". What's wrong with describing the students who can't succeed outside of the bottom tier as "substandard"?