Thread: This got a little crazy, and it's only been 18 hours. It's still going strong. Some observations:
I stopped trying to ❤️or reply to responses. It's impossible to keep up. So this will have to do: A mass reply-to-all, if you will.

Beyond that, there are a dozen side conversations happening, and I'm not going to get involved in the arguments, no matter how right one side is
I'm glad this touched a nerve with a lot of people. It was intended to (just maybe not so many?)

We in admissions never used to be the subject of much academic scrutiny; now the research appears to be non-stop. That's both good and bad, of course.
What's good is sunshine.

What's bad is that so many researchers have never worked in admissions, and often times don't even talk to admissions professionals, or if they do, they stop at the offices of @Stanvard which isn't exactly reality.
What's worse is that a lot of people with a lot of self-image or self-worth wrapped up in a decades-old test score like tests. Not surprising, of course.

Here's what I know from almost 40 years of doing this, AND from reading the research:
Test scores are not worthless. They measure some intellectual skill, but whether that skill is important in college is debatable.

They also don't measure things almost all of us would consider important for people to be successful.

They vary strongly with ethnicity and income
The chart I included showed what message gets sent when one university admissions officer says--publicly--we like a 33, but we LOVE a 34.

It says, "that's who's welcomed here." Look at who is included in those scores. Not a lot of low-income students.
The tests were designed to help high rejective colleges find the worthiest of the unwashed masses.

Does that sound familiar? "We need the SAT to find out who in these poorly-resourced high schools is actually smart."
I suppose it's their right to use it that way (if they're private." If they're public? This is what UC Regent Lark Park said during the hearings about the SAT requirements. It's profoundly good:
Are we just here to take the best and turn them into graduates? Or are we here to change lives?

If you use the SAT to allocate admissions slots, you should consider what you're saying:
You're saying that the only ones who deserve a college degree of the type you're awarding are the students who've already been advantaged most of their lives.

Or the lucky ones who hit the SAT lottery despite the odds.

Read that again.
So, to new followers (lots of them) welcome.

You might want to read about my Twitter approach. Especially the second-to-last bullet point.

jonboeckenstedt.com/twitter.html
To everyone (mostly law professors today, for some odd reason) who love the SAT, keep on lovin' it. It's like the McRib, so enjoy it while you can.
That's it for today. Only people I follow can reply to this thread, because I'm going to cook dinner and check out PBS Masterpiece, as is our habit on Sunday night.

No more trolls for me today.

As Ringo says,
Oh, and #EMTalk

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jon Boeckenstedt

Jon Boeckenstedt Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JonBoeckenstedt

4 Apr
Thread: We need to get a few things straight, people.

Those advocating for the return of the SAT in admissions because "other things seem to favor wealthy students" seem to be missing something.

Something kind of big.
Can you guess what it is?

I'll wait.

Go on, don't be afraid. I bet you know the answer but you're too shy to say it.
OK, here it is:

Everything (save perhaps one thing) in the admissions process favors wealthy students.

And people who actually do admissions for a living already know this. We don't need research to prove it to us.
Read 26 tweets
29 Mar
Thread:

Sigh. We know what this means: College admissions offices do not--because they cannot--visit every high school.

We do not have the staff or the time to visit every high school in our state each year, and we're a public university. hechingerreport.org/a-big-reason-r…
The problem of having people cover admissions who do not know--or haven't taken the time to learn--the business is that you get headlines like this based on faulty assumptions, namely, that "recruiting = visiting a high school."
Our job and our profession looks simple, as witnessed by anyone who's heard a trustee say, "we'll call on our alumni volunteers to help with recruiting." As if they'd do that when they need help with accounting or architecture or athletic coaching. Admissions is a profession.
Read 15 tweets
10 Mar
Thread: Here is a headline that's been making the rounds. Stop me if you've heard this from @DanRosensweig or any handful of others before:
Thing is, as I've tweeted before, he might be right. And it wouldn't matter too much.

Here's why.
Let's assume our focus is on the effects on undergraduates only. That makes sense, of course, as they are the biggest segment of the post-secondary market. As you can see, full-time undergrads (purple, FT UG) make up over half of all enrollment.
Read 17 tweets
17 Feb
Thread: I bet you're wondering what's going on in the mind of your friendly local EM or admissions/FA professional.

So follow along.
There are no reliable trends. We have anecdotes. Harvard up 57%. Colgate up 102%.

Princeton ended up 15% ahead of last year, probably because they dropped all early options in response to COVID-19.

Refer to this tweet if you ever ask why colleges keep early plans.
Big public universities with panache in their state are up. UCLA and UCB blew 100K apps out of the water. We're up about 35%, but our in-state rival is also having a record year.

Cal States appear to be down. Most unis with a direction in their name are seeing similar trends.
Read 22 tweets
30 Dec 20
Thread: Just because I have some vacation time this week, and because I'm interested, a little bit about colleges closing.

@collhistgarden at the College History Garden has done a good job of this, but I wanted to do something else. Here's that site: collegehistorygarden.blogspot.com
This is of interest to me for a few reasons: First, we've had a few announcements about well-known colleges closing in the last two years (some later rescinded or modified); second, colleges always close; and third, we've been hearing pundits predict this trend for 20 years.
So, how to do this? There is no perfect way, of course. But I downloaded the data of all US institutions in 2009 and 2019 from IPEDS and did a bit of analysis. It's not perfect.

Some of these places have changed names and gotten a new ID (Jefferson Davis CC in Alabama), e.g.
Read 17 tweets
25 Oct 20
Thread: The year ahead

We're one of those curious points in history when being way up in applications could be a bad thing, and being way down could be a good thing.

Get ready for another year of "we really can't tell" in Enrollment Management and admissions:
Let's say you're a solid, mid-market college in a large city. Increasing apps could be a hedge for students who think they may have to stay closer to home.

If, by next March, we've contained COVID-19 or developed a vaccine, you become last choice.
Let's say you're a flagship or land grant, and you see apps up at this point. This could be those students normally headed out-of-state or to private colleges. You're a hedge against high tuition.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!