Thread: I tweeted about this yesterday (sort of sardonically), but of course this is picking up some steam now, as you knew it would.
First, students have always included destination in their list of things that are important. I remember a counselor in Florida in the 80's telling me that "Boston had become hot" for her students.
It's always in the top three among student motivators.
And while I hate to criticize journalists who talk to six people and make it a "trend" (because the people they talked to volunteered after seeing a question on a list serve asking if they'd noticed this), it's still worrisome.
Why?
Who has the luxury to cross state lines to go to college? I suspect you know the answer to that. But in 2018 and 2020, about 2/3 of all high school seniors enrolled in a public university in their state. highereddatastories.com/2021/11/freshm…
Some substantial percentage of students who cross state lines are students of means. While we used to talk about "fit" as it refers to personality and character match, it's more often about affordability these days. (Florida and Texas send about 75% to in-state public 4-years).
So while that headline and takeaway would be good news for universities in blue states (like Oregon), I'm going to have to be persuaded that this is a real thing, affecting large numbers of students before I get excited.
We are currently up one application in Alabama over last year, 29 in Florida, three in Ohio, up 16 in Louisiana, down 10 in Oklahoma, and flat in Arkansas.
These are blips. Could they be driven by politics? Yes. Are they? Probably not.
So if you work in a blue state, you'll hear about this. If you work in a red state, you'll get people asking about whether it might work in reverse.
Thread: I don't think Sal Khan is a bad guy. But this article is full of College Board propaganda, as you might expect from someone who is indebted to the College Board. thejournal.com/Articles/2022/…
I will leave the #HateRead to @akilbello but let me just point out one thing in a quote from the article, and a piece of reality:
The tendency of tossing out made-up crap and expecting to get away with it is where we are. It didn't start in 2015 and 2016, that that's when it solidified.
This week a counselor contacted me and asked what percentage of freshman deposits came in very near the deadline, and whether there was any data on this phenomenon.
She had a parent who was worried because a child had not yet deposited.
So, as I often have to tell people,"no there is no data published on this little narrow but interesting question, sorry." But then I talked about my experience: Depending on the place I've worked, you might get 25% of your freshman deposits in the week leading up to May 1 (or 2)
If you are heavy in ED like some highly rejectives, you might get 60% in January, so you might get 25% of the 40% that last week. Even that 10% is a lot.
And it's also important to remember that 90% of US colleges and universities take apps past May 1 (or 2) each year.
Thread: Be watching for articles and opinion pieces with the new narrative that "The SAT helps poor students." They're starting to pop up like flowers in the spring.
Why? Here's my take on it:
First, spend three minutes on this video. It's about what College Board did when the UC system tried to eliminate tests the first time, in the early part of this century. It is well worth your time. It's from @thetestdoc
The College Board is a business. It's now lost the UC and Cal State systems for real, and it's holding on by its fingernails. It has to find some way to maintain market share and pay the rent on its New York City office.
They're calling in chips from their true believers.
"Everything like letters of recommendation and essays and GPA can be easily manipulated by the wealthy, so we need The SAT because it's standardized and fair."
I have this strange belief that if we who have actually done admissions keep beating our heads against a brick wall, somehow this thinking will go away.
It won't because you have people with a voice--the same ones who benefit from the SAT--controlling the narrative.
So first, the rebuttal: Yes, as I've said before, almost everything in the process favors the wealthy. That's the defining problem.
Thread: I hear there might be a report coming out about first-gen and/or low-income and/or students of color and performance in STEM.
I don't know what it says, but here's what I'd think about if I were doing this study.
First, some admissions anecdote. If you've spent any time actually doing admissions and you disagree, feel free to say so. But I think this is so widely acknowledged in the profession that I won't get much pushback. (it could still be wrong, of course)
In 9th grade, everyone wants to be a doctor (OK, this is hyperbole.) But no one wants to be a doctor more than a first-gen/low-income/student of color wants to be a doctor.
Why? It's the most visible path to financial success. It's not a bad dream to have.