Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfanin Philly
They are basing it on 1550/1600 the old method which doesn't use the third part ( the writing part). Some of the schools only use the math and verbal and not the writing. When someone refers to a 1500 as a good score, they are referring to the old scale. When they refer to a 2100 or higher, you know they are using the new scoring system...
They (College Board) try to make the 500 score the mean so a 1000 would be the mean on the old system while a 1500 would be mean on the new system...
|
Or, if we apply our critical thinking skills, could we not draw the following conclusion...?
1. We have an interest in constructing a scenario in which a group
should be more represented than it is, although it is represented in excess of its prevalence in the population, and thereby have an interesting question of whether that group has been discriminated against (with echoes of the anti-Jewish quotas in the Ivys through the beginning of the last century)
2. We have three measures, two of which are influenced by English proficiency.
3. We have a population descended from people who did not speak English as a first language.
4. Therefore, if we knock out one of the two measures dependent on English language proficiency -- indeed, the one most dependent on English language proficiency -- we find that the student in question will "average" a higher score on the other two measures in order to actually get
the same combined score as a competing applicant (or for that matter, a lower combined score.)
5. This is of course a hypothesis. However, to say "based on two out of three measures, here are the facts..." begs the question as to why one omitted one of the three measures.
I'll leave it to others to explain the pros and cons of a system that so emphasizes a standard understanding of English as an admission standard for a private university.
PFnV