TU #195 US News 2024 rankings.
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Now that we are once more discussing music, are we going to get into Taylor Swift again? Cuz I'd much rather discuss Lady Gaga if we are going to talk about big name stars that deserve their accolades.
LOL, I don't need another self-inflicted concussion. i did read that LG has bleached blond eyebrows and hair which seems like a bold statement.
Oh that one, I thought you were referring to some out of left field song called Grifter Elements or something. Yeah good song.
Last edited:
I lost interest in what a music artist did with their hair in my 20's, unless it affected my loins. That's a baser instinct though.
LOL I got tix to the Moody Blues when I was maybe a junior in HS. Thought I was the only weirdo.
@drboobay What do you think about the new adaptive design for the SAT? This was just becoming a thing when I was in grad school as computers were just getting the processing capacity to handle it. The psychometrics group thought it was the new sliced bread. Don't know how it's worked out.
https://blog.collegeboard.org/what-digital-sat-adaptive-testing
https://blog.collegeboard.org/what-digital-sat-adaptive-testing
Computer adaptive testing is sound theoretically and has decades of use now in education and credentialing. There is really no disadvantage to using CAT if you have lots of data to calibrate test items, large item banks, and ready access to computers. It can make the testing experience shorter, and it also helps with content security (though there are other item-banking strategies that can be used for that purpose too).
Spoken like a true Hoganite! "Getting along and getting ahead."As you know with your psychology background, we're evolutionarily designed to create in groups and out groups and to think our group is better than the out groups. Who occupies the out group may change but discriminating based on some out group feature won't go away. You might as well try to convince people not to procreate or eat. The best we can do is protect the out groups but the law is clearly moving away from that (though it has accidentally made it easier for now, which will change). We had a nanny from Bulgaria and she absolutely hated gypsies. I didn't even know gypsies were a thing anymore. It's always going to be someone.
Used to be that I equated Democrats to the "getting along" party and Republicans to the "getting ahead" party. But it's a big mish mash of crap now.
I've always been a firm believer that a functioning society needs motives for both of these things. Communism killed the "getting ahead" motive. The industrial era showed us that unbridled greed deters "getting along" and harmony in society. So we are in an endless game of trying to maintain the right balance. That's my "Independent" political philosophy actually.
SIAP. Brown requiring SAT now. Saying it’s part of a “admissions in context” policy. Cites to examples of under represented persons choosing not to apply until told that taking the exam would increase their chances of admission.
There was an interesting article on this in the Atlantic, tho it basically just said what's been in this post. Disadvantaged students are hurt by the "straight" normed SAT/ACT, they are helped by the re-normed (aka "in context") SAT/ACT, and in any case, they are more disadvantaged by admissions factors other than the SAT/ACT, which are even more skewed in favor of rich kids than standardized tests (e.g., AP classes, job opportunities, etc.).
The one really interesting thing is how much process hurts disadvantaged kids. The harder it is to apply, the less likely they are to do it.
LOL, I'm not sure. I'm in favor of the outcome that schools are achieving with the re-normed "in context" SAT/ACT scores but I think test mandatory is not a good way to do it. I understand that some schools see it as the least worse way available but it would be better if they could accomplish it some other way. In any event, unless our boy below gets off his a$$ and gets really busy, I think it's only a matter of time until re-normed "in context" scores are declared to be unconstitutional. I'm afraid schools will have backed themselves into a corner at that point and will have to start using nationally normed scores, which will definitely hurt efforts to bring non-rich kids into colleges. Is that complete agreement?
I think people grossly underestimate the use of test scores as a labor saving device. The system you describe as optimal would require large numbers of seasonal employees paid yearly salary and benefits as well as internal auditing people and processes to resolve differences in outcomes amongst different decision makers.
For the most part, yesLOL, I'm not sure. I'm in favor of the outcome that schools are achieving with the re-normed "in context" SAT/ACT scores but I think test mandatory is not a good way to do it. I understand that some schools see it as the least worse way available but it would be better if they could accomplish it some other way. In any event, unless our boy below gets off his a$$ and gets really busy, I think it's only a matter of time until re-normed "in context" scores are declared to be unconstitutional. I'm afraid schools will have backed themselves into a corner at that point and will have to start using nationally normed scores, which will definitely hurt efforts to bring non-rich kids into colleges. Is that complete agreement?
Well the two of you can sing Kumbaya while I scowl from across the room.
Don't most schools currently say that a live human reviews all files? The large public schools that I toured with my son said that and they have many, many thousands of applications.
In any event, if this is a problem today, it certainly won't be for long. AI can "read" the files and make a much more accurate initial decision to "review in more depth" / "reject" decision than just setting a test score floor. I guess I'm not convinced by the "we have to get test scores to make up for the fact that we're technologically incompetent" argument.
I am definitely test mandatory. I would even mandate new kinds of testing.
I am a true believer in the value of my profession. It is my passion and not just a job!
I think assessment is like making a more accurate gun. Is it better to have a more accurate gun? Depends on who's doing the shooting and what they're hunting...
(maybe) the final message from me - valid measurement is not the whole story in college admissions but it is an essential element. If you want to understand individual differences in students there is nothing better available for purpose based on known evidence.
Applying to schools is easier than ever with the common app and some other solutions that are similar. And the price to apply is more expensive than when we went through school but almost every school will waive the application fee if you ask and show a demonstrated need. The hardest part of applying now is writing all the damn essays and doing them well.
And yet the % of kids applying to college, especially boys, continues to fall. At a time when having a college degree has a stronger association with all kinds of positive life outcomes than ever before. I agree that if you are a kid who is pushed to apply to college (either by your own motivation or by your social support system) then it's pretty easy. But for many, many kids, the social support system holds them back from applying rather than encouraging them. Only like 41% of boys apply to college now. I saw there was a program in Michigan, which has mandatory SAT/ACT for all HS students. The university of Michigan reached out to kids with good scores at disadvantaged schools and encouraged them to apply and told them about financing options. A number applied and were admitted. Something like 25% said they would not have applied to college at all if the university hadn't reached out to them. We really should do everything we can not to further discourage kids from applying.
Union pays for all of its students to take the ACT at least once...and even sets a day aside for juniors to take the exam. They give the rest of the kids in the HS a virtual day that day so there aren't any unnecessary distractions. I'm pretty sure I had to fork over $40 to take the SAT back in the day.
Again, Union has a goal of 100% college/career placement upon graduation. I will have to pay more attention to when the board report comes out about how close they are to that. They understand that not all kids have an ambition to go to college, so I get all these notices about who will be at the high school recruiting not only be colleges and universities, but there are a lot of tech and mechanical companies coming to recruit kids too. One of the big HVAC companies is coming this week. And I think high schools today do a much better job of helping kids understand what is out there and how to utilize their interests and talents to find a field or degree to pursue. I honestly wish my high school had some of that understanding.
I don't think rich suburban schools with their middle class and upper class professional parents are the problem...
Union has money, yes, and a lot of it is supported through it's location near Woodland Hills and the 71st St retail corridor, but calling it a rich suburban school is a little off. Take a closer look at Union's boundaries and the demographics. Roughly half of the students are on free or reduced lunch programs. And it is closer to a city school now than suburban.
You are arguing, but you are in agreement. The present system provides incentives for some disadvantaged students and not others. You are both pointing to incentive examples that net results on particular line items but not necessarily leading to the end objective -- more kids in college who can succeed at college.
Not everyone at Union lives in a mansion. But still, the school district has an incentive to capture as many high performing graduates as possible. If not, their performance will compare unfavorably to other ISDs and property values will drop over time. Which will reduce the UPS bottom line. So they want every kid to go.
In the case of Michigan, they have legislative actors and other stakeholders on both sides of the aisle placing immense pressure on their minority enrollment efforts. They have to find every local kid they can to fill seats to keep that budget line item where they want it. Otherwise, the budget will be reduced for lack of performance and the seats in classrooms will be filled by middle class kids who may not be as talented.
The children referenced in the Michigan example see an incentive to apply to Michigan, but due to self esteem and social factors, didn't believe that was an achievable goal. But it also says a lot about the perception of those students and what they think of local community college and regional school alternatives. Amongst the cohort of kids who would not have applied at all to Michigan and got in, there is likely a significant non-zero number of kids who did not apply to any other college and would not have applied to Michigan but for this program. Often times those kids are intelligent but underprepared by the school and their home life. They fail to reach graduation in alarming numbers. The story here isnt what a great program that Michigan has, the story is why were the students incentivized to attend a flagship program, but not interested in a program that matched their preparation level. And once at Michigan, how many succeeded versus failed? How many of them didn't finish at any school at all? Of that number, how many would have had a better chance to finish elsewhere?
No matter how well intentioned, programs like Michigan's can hurt as many as they help. The Legislature should be pooling resources there and making recommendations holistically to select children. You can tell them you can apply to Michigan and will likely get in, but they need to be told what Michigan isnt telling them, and that is they might be more likely to succeed at a local school where they can live at home. Or a regional school. Or HBCU if they are interested in that experience. Not every kid needs or will listen to a guidance counselor. For the cultural reasons the SAT is biased, so is the day to day experience at most colleges like Michigan. Kids may not culturally fit and may fail out quickly. They should be told that up front instead of being offered what might be the false dream of an elite education.
Programs like the Michigan one only highlight the lack of efficacy of guidance counselors at under performing schools. The State should fund alternatives to bolster those programs in an effort to see if an alternative voice leads to better outcomes. Because, I'd be willing to bet two things: The 5 year graduation rate of the students we are talking about is 30 to 40 points below the school average. And the school doesn't want to create that report because they know they didn't do the job to retain the students they attracted. All of those kids deserve a chance. But spending $200,000 or more per child to remediate their deficient high school education is a separate matter that should be addressed when discussing the press release you describe. Like sending all of that money to community colleges and regional universities so the value of the education of all the students there goes up, rather than a few kids getting "saved" at the flagship.
Not everyone at Union lives in a mansion. But still, the school district has an incentive to capture as many high performing graduates as possible. If not, their performance will compare unfavorably to other ISDs and property values will drop over time. Which will reduce the UPS bottom line. So they want every kid to go.
In the case of Michigan, they have legislative actors and other stakeholders on both sides of the aisle placing immense pressure on their minority enrollment efforts. They have to find every local kid they can to fill seats to keep that budget line item where they want it. Otherwise, the budget will be reduced for lack of performance and the seats in classrooms will be filled by middle class kids who may not be as talented.
The children referenced in the Michigan example see an incentive to apply to Michigan, but due to self esteem and social factors, didn't believe that was an achievable goal. But it also says a lot about the perception of those students and what they think of local community college and regional school alternatives. Amongst the cohort of kids who would not have applied at all to Michigan and got in, there is likely a significant non-zero number of kids who did not apply to any other college and would not have applied to Michigan but for this program. Often times those kids are intelligent but underprepared by the school and their home life. They fail to reach graduation in alarming numbers. The story here isnt what a great program that Michigan has, the story is why were the students incentivized to attend a flagship program, but not interested in a program that matched their preparation level. And once at Michigan, how many succeeded versus failed? How many of them didn't finish at any school at all? Of that number, how many would have had a better chance to finish elsewhere?
No matter how well intentioned, programs like Michigan's can hurt as many as they help. The Legislature should be pooling resources there and making recommendations holistically to select children. You can tell them you can apply to Michigan and will likely get in, but they need to be told what Michigan isnt telling them, and that is they might be more likely to succeed at a local school where they can live at home. Or a regional school. Or HBCU if they are interested in that experience. Not every kid needs or will listen to a guidance counselor. For the cultural reasons the SAT is biased, so is the day to day experience at most colleges like Michigan. Kids may not culturally fit and may fail out quickly. They should be told that up front instead of being offered what might be the false dream of an elite education.
Programs like the Michigan one only highlight the lack of efficacy of guidance counselors at under performing schools. The State should fund alternatives to bolster those programs in an effort to see if an alternative voice leads to better outcomes. Because, I'd be willing to bet two things: The 5 year graduation rate of the students we are talking about is 30 to 40 points below the school average. And the school doesn't want to create that report because they know they didn't do the job to retain the students they attracted. All of those kids deserve a chance. But spending $200,000 or more per child to remediate their deficient high school education is a separate matter that should be addressed when discussing the press release you describe. Like sending all of that money to community colleges and regional universities so the value of the education of all the students there goes up, rather than a few kids getting "saved" at the flagship.
Last edited:
My point is that we strongly need to find ways to encourage more kids to go to college, and we should avoid unnecessary requirements that result in kids not applying. Mandatory test scores (although the data are not unanimous) make it less likely that some kids will apply and that's a bad thing. But in the renormed basis, for some schools, test mandatory might have benefits that offset this disadvantage - it's a best of the worst solution. But we should look for better.
U Michigan is test optional, btw. They have explicitly stated that they accomplish the same thing that Yale/Dartmouth use the tests for (setting floors) without tests.
On the political point, that program has been terminated in MI, replaced with one that is much less effective apparently. I don't recall if the program discussed the % of those kids who graduated from college.
The Michigan kids said they would not have applied to any college if not for the outreach. That seems very unlikely to be a self esteem issue. I think you vastly underestimate the social forces pushing kids away from college. I have a friend whose community said girls don't go to college, you can't go to college, we did fine without college you don't need to go. Teachers laughed at her for saying she would go to college (she's a lawyer now, btw). I agree that bad schools usually have bad guidance counselors but the social forces pushing kids away from college are much more than that and we need not to make it harder for them.
You have a laundry list of reasons that kids don't apply and we all know them, the question is, how do we address them, and how do we not make them worse. Your logic seems to be "there are 10 reasons that kids don't apply to school so it doesn't matter if we add #11", which strikes me as defeatist and unproductive. It's a stereotypical "can don't" attitude. We can't solve these other things so just don't worry about making it worse.
Last edited:
Not yet. He is still awaiting decisions on many schools. MIT decisions come out Thursday at 5:28PM CST ( for MIT it's Pi Day at Tau Time (6:28). Even the admissions people are giant math nerds
I think he will hear from Stanford this week as well, and maybe Carnegie Mellon. He thinks the Ivys he's applied to, Ga Tech, and Duke will be closer to the end of the month.Some updates: My son did not get into CalTech (he didn't think he would), waitlisted at MIT, Carnegie Mellon and Georgia Tech (weird), and is accepted to Tufts. He should hear from Stanford, the Ivys, and Duke this week.
I say the waitlist part of Georgia Tech was weird because a classmate of his was accepted (they have virtually identical academic resumes and he has more AP 5s, and they have participated in similar amounts of extra curriculars and community service). Only thing we can think of on that one is the college he applied to (Engineering) and major were high demand and he didn't fit a demographic they wanted/needed more of at this time. Statistically, it's harder to get accepted to the Illinois and Michigan engineering schools as an out of state student than it is to get accepted at Georgia Tech.
I say the waitlist part of Georgia Tech was weird because a classmate of his was accepted (they have virtually identical academic resumes and he has more AP 5s, and they have participated in similar amounts of extra curriculars and community service). Only thing we can think of on that one is the college he applied to (Engineering) and major were high demand and he didn't fit a demographic they wanted/needed more of at this time. Statistically, it's harder to get accepted to the Illinois and Michigan engineering schools as an out of state student than it is to get accepted at Georgia Tech.
That's why you're a can't do guy who only focuses on inside the box approaches. You see a problem and immediately issue spot all the reasons it can't be solved and flood any possible solution with "reality" that means the only adequate solutions are ones that people have been doing forever. That's why you and I are oil and water. I work with tech startups. No tech startup would ever even start if they had you on their team.
Guys like you are important, they contribute a lot of value to low or moderate growth companies where upside is limited and success is defined by avoiding downside, which is a lot of enterprises in the world. But please, leave the problem solving to people who are better suited to it.
Thought this was interesting. And might explain some of the anomalies you noticed.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/inside-the-craziest-college-admissions-season-ever.html
I saw that article last week but thanks for sharing again. I mean MIT gets 65000 applications annually and accepts about 1000 and waitlists about another 200 for their "yield rate". So an acceptance rate of about 1.5%. When you think about it, you've got 65000 uber smart kids who all probably have 4.00 GPAs and several 5's on AP exams in classes that count, oh and they're likely 35-36 on ACT (or 1350-1400 on SAT or whatever their new corresponding scale is), you're trying to pick out 1000 Nemos with the special fin out of a school of 65000 clown fish. It's a daunting task I'm sure. My son took the MIT news better than I did....I was disappointed for him.
And he knows stuff now that he wishes he knew 3 years ago. The stuff about doing research or, and this one seems to be a big deal for the Ivys and MIT/CalTech types, starting your own business or non-profit in HS, even if it's mowing lawns, tends to move the needle at those places.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
🏀 Recruiting TU Basketball Offers -- Class of 2023, 2024 and beyond- Latest: Bill Lowery
-
-
-
-
