1 / 28

Back to the Basics:

Back to the Basics:. In Defense of Achievement (and Achievement Tests) in College Admissions. Saul Geiser University of California, Berkeley. “Readiness” for college: Two views. Achievement : performance in college-preparatory subjects, mastery of curriculum content

edena
Download Presentation

Back to the Basics:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Back to the Basics: In Defense of Achievement (and Achievement Tests) in College Admissions Saul Geiser University of California, Berkeley

  2. “Readiness” for college: Two views • Achievement: performance in college-preparatory subjects, mastery of curriculum content • Ability: generalized reasoning and problem-solving skills

  3. UC findings Admissions criteria that tap student mastery of curriculum content, such as high-school grades and achievement tests, are stronger predictors of success in college and fairer to low-income and minority applicants than tests of general reasoning such as the SAT.

  4. Underrepresented minorities as a percent of new UC freshmen, 1995 to 1998

  5. Correlation of SAT I, SAT II and HSGPAwith socioeconomic factors

  6. % of underrepresented minority applicants by SAT I vs. HSGPA deciles

  7. Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting freshman GPA Sample: New UC freshmen in 1996-1999 who completed first year. N = 68,602.

  8. Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting 4-year graduation Sample: New UC freshman in 1996-1999. N = 74,618.

  9. Minority participation in AP/honors classes among California college-bound seniors

  10. Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting cumulative UC GPA Sample: New UC freshmen in 2002 who completed two years. N = 14,976.

  11. Achievement tests and UC outreach • Alignment with K-12 curriculum • Diagnostic function • Message to students

  12. UC policy changes after Prop 209 • 1998: Increased weight for HSGPA and SAT II, reduced weight for SAT I scores in statewide eligibility index • 2001: Introduced Top 4% Plan and Comprehensive Admissions Review • 2002: Adopted policy favoring achievement tests over tests of general reasoning or aptitude

  13. Underrepresented minorities as a percent of new UC freshmen, 1995 to 2007

  14. Restoring the role of high-school record • Increase emphasis on high-school grades and class rank over admissions tests • Eliminate “bonus point” for Advanced Placement classes except where students take and pass AP exams

  15. Limitations of New SAT as an achievement test • Less curriculum-based than other achievement tests • Remains norm-referenced • Limited diagnostic value • Prediction is no better than old SAT

  16. An expanded role for subject tests • Most content-intensive of all nationally available assessments • Align with and reinforce classroom instruction • Best predictors, after high-school record, of student performance in college

  17. Back to the basics • Criterion-referenced vs. norm-referenced assessment • Accent on achievement and mastery of foundational subjects

  18. Additional slides for Q & A

  19. “The results here indicate that the exclusion of student background characteristics from prediction models inflates the SAT’s apparent validity, as the SAT score appears to be a more effective measure of the demographic characteristics that predict [college grade-point average] than it is of preparedness conditional on student background. … [A] conservative estimate is that traditional methods and sparse models [i.e., those that do not take into account demographic characteristics] overstate the SAT’s importance to predictive accuracy by 150 percent.” Rothstein, J. (2004). “College performance predictions and the SAT." Journal of Econometrics, volume121, 297-317.

  20. Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting freshman GPA by race/ethnicity Sample: New UC freshmen in 1998-2001 who completed first year. N = 57,377.

  21. Prediction weights for 4th year GPA by campus Sample: New 1996-1999 UC freshmen completing 4 years. N = 58,539.

  22. Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting freshman GPA Sample: New UC freshmen who completed first year. N = 41,116.

  23. Relative weight of different admissions factors in predicting cumulative 4-year UC GPA Sample: New 1996-1999 UC freshmen completing 4 years. N = 58,539.

More Related