I stay connected to a bunch of people at the City University of New York and Brooklyn College, where I used to work. The CUNY system is feeling a lot of strain; as I’ve said here several times before, most colleges are highly enrollment-dependent for basic fiscal solvency, and enrollment is down in CUNY generally. (Most blame Covid, but I suspect it’s more the job market.) But Hunter and Baruch are bright spots, likely because they have just dropped the SAT. This was sold in the name of equity, tearing down barriers for the marginalized. Of course, if reducing rigor in admissions means you let even more students in who will take on loan debt, struggle, then drop out, well….
Plus, at least for the elite schools, if dropping the SATs encourages more students to apply, the schools' acceptance rate will likely go down, which will make the schools look even more prestigious and goose their ratings in US News & World Report or whatever. (And they'll also make more in admissions fees--when I was applying to college, it was like $90 per application--although I don't realistically know how meaningful admissions fees are to the college's overall budget.)
Well. These are the sort of people who I tend to consider... delicately constituted. And I think it's important to never underestimate how susceptible to venality those who lack spines are. It's 100% cash-related.
It's powered by the sociology profs and their demands for justice, who are empowered by the universities bc the anti-SAT wave leads to cash. So SJWs=puppets, Universities=puppet masters.
My instinct is that it's probably a bit more complex than one or the other. The two "compelling narrative friendly" options being presented are something like:
1. The college wants money; it wants power. It is capitalism melded into machine, and will do anything to get that money. This will make it money, so it's doing that, agnostic of race or social considerations.
2. The college is filled with wokes who will woke; it's doing it entirely because of woke, with no considerations for money.
I was recently talking about the Gina/Mandolorian firing incident, and noted that while nobody (in practical terms) had even heard of the issue, Disney rushed to fire the offending conservative for being not-woke. In the aftermath, at least some conservatives (myself included) cancelled their subscriptions, costing them some money.
Disney had to offend someone here, but broke inertia to damage one of its most popular properties as well in choosing to side against the right in favor of the left in this incident. A few people probably cancelled subscriptions, but overall this was probably something they could absorb either way, so they went with their instincts and stuck it to the right.
I think something very similar is happening here. The very left dominant faculties probably do believe the SAT is keeping them from reaching left-goals. If scrapping the SAT will make them money too, then it *doesn't get in the way of that* and they will proceed to do what they want.
That's what we know; it's not that your posit of "they are doing this for money, and would do the right-wing thing for the same amount of money, it's all about money" is proved untrue here, but instead that it's not made necessary by the evidence.
If 2022 faculty pursued a goal of kicking out all the minorities in addition to making money from doing so, we could reasonably say they were doing it all for the money (since we know they don't want to be right-wing aligned, and they'd think of this as that). If they were to scrap the SAT at monetary cost, we could say it was about wokeness. But since both goals align here, we just know either is possible.
I believe a lot of white progressives really do feel that they're "doing the work" by supporting dropping the SAT. But at the institutional level, it's all about the cold, hard cash.
There are probably around a million one-percenter households in the country. Almost axiomatically, they and their blood relatives are far more likely to be part of the cognitive elite than not. Yes, exceptions exist, and we can all point them out, but the data (that I've even seen on this blog) is very clear: educational attainment, which is highly indicative of life outcomes such as income, is also highly indicative of raw intellectual horsepower.
In other words, the relatively small percentage of one-percent 18-year-olds who are dull as dishwater are far fewer in number than any striver.
Finally, if the SAT is a valid measure of preparedness for college - which it is - opposition to it can be debated on merits surely beyond "a rich kid might benefit." If the SAT's good, it's good regardless of who benefits.
I spent some time working in college administration, and we used “barriers” to mean anything students were required to do.
For example, we used to put a hold on registration until students submitted residency and financial aid forms, met with an advisor, and took placement tests (or the SAT and ACT). Some students never completed all of the steps. To boost enrollment, we changed the rules to allow students to register without doing those things.
The world language requirement was another barrier (to graduation) so we eliminated it. Same with creating an easier “math literacy” course for students who struggled to pass college-level math.
The conversation was always about boosting our metrics (enrollment, retention, graduation). Once you’ve tried everything else (outreach, etc), it’s easy to see all requirements as barriers.
Sometimes it “helped” disadvantaged students and other times it really did not… for example, allowing students to register without aid and payment sorted out just resulted in bad debt.
Hmmm! My instinct tells me that it is cash. When the college where I taught dropped the SAT it was crystal clear that the motivation was to expand the applicant pool. How it was justified was based on two arguments: 1) the SAT is biased and anyway doesn't predict success; 2) marginalized populations don't do so well on the tests and requiring it tends to be a strike against them. These arguments were rarely examined but taken as acts of faith, and so served as convenient rationalizations, which, of course, could be deployed for other purposes.
I've never thought much about the "dullard scions of the rich" in this context. At my college you stumbled across them a lot. An ideal type -- not a stereotype -- might be someone from the upper east side of Manhattan, went to an exclusive private school, and whose siblings (usually older) were at Ivy League or other top tier colleges. These kids were very much aware of their status within the family (not high), and it was pretty obvious that it pained them. That eliminating the SAT made it easier to accept them makes sense, but I'm not sure it is true. There was great interest in getting students who could pay for the full ride. That was the goal, and still is. Where this most visibly came into play was with the arrival in the aughts of students from China. First in a dribble, then a torrent, before it finally subsided after about a decade. But good enough (about 8% of our student body at its height) to keep the school afloat during a tough time that has continued to the present. I'm not so sure that the result was our ending up with more "upper class twits" than usual.
Educational administration is in deep fetid swamp. Stops being so concerned about helping people and encourage them to help themselves. Remember, the world needs bartenders and ditch diggers.
<insert “why not both” meme here>. Another great post, as usual.
Plus, at least for the elite schools, if dropping the SATs encourages more students to apply, the schools' acceptance rate will likely go down, which will make the schools look even more prestigious and goose their ratings in US News & World Report or whatever. (And they'll also make more in admissions fees--when I was applying to college, it was like $90 per application--although I don't realistically know how meaningful admissions fees are to the college's overall budget.)
Well. These are the sort of people who I tend to consider... delicately constituted. And I think it's important to never underestimate how susceptible to venality those who lack spines are. It's 100% cash-related.
Straight cash, homie.
Sure, there may some True Believers in there, but it's mostly about money. Usually is in this country.
It's powered by the sociology profs and their demands for justice, who are empowered by the universities bc the anti-SAT wave leads to cash. So SJWs=puppets, Universities=puppet masters.
My instinct is that it's probably a bit more complex than one or the other. The two "compelling narrative friendly" options being presented are something like:
1. The college wants money; it wants power. It is capitalism melded into machine, and will do anything to get that money. This will make it money, so it's doing that, agnostic of race or social considerations.
2. The college is filled with wokes who will woke; it's doing it entirely because of woke, with no considerations for money.
I was recently talking about the Gina/Mandolorian firing incident, and noted that while nobody (in practical terms) had even heard of the issue, Disney rushed to fire the offending conservative for being not-woke. In the aftermath, at least some conservatives (myself included) cancelled their subscriptions, costing them some money.
Disney had to offend someone here, but broke inertia to damage one of its most popular properties as well in choosing to side against the right in favor of the left in this incident. A few people probably cancelled subscriptions, but overall this was probably something they could absorb either way, so they went with their instincts and stuck it to the right.
I think something very similar is happening here. The very left dominant faculties probably do believe the SAT is keeping them from reaching left-goals. If scrapping the SAT will make them money too, then it *doesn't get in the way of that* and they will proceed to do what they want.
That's what we know; it's not that your posit of "they are doing this for money, and would do the right-wing thing for the same amount of money, it's all about money" is proved untrue here, but instead that it's not made necessary by the evidence.
If 2022 faculty pursued a goal of kicking out all the minorities in addition to making money from doing so, we could reasonably say they were doing it all for the money (since we know they don't want to be right-wing aligned, and they'd think of this as that). If they were to scrap the SAT at monetary cost, we could say it was about wokeness. But since both goals align here, we just know either is possible.
Cash! Of course. “The dullard sons of the 1%.” Phrases like this are what keep me comin’ back for more.
I believe a lot of white progressives really do feel that they're "doing the work" by supporting dropping the SAT. But at the institutional level, it's all about the cold, hard cash.
There are probably around a million one-percenter households in the country. Almost axiomatically, they and their blood relatives are far more likely to be part of the cognitive elite than not. Yes, exceptions exist, and we can all point them out, but the data (that I've even seen on this blog) is very clear: educational attainment, which is highly indicative of life outcomes such as income, is also highly indicative of raw intellectual horsepower.
In other words, the relatively small percentage of one-percent 18-year-olds who are dull as dishwater are far fewer in number than any striver.
Finally, if the SAT is a valid measure of preparedness for college - which it is - opposition to it can be debated on merits surely beyond "a rich kid might benefit." If the SAT's good, it's good regardless of who benefits.
I spent some time working in college administration, and we used “barriers” to mean anything students were required to do.
For example, we used to put a hold on registration until students submitted residency and financial aid forms, met with an advisor, and took placement tests (or the SAT and ACT). Some students never completed all of the steps. To boost enrollment, we changed the rules to allow students to register without doing those things.
The world language requirement was another barrier (to graduation) so we eliminated it. Same with creating an easier “math literacy” course for students who struggled to pass college-level math.
The conversation was always about boosting our metrics (enrollment, retention, graduation). Once you’ve tried everything else (outreach, etc), it’s easy to see all requirements as barriers.
Sometimes it “helped” disadvantaged students and other times it really did not… for example, allowing students to register without aid and payment sorted out just resulted in bad debt.
Hmmm! My instinct tells me that it is cash. When the college where I taught dropped the SAT it was crystal clear that the motivation was to expand the applicant pool. How it was justified was based on two arguments: 1) the SAT is biased and anyway doesn't predict success; 2) marginalized populations don't do so well on the tests and requiring it tends to be a strike against them. These arguments were rarely examined but taken as acts of faith, and so served as convenient rationalizations, which, of course, could be deployed for other purposes.
I've never thought much about the "dullard scions of the rich" in this context. At my college you stumbled across them a lot. An ideal type -- not a stereotype -- might be someone from the upper east side of Manhattan, went to an exclusive private school, and whose siblings (usually older) were at Ivy League or other top tier colleges. These kids were very much aware of their status within the family (not high), and it was pretty obvious that it pained them. That eliminating the SAT made it easier to accept them makes sense, but I'm not sure it is true. There was great interest in getting students who could pay for the full ride. That was the goal, and still is. Where this most visibly came into play was with the arrival in the aughts of students from China. First in a dribble, then a torrent, before it finally subsided after about a decade. But good enough (about 8% of our student body at its height) to keep the school afloat during a tough time that has continued to the present. I'm not so sure that the result was our ending up with more "upper class twits" than usual.
Maybe. Is there evidence that letting in less qualified rich kids will be the result of these policies? (Which I oppose.) Or is that just a hunch?
Educational administration is in deep fetid swamp. Stops being so concerned about helping people and encourage them to help themselves. Remember, the world needs bartenders and ditch diggers.