FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Mr.MIAC]

The times they are a changing'.......
WCCO TV just ran a story the incoming Freshmen 2021 "First Year" will have the option of submitting ACT/SAT scores with their admission application. Now, that's pretty bold for the "Boston College" of Minnesota........

You might not be aware, but many top universities in the U.S. (including the University of Chicago) have adopted these policies within the past few years.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/g2FGRVRzXZM

Pay 💰 to play.

You guys do realize that this will increase UST's selectivity, right?

[OzJohnnie]

You guys do realize that this will increase UST's selectivity, right?

Selectivity = accepted / applications, correct?

So selectivity will be increased either because more apply or fewer are admitted.  As UST has made it easier to apply and they are unlikely to be admitting fewer people, they are more selective because worse applicants have given it a go with the lax standards.  I say worse applicants make the difference because better applicants could already effectively apply so easier admissions won't make them more likely to send in the paperwork.  Previously unacceptable students have to make the difference in any increase in applications.

In the Strib UST declares the purpose is to let in students who are bad test takers (an odd objective at a learning institution it seems to me).  They even go so far as describing people with good test results as merely good at "filling in bubbles on a Saturday morning."  So much for the essay and long answer components of those assessments, I guess.  UST dumbs them down to a childrens' game of colouring inside the lines.  If accurate, then by design UST will have a lesser student body while simultaneously being more selective.  Congrats on threading that needle.

http://www.startribune.com/university-of-st-thomas-goes-test-optional/568094252/

[Mr.MIAC]

You guys do realize that this will increase UST's selectivity, right?

Selectivity = accepted / applications, correct?

So selectivity will be increased either because more apply or fewer are admitted.  As UST has made it easier to apply and they are unlikely to be admitting fewer people, they are more selective because worse applicants have given it a go with the lax standards.  I say worse applicants make the difference because better applicants could already effectively apply so easier admissions won't make them more likely to send in the paperwork.  Previously unacceptable students have to make the difference in any increase in applications.

In the Strib UST declares the purpose is to let in students who are bad test takers (an odd objective at a learning institution it seems to me).  They even go so far as describing people with good test results as merely good at "filling in bubbles on a Saturday morning."  So much for the essay and long answer components of those assessments, I guess.  UST dumbs them down to a childrens' game of colouring inside the lines.  If accurate, then by design UST will have a lesser student body while simultaneously being more selective.  Congrats on threading that needle.

http://www.startribune.com/university-of-st-thomas-goes-test-optional/568094252/

Yep. UST will attract far more regional applicants by doing away with the SAT/ACT requirement. Note that the announcement on this policy change says nothing about whether many of these new applicants will be accepted. UST is also rolling out a national recruiting campaign that will dramatically increase the number of applicants from outside the region. The campaign will highlight UST academics and its soon-to-be DI athletic program. A large endowment is being raised for scholarships. The endowment will help UST recruit students with high academic qualifications. Also, more folks will apply because of the scholarships. The number of undergraduate places will remain at current levels or decrease slight over the coming years. More applicants + higher academic qualifications + the same number/slightly fewer places = greater selectivity.

[sjusection105]

You guys do realize that this will increase UST's selectivity, right?

Selectivity = accepted / applications, correct?

So selectivity will be increased either because more apply or fewer are admitted.  As UST has made it easier to apply and they are unlikely to be admitting fewer people, they are more selective because worse applicants have given it a go with the lax standards.  I say worse applicants make the difference because better applicants could already effectively apply so easier admissions won't make them more likely to send in the paperwork.  Previously unacceptable students have to make the difference in any increase in applications.

In the Strib UST declares the purpose is to let in students who are bad test takers (an odd objective at a learning institution it seems to me).  They even go so far as describing people with good test results as merely good at "filling in bubbles on a Saturday morning."  So much for the essay and long answer components of those assessments, I guess.  UST dumbs them down to a childrens' game of colouring inside the lines.  If accurate, then by design UST will have a lesser student body while simultaneously being more selective.  Congrats on threading that needle.

http://www.startribune.com/university-of-st-thomas-goes-test-optional/568094252/

Yep. UST will attract far more regional applicants by doing away with the SAT/ACT requirement. Note that the announcement on this policy change says nothing about whether many of these new applicants will be accepted. UST is also rolling out a national recruiting campaign that will dramatically increase the number of applicants from outside the region. The campaign will highlight UST academics and its soon-to-be DI athletic program. A large endowment is being raised for scholarships. The endowment will help UST recruit students with high academic qualifications. Also, more folks will apply because of the scholarships. The number of undergraduate places will remain at current levels or decrease slight over the coming years. More applicants + higher academic qualifications + the same number/slightly fewer places = greater selectivity.

I'm confused....isn't this just code for discrimination? Hopefully this discrimination will be aimed at certain Lake Conference schools who really bring nothing, other than excellent party skills, to the table.

[Mr.MIAC]

You guys do realize that this will increase UST's selectivity, right?

Selectivity = accepted / applications, correct?

So selectivity will be increased either because more apply or fewer are admitted.  As UST has made it easier to apply and they are unlikely to be admitting fewer people, they are more selective because worse applicants have given it a go with the lax standards.  I say worse applicants make the difference because better applicants could already effectively apply so easier admissions won't make them more likely to send in the paperwork.  Previously unacceptable students have to make the difference in any increase in applications.

In the Strib UST declares the purpose is to let in students who are bad test takers (an odd objective at a learning institution it seems to me).  They even go so far as describing people with good test results as merely good at "filling in bubbles on a Saturday morning."  So much for the essay and long answer components of those assessments, I guess.  UST dumbs them down to a childrens' game of colouring inside the lines.  If accurate, then by design UST will have a lesser student body while simultaneously being more selective.  Congrats on threading that needle.

http://www.startribune.com/university-of-st-thomas-goes-test-optional/568094252/

Yep. UST will attract far more regional applicants by doing away with the SAT/ACT requirement. Note that the announcement on this policy change says nothing about whether many of these new applicants will be accepted. UST is also rolling out a national recruiting campaign that will dramatically increase the number of applicants from outside the region. The campaign will highlight UST academics and its soon-to-be DI athletic program. A large endowment is being raised for scholarships. The endowment will help UST recruit students with high academic qualifications. Also, more folks will apply because of the scholarships. The number of undergraduate places will remain at current levels or decrease slight over the coming years. More applicants + higher academic qualifications + the same number/slightly fewer places = greater selectivity.

I'm confused....isn't this just code for discrimination? Hopefully this discrimination will be aimed at certain Lake Conference schools who really bring nothing, other than excellent party skills, to the table.

Sure. Selectivity is inherently discriminatory. UST is recruiting academically potent applicants with diverse backgrounds. At certain Lake Conference schools, it's likely that applicants outside the top 25% of their graduating class will have a hard time getting accepted at UST in the future. However, part of the reason UST established The Dougherty Family College is to provide applicants who fail to gain admittance an option to join the UST community and transfer to the four-year undergraduate program if everything goes well after two years. UST doesn't really talk about this too much, but the credentials of students who transfer from Dougherty to UST proper aren't factored into the national rankings on selectivity. It's a win-win for UST because the enrollment numbers remain high, the student body becomes more academically capable and diverse, and selectivity increases.

[OzJohnnie]

Making it easier to get is not consistent with more selective no matter how it's spun.

[Mr.MIAC]

Making it easier to get is not consistent with more selective no matter how it's spun.

Do you think UST is making it easier to get in?

[sjusection105]

Making it easier to get is not consistent with more selective no matter how it's spun.

Do you think UST is making it easier to get in?

I think you answered your own question here:"However, part of the reason UST established The Dougherty Family College is to provide applicants who fail to gain admittance an option to join the UST community and transfer to the four-year undergraduate program if everything goes well after two years."
I have known the Dougherty family for 25 years through business and they are extremely generous through a variety of philanthropic endeavors. The transfer protocol from DFC to UST has not played out yet but isn't it reasonable to believe there will be more applicants accepted from DFC than other two year schools or high schools in general?

[OzJohnnie]

Making it easier to get is not consistent with more selective no matter how it's spun.

Do you think UST is making it easier to get in?

Of course they are making it easier to get in.  They say so themselves while trying not to say it.  From the Strib article:

Cotrone said they are not targeting any type of student; rather, they just want to make sure they do not miss some students who may not be great test takers. If, as the research shows, it increases the diversity of their student body, he said they "would be thrilled with it, but I wouldn't say we are doing this with that purpose."

Robert Schaeffer, interim executive director of Fair Test, said test optional policies create an opportunity for over-tested students to be viewed as "more than a test score."

That's a ridiculous argument.  There is nothing which stops UST from viewing applicants as "more than a test score" today.  Is the UST admissions office so mentally and morally weak that they cannot current assess a student's complete profile if there's a test score on the sheet of paper?  And (I'm flabbergasted to ask this question) how is testing ability not part of a student's complete profile?  You're obviously considering an incomplete profile if you leave optional one of the most telling indicators of potential college success.

Yes, I said potential college success.  From the PPress article which mentions the UofM has addressed the idea, rejected it, and instead raised their average ACT entry score to 28.

The U's Twin Cities campus, where the median ACT score has climbed past 28, still requires test scores despite some interest in going test-optional among members of the Board of Regents.

Officials at the U have said the ACT remains a useful predictor of college success, especially as many high schools have stopped including class rank on students' transcripts.

There is only one reason to drop the requirement for test scores and that is to make admissions possible for students who would not test well enough to get in.  A long winded say of saying that UST is making it easier to get in.

[Mr.MIAC]

Making it easier to get is not consistent with more selective no matter how it's spun.

Do you think UST is making it easier to get in?

I think you answered your own question here:"However, part of the reason UST established The Dougherty Family College is to provide applicants who fail to gain admittance an option to join the UST community and transfer to the four-year undergraduate program if everything goes well after two years."
I have known the Dougherty family for 25 years through business and they are extremely generous through a variety of philanthropic endeavors. The transfer protocol from DFC to UST has not played out yet but isn't it reasonable to believe there will be more applicants accepted from DFC than other two year schools or high schools in general?

I'm sure that per capita there will be more applicants accepted from DFC than other two year schools. That doesn't mean that gaining admittance to the undergraduate program at UST will be easier or that UST will be viewed as less selective because of DFC. Look at Harvard and its Extension School...no one views Harvard as less selective because it has an alternative pathway to gain admittance (students can gain a degree from the Extension School or transfer to Harvard proper). Back to UST, UST proper will become more selective over time, though its selectivity will be more nuanced. If you're a kid from MN who has good credentials and comes from a wealthy family, it's going to be a lot harder to get in. If you have stellar credentials, are disadvantaged, and come from outside the midwest, you'll have a far better chance of getting in. In short, UST will be easier to get into for select populations; for some of the populations it's served well in the past, it's going to be a reach. 

[OzJohnnie]

And one last obvious cynical benefit to the universities adopting this policy: they can simultaneously claim both greater admissions and tougher standards.  As the lower scoring applicants self-select not to include test scores, the university can let them in all the same and increase enrolment.  While simultaneously claiming higher acceptance standards as they publish the scores of applicants who do include it, these applicants being those with high test scores and who know the score won't hurt them but help.

So these schools are able to employ maximum cognitive dissonance and cynically claim a program designed to lower standards is actually increasing them.

The age of reason is dead.

[Mr.MIAC]

Making it easier to get is not consistent with more selective no matter how it's spun.

Do you think UST is making it easier to get in?

Of course they are making it easier to get in.  They say so themselves while trying not to say it.  From the Strib article:

Cotrone said they are not targeting any type of student; rather, they just want to make sure they do not miss some students who may not be great test takers. If, as the research shows, it increases the diversity of their student body, he said they "would be thrilled with it, but I wouldn't say we are doing this with that purpose."

Robert Schaeffer, interim executive director of Fair Test, said test optional policies create an opportunity for over-tested students to be viewed as "more than a test score."

That's a ridiculous argument.  There is nothing which stops UST from viewing applicants as "more than a test score" today.  Is the UST admissions office so mentally and morally weak that they cannot current assess a student's complete profile if there's a test score on the sheet of paper?  And (I'm flabbergasted to ask this question) how is testing ability not part of a student's complete profile?  You're obviously considering an incomplete profile if you leave optional one of the most telling indicators of potential college success.

Yes, I said potential college success.  From the PPress article which mentions the UofM has addressed the idea, rejected it, and instead raised their average ACT entry score to 28.

The U's Twin Cities campus, where the median ACT score has climbed past 28, still requires test scores despite some interest in going test-optional among members of the Board of Regents.

Officials at the U have said the ACT remains a useful predictor of college success, especially as many high schools have stopped including class rank on students' transcripts.

There is only one reason to drop the requirement for test scores and that is to make admissions possible for students who would not test well enough to get in.  A long winded say of saying that UST is making it easier to get in.

That's not true. There are plenty of other reasons, including the fact that it will dramatically increase the number of applications, improving UST's selectivity ranking. The new policy doesn't mean that more people with "lower" qualifications will get into UST. The policy says nothing about how many applicants who don't submit test scores will be accepted. It only means that more people will be able to apply to UST. Other schools, including many the top 25 national universities and liberal arts colleges, did the same thing when they wanted to increase their selectivity rankings.

[OzJohnnie]

I'm sure that per capita there will be more applicants accepted from DFC than other two year schools. That doesn't mean that gaining admittance to the undergraduate program at UST will be easier or that UST will be viewed as less selective because of DFC. Look at Harvard and its Extension School...no one views Harvard as less selective because it has an alternative pathway to gain admittance (students can gain a degree from the Extension School or transfer to Harvard proper). Back to UST, UST proper will become more selective over time, though its selectivity will be more nuanced. If you're a kid from MN who has good credentials and comes from a wealthy family, it's going to be a lot harder to get in. If you have stellar credentials, are disadvantaged, and come from outside the midwest, you'll have a far better chance of getting in. In short, UST will be easier to get into for select populations; for some of the populations it's served well in the past, it's going to be a reach. 

There is nothing that stops UST from adopting this policy today even with the test scores.  Removing test scores merely hides the evidence of a program with a cockeyed bias toward lower standards.  Unless, of course, you're arguing that UST was a craven den of horrid bigotry and the administration could only tolerate being around clean cut Minnesota kids.

[OzJohnnie]

That's not true. There are plenty of other reasons, including the fact that it will dramatically increase the number of applications, improving UST's selectivity ranking. The new policy doesn't mean that more people with "lower" qualifications will get into UST. The policy says nothing about how many applicants who don't submit test scores will be accepted. It only means that more people will be able to apply to UST. Other schools, including many the top 25 national universities and liberal arts colleges, did the same thing when they wanted to increase their selectivity rankings.

See my post regarding the cynical nature of this exercise and its ability to simultaneously increase enrolment and test scores by removing the "dummies" from the published stats.  It's right there in your argument.  And claiming this is a feature instead of a bug is, well, plain wrong.

[Mr.MIAC]

That's not true. There are plenty of other reasons, including the fact that it will dramatically increase the number of applications, improving UST's selectivity ranking. The new policy doesn't mean that more people with "lower" qualifications will get into UST. The policy says nothing about how many applicants who don't submit test scores will be accepted. It only means that more people will be able to apply to UST. Other schools, including many the top 25 national universities and liberal arts colleges, did the same thing when they wanted to increase their selectivity rankings.

See my post regarding the cynical nature of this exercise and its ability to simultaneously increase enrolment and test scores by removing the "dummies" from the published stats.  It's right there in your argument.  And claiming this is a feature instead of a bug is, well, plain wrong.

I think we're making a similar argument from slightly different angles. However, I do disagree that the objectives could be as easily met with the old policy. There will be a flood of applicants with the new policy and that wouldn't have come about in the near-term under the old policy.