Really Williams? Really?
Similar to Simran’s post yesterday in regards to Midd’s AAL requirement, I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to a post today on Williams’ version of MiddBlog, EphBlog, so eloquently titled: Amherst is Getting Stupider.
I won’t summarize the entire article for you, but author “David” essentially claims that by letting in low-income students, Amherst’s president, Tony Marx, is compromising the “quality of [Amherst's] student body”. Furthermore, he argues that this is not a bad thing, as it will allow all the high scoring, higher-income students, who are therefore rejected, to choose Williams instead. Don’t believe me? Think he’s being sarcastic? Read the end of the post:
I hope that Marx’s successor continues with this policy, that he pushes Amherst to be even more socio-economically diverse, that he rejects even more (rich) students with 1550 SATs (who Williams will accept) while accepting more (poor) students with 1350 SATs (who Williams will reject).
It does not take a genius to figure out where Amherst will be in fifty years if it continues down this road.
This is when I step in and say, “Really Williams? Really?” Besides being incredibly rude, the entire post is based on many flawed assumptions. Such as:
- Low-income students score lower than high-income students on the SAT. We’ve all heard this one before. It’s a pretty commonly accepted fact. However, in the case of students applying to schools such as Williams, Amherst, or Middlebury, I’d say it becomes less of an issue. None of the statistics or charts the author displays show student’s income level. Without that data, you cannot claim that the increase in lower SAT scores is caused by low-income applicants.
- A lower SAT score diminishes your “quality” as a student. Every student is more than just a number. Making such a rash generalization about someone based on a test is just poor taste. My SAT scores weren’t perfect, but thankfully Middlebury took more into account when looking at my application.
Personally, I’d like to applaud Amherst’s president for taking such a bold stance on increasing their socio-economic diversity. In my opinion, it’s one of the greatest things lacking from many of the NESCAC schools. In some cases I think it can play an even greater role than racial or ethnic diversity. And in the end, when we neglect any kind of diversity, every student loses out.
So go ahead David. Be happy that Williams will get more smart, rich kids. You’ll be the one who is more stupid for it in the end.
Note: I realize this is not the opinion of Williams College as a whole, and was written by one singular person on a blog that has no official affiliation to the college itself. In that sense I guess this post should be titled “Really David? Really?”.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments are closed.
I apologize. I simply apologize. We’re working on it over at EphBlog, really we are.
I just want to stress that David is an EXTREME outlier on issues such as these among the Williams community. He gets a LOT of flack (even on the thread you cite) for this and other similar views, and is in no way representative of the Williams alumni body. Please, please, please do not impute his views to the rest of us, most of whom vehemently disagree with him (and agree with your critique). Thanks.
Audrey — I think you make a few good points in this post. I agree that SAT scores are not necessarily good indicators of whether a student is “valuable” to our college community. Also, Dave’s conclusion that Amherst kids are “more stupid” is rude and elitist.
I want to offer a few caveats to your post. First, despite the fact that I think Dave’s post is rude and elitist, I think you’re taking it a bit out of context. It seems as though he wrote the post primarily to respond to a commenter about whether Amherst’s SAT scores have gone down in the past years. And it seems that Dave is making a legitimate factual point: Amherst’s SAT scores have gone down in the past four years. I don’t know anything about Amherst, so I can’t tell if this drop in SAT scores is *caused* by Amherst’s diversity initiative, but it certainly *correlates* with it.
So, as you say, perhaps David goes too far in his conclusion, but it’s worth noting that he’s factually right about the SAT scores.
More importantly, I take issue with your conclusion. You write: “And in the end, when we neglect any kind of diversity, every student loses out.”
Do we really want “any kind of diversity”? In this diverse world, aren’t some people intolerant? Aren’t others simply unable to perform at an institution like Middlebury?
And on twitter you just agreed with Michael who wrote “we need to radically reevaluate how we evaluate intelligence.” You wrote “how we measure intelligence needs to drastically change.”
I’m all for increasing different types of diversity on this campus. I also think we can think about ways to broaden the scope of perspectives that are represented on this campus.
But I don’t think we need to “radically reevaluate” our admissions process.
And if your political views are such that you believe we must “radically reevaluate” things, I think it’s only responsible to acknowledge that if we engage in radical reevaluation or “drastic change,” the academic quality of Middlebury will likely decline.
I take one of your points: SAT scores aren’t the best way of measuring the “value” of a student; this David guy is over the top.
But within the context of Middlebury’s admissions process, which already values SATs much less than peer institutions, how would you propose practically going about this “drastic change” in the way we evaluate prospective students without letting the quality of the academic experience here suffer? It’s legitimate to think we need to “drastically” rethink things. But if you want to enact what I see to be this radical belief I think it’s only responsible to acknowledge that the academic quality of Middlebury will suffer if you get your way.
@George:
It may be merely an issue of semantics (“semantics, bro”), but I still think it’s an important distinction to make: what exactly constitutes “academic quality”? If we’re talking merely in terms of GPA and SAT scores, then I suppose my argument is moot; in that regard, you may be right that “if we engage in radical reevaluation or ‘drastic change,’ the academic quality of Middlebury will likely decline.” But I nonetheless suggest a re-evaluation, and not necessarily reform.
My point, which wasn’t eloquent in its tweeted brevity, is that our conception of so-called “academic quality” is in part a cultural conditioning. I was fortunate enough to attend an international American school in Hong Kong, and be trained to read, write, and analyze in a particular way. But some aren’t (or some refuse to be), and within those spaces we need to generate alternative indicators of “academic quality” to identify potential students. I don’t even think it’s that “radical” a suggestion, really. If you’re looking for “ways to broaden the scope of perspectives that are represented on this campus,” this is absolutely one way. To be sure, this is already done to some degree – the optional video and portfolio submissions on the application are steps in that direction – I’d like to see more of this kind of holistic rubric for judging talent and intelligence.
Moreover, Middlebury’s teaching staff has been, in my experience, the best at training its students to operate within a traditional academic framework, but also increasingly open to new pedagogies and critical approaches (I created a “video essay” for Jason Mittell’s course on The Wire, for instance). I don’t think we should worry about maintaining our academic rigor: I’m confident it’s here to stay. And even if we were to suffer a drop in average SAT scores for this, so be it. I would rather school be a boot camp than a beauty pageant.
I do recognize that I’m speaking in abstracts, and that this issue is far more complex than one blog comment will permit me to fully explore. I appreciate that liberal arts colleges like Middlebury, Williams, and Amherst emphasize a wonderfully well-rounded education. Middlebury is also particularly respectable in its thriving relationship with United World Colleges, which have provided students with the sort of rigorous academic training that would otherwise could be unavailable to them; those students constitute a substantial portion of the international demographic. I suppose, for me, I see this as more of an general issue that applies to the institution of education as opposed to Middlebury itself: how public education has failed in certain regions; how some schools cut their arts programs as a result of funding problems; how these delineations are often divided by race and socioeconomic status. Perhaps it’s not Middlebury’s place to wade deeper into a troubled system, and perhaps the best we can do is choose from the lot we are given. But it’s certainly a interconnected web of problems, and that makes it hard to identify where to start.
To the Ephs: I realize that this writer is just one of the many opinions in the Williams community and not a representative of the campus as a whole (which is why I made a note of that at the end of my post). And one can certainly see from the comments on his post that most disagree with him. I also respect his right to post his opinion on the issue; I just take offense to his tone.
To George:
1. My comment on diversity was more generally in reference to forms of diversity such as geographic, socio-economic, ethnic, political, ability, etc. Certainly at an institution like Middlebury (or Williams or Amherst), a diverse range of intelligence would not work. You’re right when you say some students would not be able to perform at schools like this.
2. To clarify, I agreed with Michael on the issue of changing how we evaluate intelligence, not the admissions process. I think Midd currently does a fantastic job of admitting a dynamic group of students each year.
I do believe certain standards of intelligence are necessary. However, the sheer fact that the EphBlog post only considered SAT scores reflects a common public opinion that this test is still the best indicator of intelligence when looking at college applicants. It might not be as true at Middlebury, but think about America today. An entire culture has arisen from the SAT. You have the PSAT, SAT Prep classes, SAT 2, etc. And I’m not arguing for its immediate abolishment, but rather a continuation of the current trend we’re seeing where it is considered one of many factors when looking at a college applicant.
Also George, to address your first point, yes David did make his point that Amherst’s SAT scores have gone down in the past four years. However, I would argue that there is not nearly enough evidence to back this up. What about trends in national SAT scores? Or at least other NESCAC admissions? What about the three years in between the charts he shows? Even if more analysis proved the conclusion here true, the data as it stands now is undeniably skewed. Plus every intro to statistics student knows that correlation does not lead to causation, which in my opinion, undermines everything he says in the post.
David’s argument is so completely flawed (both socially and mathematically), I can’t believe he had the nerve to write it, let alone publish it. People writing such drivel is why “privilege” in any form gets a bad rap.
While I recognize the wealth of some of his Midd classmates (which could serve to define him as a pauper by comparison despite being a full pay), I would never have agreed to pay the money I do for my kid’s education if there was any hint in the mission of the college or a goal of its alumni that intended to keep him insulated from the diversity in this world.
Ephblog David should keep this in mind: there is a very real risk that his words serve to alienate just as many potential full-payers as he thinks he is attracting with his BS. And frankly, I’d rather my kid hang with the crowd that doesn’t believe they’re better than every one else, let alone a willingness to put it in print and defend it with zealousness.
Assuming the rich are smarter because of higher SAT scores is categorically a.b.s.u.r.d, and elitist.
A college education is supposed to open one’s eyes, enlighten and expand horizons. How is it that Ephblog’s David seems to have missed this lesson, especially as an alumni of such a respected school? Frankly, it doesn’t say much about his education in the least. Fortunately, however, it doesn’t seem he has many agreeing with him.
I would however love to see the test scores broken down by recruited athletes, socioeconomic and racial demographics, as well as legacies. Sure, there’d be some crossover, but I bet there are (at least) a few low SAT scorers out there in the NESCAC (and the Ivies) who also have their family names chiseled into the buildings across their campuses. Perhaps David is one of them?
Great post Audrey. Alas, this is one the sadder realities of the self-proclaimed “Little Ivies”: the more these schools improve academically, the more “elitist” they feel. Every once in a while you’ll get someone like David who actually think that there is a direct correlation between SAT scores and intellectual superiority.
What we really need to worry about is the cultural divide between socioeconomically diverse students. Whether it exists or not is open to debate. But what David fails to realize is that Williams’ reputation, along with its campus environment, would suffer immensely if it only admitted students who got nearly perfect scores on their SATs. Everyone at Williams might very well take up David’s ultra-privileged rhetoric.
A person’s character, along with the institutional/personal challenges that she/he has overcome in life, are important factors in the admissions process. Admissions counselors understand this, just as they understand that the SAT measures material wealth and social privilege just as much as it measures academic competency. For these reasons, a person’s SAT score doesn’t tell the full story.
Just to be pedantic for a moment – it’s nicely ironic that the student gripes about letting in “subpar” students using improper grammar: “who Williams will accept/reject” should be “whom.”