Despite the fact that the SAT and ACT are much weaker for their alleged purpose of predicting college success than, say, high school grades, and despite the fact that boys score higher than girls (even though girls graduate at higher rates than boys), and despite the fact that the SAT and ACT are only remotely linked to high school curriculums, and despite the fact that those who can afford $400 per hour test coaching do much better those who cannot, and despite the fact that the greatest predictor of SAT and ACT scores is family income, and despite the fact that
a study headed up by William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at Harvard University, recently concluded that “that [SAT and ACT] test scores appear to calcify differences based on class, race/ethnicity and parental educational attainment,” depsite all this and despite a live presentation of findings by Fitzsimmons, himself, at a national gathering of admissions officers, only one admissions chief of the thousand who attended the presentation said that his school would consider altering current SAT requirements to make them optional.
Congratulations, Earlham College, for your bravery in stepping forward to consider challenging the racism and classism that undergirds the college admissions process and the ratings system devised by the mass media.
SAT Scores 2002 from the College Board
Family Income Verbal/Math Scores
Less than $10,000/year-----417/442$10,000 - $20,000/year-----435/453$20,000 - $30,000/year-----461/470$30,000 - $40,000/year-----480/485$40,000 - $50,000/year-----496/501$50,000 - $60,000/year-----505/509$60,000 - $70,000/year-----511/516$70,000 - $80,000/year-----517/524$80,000 - $100,000/year----530/538More than $100,000/year---555/568
I'm curious as to where the stats come from. Not that I doubt them, but I would like to reference them myself.
ReplyDelete