Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘SAT’

Oct 15

Dean of Admissions Bob Clagett on the SAT

SAT guides abound

Dean of Admissions Bob Clagett’s post today on the New York Times‘ “The Choice” blog adds some useful perspective to our discussion last week of SAT scores and educational evaluation.  From the blog:

Too many prospective applicants obsess far too much about the role of their SAT or ACT scores in the admissions process. In fact, those scores are seldom a deal maker or breaker.

…Test scores fundamentally provide colleges with the roughest possible measure of your potential for academic success in college, and their predictive value usually declines over time. But they don’t tell us much about your intellectual “fire in the belly,” and that’s what our faculties want in their classrooms. That’s why your high school grades, and the rigor of the academic program in which they are achieved, are a much better long-term predictor of your potential for academic success.

As I’ve said before, I’m very happy to have chosen a college that has an admissions process guided by this approach.  Feel free to comment if you disagree or have more information to contribute to this discussion.

Oct 6

10 Comments

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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?”.

%d bloggers like this: