FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[OzJohnnie]

Australia, for contrast, does 100% admission criteria using test scores.  It's called the ATAR but it doesn't give a raw score.  Instead it gives your percentile finish.  If you score 97 on the ATAR then that means you are top 3% nationally as you outscored 97% of the country on the standardised testing.  The top score is a 99.95, which puts you in the top .05% of all high school students.

[Robert Zimmerman]

I think the major reason some schools are making the ACT/SAT optional is because students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can possibly be at a disadvantage.  Students from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to take the test multiple times, especially if the college they are applying to Superscores.  Also, students from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to pay for an expensive ACT/SAT prep course before taking the exam.  I see this happen quite a bit with students at my high school.  I will be administering the ACT to juniors at Apollo in a month and for students on free/reduced lunch, the state/school pays for it and it will be their only shot.

[Mr.MIAC]

I think the major reason some schools are making the ACT/SAT optional is because students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can possibly be at a disadvantage.  Students from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to take the test multiple times, especially if the college they are applying to Superscores.  Also, students from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to pay for an expensive ACT/SAT prep course before taking the exam.  I see this happen quite a bit with students at my high school.  I will be administering the ACT to juniors at Apollo in a month and for students on free/reduced lunch, the state/school pays for it and it will be their only shot.

Of course you're right. I do think this is a factor in the decision to go ACT/SAT optional. I also think it's something to be lauded. However, I also think that when universities make this policy change it's not wholly altruistic. When the University of Chicago and NYU took this step it was largely because they wanted to increase selectivity. It worked. Twenty years ago Chicago had an acceptance rate hovering around 35 percent. Now it's well under ten percent. NYU had a similar drop, albeit not as extreme.

[OzJohnnie]

I think the major reason some schools are making the ACT/SAT optional is because students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can possibly be at a disadvantage.  Students from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to take the test multiple times, especially if the college they are applying to Superscores.  Also, students from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to pay for an expensive ACT/SAT prep course before taking the exam.  I see this happen quite a bit with students at my high school.  I will be administering the ACT to juniors at Apollo in a month and for students on free/reduced lunch, the state/school pays for it and it will be their only shot.

I agree with all your points.  I guess my point is that there is nothing stopping schools from taking someone with a low standard score now, instead considering other factors.  There are already schools who have for a long time selected students sometimes exclusively on a factor that automatically eliminates whole ranges of people from attending regardless of standardised score. A certain catholic men’s school comes to mind.  There are other schools which carry many specific missions and have for many years, often with the explicit goal of serving one group of people or another.

But to argue that the test somehow prevents a school from considering the whole applicant is a difficult row to hoe.  The reason schools are pursuing this, in my cynical opinion, is so that they can both lower standards and claim high or even higher standardised test levels from those that do provide them.  Or, even more cynically, exploit the hopes and dreams of those who will never make it.  If Chicago has seen a 20 point drop in admissions but are still accepting roughly the same number of people then they have seen a three-fold increase in applications presumably from people that don’t stand a chance.

Perversely, I expect this makes standardised test scores even more important due to the increased workload.  With a three-fold increase in applications the admissions staff have even less time available for good consideration (mentioned in the Strib article as a concern for UST “which they are looking forward to”).  With less time you’ll sort the applicants by score and automatically send out letters to the ones above the line and hardly give them a second thought because you’ve now got to wade through three times as many applications with no easily discernible criteria.  And the problem will become even worse because someone who has a score that is near marginal will drop it from the application and learn to include it only when it gives a clear advantage.

Anyways, I hope I’m not coming across as too forceful. I enjoy arguing the point but am not too invested in it one way or the other.

(Were I a school administrator in today’s world I think I would keep standardised criteria, publish them and still accept students based on a whole profile. And then I would brag that the difference in standardised entry score and quality of graduate is a testament to the quality of the institution.  Something like the catholic high schools who not only accept anyone but target the underprivileged with their mission.)

[Mr.MIAC]

I think the major reason some schools are making the ACT/SAT optional is because students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can possibly be at a disadvantage.  Students from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to take the test multiple times, especially if the college they are applying to Superscores.  Also, students from higher socioeconomic status are more likely to pay for an expensive ACT/SAT prep course before taking the exam.  I see this happen quite a bit with students at my high school.  I will be administering the ACT to juniors at Apollo in a month and for students on free/reduced lunch, the state/school pays for it and it will be their only shot.

I agree with all your points.  I guess my point is that there is nothing stopping schools from taking someone with a low standard score now, instead considering other factors.  There are already schools who have for a long time selected students sometimes exclusively on a factor that automatically eliminates whole ranges of people from attending regardless of standardised score. A certain catholic men's school comes to mind.  There are other schools which carry many specific missions and have for many years, often with the explicit goal of serving one group of people or another.

But to argue that the test somehow prevents a school from considering the whole applicant is a difficult row to hoe.  The reason schools are pursuing this, in my cynical opinion, is so that they can both lower standards and claim high or even higher standardised test levels from those that do provide them.  Or, even more cynically, exploit the hopes and dreams of those who will never make it.  If Chicago has seen a 20 point drop in admissions but are still accepting roughly the same number of people then they have seen a three-fold increase in applications presumably from people that don't stand a chance.

Perversely, I expect this makes standardised test scores even more important due to the increased workload.  With a three-fold increase in applications the admissions staff have even less time available for good consideration (mentioned in the Strib article as a concern for UST "which they are looking forward to").  With less time you'll sort the applicants by score and automatically send out letters to the ones above the line and hardly give them a second thought because you've now got to wade through three times as many applications with no easily discernible criteria.  And the problem will become even worse because someone who has a score that is near marginal will drop it from the application and learn to include it only when it gives a clear advantage.

Anyways, I hope I'm not coming across as too forceful. I enjoy arguing the point but am not too invested in it one way or the other.

(Were I a school administrator in today's world I think I would keep standardised criteria, publish them and still accept students based on a whole profile. And then I would brag that the difference in standardised entry score and quality of graduate is a testament to the quality of the institution.  Something like the catholic high schools who not only accept anyone but target the underprivileged with their mission.)

There is something stopping schools from taking applicants with low standardized test scores instead of considering other factors. Schools are ranked as more or less selective based on the percentage of applicants they accept and the credentials of those students who matriculate. If a school accepts someone with low test scores based on other factors, its selectivity ranking is going to be negatively affected. Accepting an applicant with no test score doesn't affect the selectivity ranking, at least the portion based on test scores.

Schools aren't pursuing this so that they can both lower standards and claim higher standardized test scores. The standards will be going up. Many applicants who apply to UST without test scores won't get accepted, which will lower UST's acceptance rate. Schools viewed as more selective—lower acceptance rate and higher requirements—tend to attract more highly competitive applicants, many of whom matriculate. In short, UST becomes more selective by attracting and rejecting more applicants, which attracts more applicants with strong credentials, whose matriculations make UST more selective.

[OzJohnnie]

This is my last post on the topic because I believe we've done it to death *cheers in the crowd*.  It appears to me we agree on the mechanisms at play with this but disagree on who is benefited.  I think the schools benefit to the disadvantage of the disadvantaged, the opposite of the stated program goals.  The schools rankings go up as marginal candidates are effectively removed from the roles, replaced with a few lesser candidates, so the average entry score is increased while the actual quality of accepted students has decreased due to clever counting.  Additionally, large numbers unqualified people apply in the false hope of getting in but who still inflate the selectivity metrics.  That's pretty much it from my perspective.

There is something stopping schools from taking applicants with low standardized test scores instead of considering other factors. Schools are ranked as more or less selective based on the percentage of applicants they accept and the credentials of those students who matriculate. If a school accepts someone with low test scores based on other factors, its selectivity ranking is going to be negatively affected. Accepting an applicant with no test score doesn't affect the selectivity ranking, at least the portion based on test scores.

Schools aren't pursuing this so that they can both lower standards and claim higher standardized test scores. The standards will be going up. Many applicants who apply to UST without test scores won't get accepted, which will lower UST's acceptance rate. Schools viewed as more selective—lower acceptance rate and higher requirements—tend to attract more highly competitive applicants, many of whom matriculate. In short, UST becomes more selective by attracting and rejecting more applicants, which attracts more applicants with strong credentials, whose matriculations make UST more selective.

[OzJohnnie]

https://gojohnnies.com/news/2020/2/24/football-johnnies-bartch-travels-to-indy-for-this-weeks-nfl-combine.aspx

Tentative Combine Workout Schedule
Friday, Feb. 28: PK, ST, OL, RB

[retagent]

Not that it means much, but I saw a Mock Draft that had Bartch going to the Bucs in the third round. It does however, show that he is on the radar of some supposedly in the know.

[SagatagSam]

Friend of mine in St. Paul indicated that there are rumors swirling that UST is going to drop football as part of the (prospective) D1 jump and build an ice arena on the site of O-Shag Hennessy.

Developing...

[sjusection105]

Friend of mine in St. Paul indicated that there are rumors swirling that UST is going to drop football as part of the (prospective) D1 jump and build an ice arena on the site of O-Shag Hennessy.

Developing...

Interesting, UST thinking they would be more competitive in the WCHA for hockey than the Pioneer League in football.......
I would think the D1 Men's soccer path along with natural rival St Cloud State would make more sense being one of two D1 (along with SCSU) Men's Soccer programs would be easier to recruit talent than being one of six D1 Men's & Women's Ice Hockey programs.

[DuffMan]

Is this really the place for football talk?

[DuffMan]

I just recieved this info:

Only SJU season ticket renewal orders received from Monday, Feb. 24-Thurs., March 5, 11 p.m. CT will receive an early access code to purchase tickets in advance for the Johnnie-Tommie football game held at U.S. Bank Stadium on Sat. Nov. 7.

Feel free to butter me up for advance ticket access. 

[OldAuggie]

Friend of mine in St. Paul indicated that there are rumors swirling that UST is going to drop football as part of the (prospective) D1 jump and build an ice arena on the site of O-Shag Hennessy.

Developing...

I saw this too. Hard for a school the size of UST to afford D1 level sports in hockey, basketball and football. We know about the deep pockets in the alumni base but really the expense is major.

Seems like the Loyola University-Chicago model to me. No football, D1 hockey (men's and women's) in place of D1 basketball? Keep D1 basketball (men's and women's) in addition to hockey?

Sounds like a good way to go broke.

Title IX is a major consideration for UST in the future.

[Texas Ole]

if UST drops football does that mean Caruso coached himself out of a job?

I'd hate to see football get dropped especially for the kids. I wonder if the endowment budget ratio is an issue. Seems like UST grew faster than was sustainable. 

[AO]

Friend of mine in St. Paul indicated that there are rumors swirling that UST is going to drop football as part of the (prospective) D1 jump and build an ice arena on the site of O-Shag Hennessy.

Developing...

Interesting, UST thinking they would be more competitive in the WCHA for hockey than the Pioneer League in football.......
I would think the D1 Men's soccer path along with natural rival St Cloud State would make more sense being one of two D1 (along with SCSU) Men's Soccer programs would be easier to recruit talent than being one of six D1 Men's & Women's Ice Hockey programs.

SCSU will be playing D2 independent soccer.