The Ivy-Plus is well worth studying, but it has a separate problem: Maxing out on test scores and grades. When, hypothetically, all your applicants are 97th-99th percentile, the info is not as useful as 70th-80th percentile like for a worse school. So you need to use other things. I saw that problem in economics PhD applications from China, and it is a problem for PhD applications generally. A special test designed for people in the SAT 95th percentile plus (instead of the 50th percentile) is needed. Someone could make money creating and running it (an Ivy-plus consortium could do it).
So if I understand from a quick reading, bringing back some form of standardized testing for admission would help the students at the lower-middle end of the admissions spectrum, but “punish” those now at the higher end? That begs the question of whether the Ivy’s really want this. Much to be had from wealthy students and their families in this league—regardless of their current virtue signaling.
Can we get a Cremieux reading list? I am specifically interested in what you recommend in terms of technical material like structural equation modeling, measurement invariance, econometrics, etc--the highly involved statistics that is your calling card.
For another post: You show via the footnoted link that retesting is not very important for the rich/poor divide. Can you write on whether superscoring is a good idea? One thing it does is make a lot of money for the testing agencies (how much of their income?). But it helps by regressing to the mean-- unlucky first-takers can get a more accurate measure by taking it twice. How helpful is it? That depends on the variance in retested scores, which is hard to measure because of the learning effect, but I bet it can be done. For example, between test 5 and test 6, there wouldn't be much learning.
I'm interested in the idea of "timed writing". Could you give us more details about it? Why you are trying it? What are your initial feelings about the experience? What specific editor are you using?
"One potential reason for this is that educated parents recognize the competitiveness of modern admissions, so they send their kids to schools that hand out higher grades or they broker with schools and teachers to make sure higher grades happen."
How do you know the improvement in grades is due to grade inflation, and not to those same parents pushing their children to work harder, helping them with homework, and getting them tutoring if they are behind in any subject? It's a natural response to the competitiveness of modern admissions, and unlike IQ test scores, it's very doable for most kids to improve their grades.
At my institution and others, yes tuition “milking” is rampant and the standards of admission declining. They make no bones about expanding *total* enrollment. But the Ivy’s? If they expand enrollment at the lower levels of student family prestige and wealth, does that come at the expense of their wealthy, elite, clientele? I’m not privy to insider info there.
One of the biggest threats to quality education in the United States is the destruction of meritorious colleges and even high schools in the name of equity, as is the case currently at the Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia and recently in Chicago, where a decision to eliminate the city’s 11 selective public high schools was made.
The Ivy-Plus is well worth studying, but it has a separate problem: Maxing out on test scores and grades. When, hypothetically, all your applicants are 97th-99th percentile, the info is not as useful as 70th-80th percentile like for a worse school. So you need to use other things. I saw that problem in economics PhD applications from China, and it is a problem for PhD applications generally. A special test designed for people in the SAT 95th percentile plus (instead of the 50th percentile) is needed. Someone could make money creating and running it (an Ivy-plus consortium could do it).
So if I understand from a quick reading, bringing back some form of standardized testing for admission would help the students at the lower-middle end of the admissions spectrum, but “punish” those now at the higher end? That begs the question of whether the Ivy’s really want this. Much to be had from wealthy students and their families in this league—regardless of their current virtue signaling.
If you wrote this in less than an hour you're a machine. AGI has arrived.
Can we get a Cremieux reading list? I am specifically interested in what you recommend in terms of technical material like structural equation modeling, measurement invariance, econometrics, etc--the highly involved statistics that is your calling card.
For another post: You show via the footnoted link that retesting is not very important for the rich/poor divide. Can you write on whether superscoring is a good idea? One thing it does is make a lot of money for the testing agencies (how much of their income?). But it helps by regressing to the mean-- unlucky first-takers can get a more accurate measure by taking it twice. How helpful is it? That depends on the variance in retested scores, which is hard to measure because of the learning effect, but I bet it can be done. For example, between test 5 and test 6, there wouldn't be much learning.
How is it possible to have a 4.0 GPA and a low class rank, if 4.0 is the highest possible GPA, which is what determines class rank?
I'm interested in the idea of "timed writing". Could you give us more details about it? Why you are trying it? What are your initial feelings about the experience? What specific editor are you using?
Thanks a lot!
"One potential reason for this is that educated parents recognize the competitiveness of modern admissions, so they send their kids to schools that hand out higher grades or they broker with schools and teachers to make sure higher grades happen."
How do you know the improvement in grades is due to grade inflation, and not to those same parents pushing their children to work harder, helping them with homework, and getting them tutoring if they are behind in any subject? It's a natural response to the competitiveness of modern admissions, and unlike IQ test scores, it's very doable for most kids to improve their grades.
At my institution and others, yes tuition “milking” is rampant and the standards of admission declining. They make no bones about expanding *total* enrollment. But the Ivy’s? If they expand enrollment at the lower levels of student family prestige and wealth, does that come at the expense of their wealthy, elite, clientele? I’m not privy to insider info there.
One of the biggest threats to quality education in the United States is the destruction of meritorious colleges and even high schools in the name of equity, as is the case currently at the Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia and recently in Chicago, where a decision to eliminate the city’s 11 selective public high schools was made.
Is data on AP tests available? They measure real knowledge. Combining them with a pure IQ test for applications would be a good idea.