Beyond Percentage Plans: The Challenge of Equal Opportunity in Higher Education

(Staff Report)

Chapter 3

Admissions Standards and Success Predictors

Access to higher education is predicated on numerous factors, some of which are socioeconomic background, educational opportunities, alumni parents, athletic ability, and individual aptitude. The latter is the focus of this study, as widespread concern has emerged about how aptitude is measured. Amid the debate surrounding percentage plans and the backlash against affirmative action have arisen new questions about the utility and fairness of college admissions measures, including standardized tests, student grade point averages, high school curriculum requirements, and college entrance exams.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the emphasis on merit was more often viewed as at odds with programs designed to undo lingering effects of past discriminatory admissions practices.[1] Today, with the implementation of percentage plans in three states, there is reason for concern that college admissions will regress to an era when merit was based solely on high school ranking and test scores at the expense of other predictors of aptitude and success.

A survey of the admissions requirements of colleges and universities reveals that high school grade point average is consistently the most important factor in admissions decisions, followed closely by standardized test scores.[2] Today, more than 80 percent of all public and private colleges and universities rely on test scores as a component of the admissions process.[3] The SAT is the most widely used standardized examination. During the 2000–01 school year, approximately 2.1 million students were administered the SAT.[4] The second most widely used test is the American College Testing Assessment Test (ACT), which is used mostly in the Midwest, and is taken by approximately 1 million students each year.[5]

Supporters of the use of the SAT argue that the test is an appropriate “yardstick,” which compensates for differences in grading techniques, curriculum standards, and course availability.[6] Advocates of the SAT also contend that eliminating standardized testing would result in grade inflation and lower admissions standards.[7] In recent years, however, the SAT and ACT have come under fire by some educators who claim that the tests do not reflect the true abilities of students, or take into account the differences in quality of education provided to students. Many argue that because scores on these tests can be improved through practice and preparation—usually through high-cost coaches and prep courses—they are not a true indicator of critical thinking ability, nor are higher scores accessible to those who cannot afford the preparation.

Further, there are significant disparities in the test scores of different racial and ethnic groups, a fact that may be linked to differences in educational opportunities, overrepresentation in low-performing schools, and in some cases the difficulties presented for students whose primary language is not English. Thus, these tests may not be appropriate predictors of ability or achievement potential. Table 3.1 illustrates the differences in SAT and ACT scores for each major racial and ethnic group.

Although each racial/ethnic group has seen an increase in average test scores over the last decade, the gap in test scores has widened. Average SAT scores of African American, American Indian, and Hispanic students trail those of white students by a larger margin today than 10 years ago. The difference in average scores between black and white students in 1990–91 was 185 points; in 2000–01 the difference in scores was 201 points (see table 3.2). Likewise, the difference in average scores between Hispanic and white students increased from 111 points to 135 points in the same 10-year period.[8] A similar trend can be seen with ACT scores.[9] The gap between white and black students widened to nearly 5 points (out of a possible 36 points), from 4.6 points five years ago. The difference in scores of Mexican American and white students has also increased in the last five years from 3.2 points to 3.5 points.[10]

A series of nationwide studies beginning in 1979 reveals that over the years, selectivity at four-year institutions has increased, with higher standards required of potential students. At the same time, recruitment efforts targeting specific groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, have decreased in the last decade.[11] According to one educator, the college admissions process has become big business, with schools competing for the “best and brightest” students who bring prestige. As a result, acceptance rates at both Ivy League schools and prestigious state schools have dropped significantly over the last 20 years. Low-income and minority students have also been left out of the recruitment process, as administrators of postsecondary institutions have spent more resources attracting students who are already likely to have the means to attend college. As a result, inequalities in educational attainment and socioeconomic status are made worse.[12]

Stricter admissions requirements and more competitive enrollment processes render schools less likely to attract diverse students and make evident the need for proactive recruitment programs and nontraditional admissions requirements.[13] As research has demonstrated, “when merit is primarily determined in terms of a test score, universities create cut-off scores that have a very serious racial impact.”[14] Instead, it is suggested that students be evaluated based on other factors, including high school grades, personal background and goals, work experience, extracurricular activities, and other success predictors less prone to bias.

EVOLVING ADMISSIONS CRITERIA

While selectivity has increased overall, some schools are attempting to take a more holistic approach to admissions. Criteria in many cases are broader today than historically, taking into account specialized talents and extraordinary accomplishments. The University of California system, for example, adopted an admissions system in spring 2002 called a comprehensive review, which provides “bonus” points to applicants who have overcome extraordinary life challenges. The purpose of the new procedure, which was implemented in response to the state’s ban on racial preferences, as discussed earlier, is to equalize opportunity.[15] The UC system, which is the largest higher education system in the country, also decided to do away with the SAT as an admissions criterion in 2001.

Similar practices can be seen around the country. In Texas, students who qualify under the state’s percentage plan program are not required to take either the SAT or ACT. Columbia University in New York also now relies on a combination of indicators, including a personal essay, extracurricular activities, references, grade point averages, and SAT scores for admissions.[16] Nearly 300 other institutions have made the SAT optional, relying instead on student portfolios, essays, interviews, grades, and class ranks.[17]

One study compared two admissions strategies—one relying on students’ high school records alone and the other using both high school records and SAT scores. While the outcomes of admissions decisions were largely the same under each approach, the SAT-based strategy resulted in a greater number of rejections of otherwise qualified minority and low-income applicants.[18] This finding supports the argument that using race as one of many factors in admissions is the only way colleges can offset biases in standardized tests.[19]

According to the president of the College Board, the group that administers the SAT, when it comes to racial and ethnic differences in test scores, the test itself is not the problem. Rather, the problem is an unfair educational system in the United States.[20] However, according to another commentator, “the bottom line is that standardized testing can never be a fair measure of skill between the underprivileged and the privileged.”[21] Another noted:

Talent and potential come in all complexions and from within a rather broad range of SAT scores. Students with modest test scores often fare quite well on academically competitive campuses. Other attributes, like drive and lifelong learning, determine whether they become superstars in school and ultimately what they achieve in life. So we shouldn’t automatically presume, much less proclaim, that those who score the highest on standardized exams are ipso facto more qualified.[22]

It is also noteworthy that entrance exams such as the SAT and ACT not only determine college acceptance, but also often are used as a criterion for merit awards and scholarships. The fact that high-income and nonminority students tend to score higher on these tests results in an uneven distribution of resources to students who may not need them.[23]

In response to the increasing movement away from the SAT, and particularly the University of California’s decision to stop using it, the College Board voted in June 2002 to revamp the exam. The new SAT, which will begin in spring 2005, will include an essay portion and require higher levels of math preparation. Many admissions directors praise the changes, particularly the addition of the essay portion, as providing a better tool to assess students’ true abilities. Others, however, are concerned that students from schools with less rigorous academic programs will be unfairly penalized and that test score gaps will increase.[24]

There has been movement away from reliance on standardized tests and toward comprehensive reviews in graduate school admissions as well. In June 2001, Texas passed a law prohibiting medical and graduate schools in the state from using test scores as the sole or primary factor in admissions. The law requires the consideration of 11 additional factors, including an applicant’s hometown and poverty status.[25] Prior to the new law, there were no formal attempts to diversify graduate schools as there were for undergraduate programs (e.g., the percentage plan described earlier). Statewide, in 2000, 4 percent of students in doctoral programs were black, 6 percent were Hispanic, 55 percent were white, and 30 percent were from abroad.[26] The comprehensive review provides economically disadvantaged students a better chance of gaining admittance to graduate and professional programs. Proponents of the law see it as a remedy to the Hopwood decision, which banned race-based admissions, and argue that this holistic approach to admissions is more sophisticated than the 10 percent plan used in undergraduate admissions.[27]

DIVERSIFYING THE POOL OF APPLICANTS AND PROMOTING SUCCESS

Going beyond modifications to the admissions process itself and recognizing the need to cultivate a more diverse pool of potential applicants, many colleges and universities have made attempts to better prepare students for postsecondary study. Following are some examples of initiatives designed to recruit students from underrepresented groups and improve their chances for academic success at the college level:

• The University of Vermont has “adopted” a public high school in the Bronx, New York, from which it recruits Hispanic and black students. The university works with high school students to ensure that they have the skills necessary to compete with other applicants. Other rural institutions, including Colgate University, Skidmore College, and St. Michael’s College, have similarly partnered with urban feeder schools in New York and Boston.[28]

• A groundbreaking summer school program in Boston pairs students from a local charter school with student tutors from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The high school students spend four hours a day, four days a week on campus receiving one-on-one instruction in basic math, reading, and English skills to prepare them for future studies. The MIT tutors are supported through the federally funded work-study program.

• Several foundations, spearheaded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have come together to support the creation of 70 “early college” high schools that will award both diplomas and associate degrees by working with nearby universities and community colleges. The high schools are designed to keep students from dropping out and will target students from low-income families.[29]

• For nearly 10 years, a program called Target Hope in Chicago has attempted to improve minority student achievement in elementary and secondary school to prepare them for college. Promising students from Chicago’s public schools are placed in Saturday workshops taught by college professors for 42 weeks a year for four years.[30]

• Many colleges and universities around the country, including Notre Dame, the University of Illinois, and the University of Chicago, have also stepped up their recruitment of minority high school students by offering free campus visits, development seminars and workshops, and hefty financial aid packages.[31]

• Finally, in response to the backlash against affirmative action, and in an effort to diversify the workforce of the future, several major corporations have partnered with universities to create the Business-Higher Education Forum. The group advocates percentage plans, “whole person” approaches to college admissions that go beyond test scores and grades, increases in available financial aid packages, and third-party outreach, which pools the resources of nonprofit organizations that assist minority groups.[32]

CONCLUSION

The nation’s courts, states, and postsecondary institutions are engaged in a struggle to strike a balance between inclusive admissions criteria and unfair standards, and between proactive recruitment and race-neutral policies. Research has demonstrated that standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT may not be appropriate predictors of ability or achievement potential. Data demonstrate consistently lower performance of minority students on standardized tests, resulting in disproportionate rejection of minority students in colleges and universities where this criterion is heavily weighted.

As affirmative action-motivated recruitment efforts are decreasing, selectivity at four-year institutions is increasing. Unless proactive efforts are made to attract and retain minority students in prestigious colleges and universities, inequalities in educational attainment and socioeconomic status will be made worse. A more holistic approach to admissions decisions is necessary to offset unequal educational opportunities and preserve much sought-after diversity on college campuses.