Standardized Tests

It's depressing that I have a whole blog category called "Cheating," but there you go.

From BusinessWeek:

More than 1,000 prospective MBA students who paid $30 to use a now-defunct Web site to get a sneak peak at live questions from the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) before taking the exam may have their scores canceled in coming weeks. For many, their B-school dreams may be effectively over.

On June 20, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the test's publisher, the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC), a $2.3 million judgment against the operator of the site, Scoretop.com. GMAC has seized the site's domain name and shut down the site, and is analyzing a hard drive containing payment information.

GMAC said any students found to have used the Scoretop site will have their test scores canceled, the schools that received them will be notified, and the student will not be permitted to take the test again. Since most top B-schools require the GMAT, the students will have little chance of enrolling. "This is illegal," said Judy Phair, GMAC's vice-president for communications. "We have a hard drive, and we're going to be analyzing it. If you used the site and paid your $30 to cheat, your scores will be canceled. They're in big trouble."

Read the rest of the article here.

Think the top business schools are going to give you the best advice about the MBA application process? Not always.

Recently I went to hear a panel of MBA admissions officers representing some of the highest-ranked business schools in the world, as well as two more regional MBA programs. Most fascinating to me was that the representatives from the top schools had almost nothing interesting or useful to say about the application process, while the most concrete and practical advice came from Suffolk's MBA rep. Lillian Hallberg, Suffolk's Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs and Director of MBA Programs, had some great advice to share about prepping for the GMAT. I'll paraphrase it here [with my thoughts in brackets] because it's applicable to all MBA applicants.

1. The quant section is the easier one in which to raise your score, not the verbal section.
2. GMAT prep courses are a good idea. [I completely agree, just make sure you choose a great course, which is not necessarily the one that advertises on every bus stop.]
3. Because you won't have studied some of this math since junior high, review the basics before the prep course starts. That way, you can spend your time during the prep course focusing on test-taking strategy rather than refreshing your memory about the properties of isosceles triangles.
4. To review the basics, go to your local Borders or Barnes & Noble and pick up some books on Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Geometry. Review those before your prep course starts.
5. Schedule two real GMAT tests. The first one will be your trial run, and you won't stress out because you know you'll be taking it again. [And if you get a great score, you can stop right there and cancel the second test.] For the second test, make sure to take the entire day off so that you can be as relaxed as possible. [Most schools take the higher or highest of your scores, so it pays to keep retaking it if you think you can push your score up higher.]

I've decided that I need to be posting more of the discussions I have (largely by email) over the course of the day. I yak all day long about things that might be of interest to readers of the Ivey Files, and I need to get over the fact that reproducing things I've written in an email will by necessity offer up writing that is less than polished (although Lord knows that's true for blog postings as well).

So, just today, I was chatting with some people who were commenting on the habit of finance employers to ask job applicants for their SAT scores (as well as LSAT or GMAT scores, as the case may be). On the one hand, we laughed our butts off -- we're in our mid-thirties and can't imagine that a test we took back in, oh, 1989 (!!) could possibly say anything meaningful about us. Can SAT scores say anything meaningful about someone who just graduated from college? Maybe yes, maybe no. Some argued that SAT scores do say something about raw horsepower under the hood, while others argued that good SAT scores just prove you're good at taking the SATs. Either way, to people who aren't routinely dealing with recruiting practices in the the finance world, it seems weird to ask for the scores.

However, if employers are asking for the scores, then employers obviously see some value in that information, and I'm very curious where that value comes from.

From one of my emails:This is, I suspect, also a reflection of the fact that college grades, and college transcripts  as a whole, don't really mean squat [to the interviewer].Unless you have very inside-baseball *and* recent knowledge of a school's grading practices, as well as knowledge of the grading practices and substantive difficulty of individual courses and professors, transcripts really mean nothing. When I look at a transcript, I have no idea whether PHYS 325 is string theory or "Physics for Poets" (as the gut physics class was called at Columbia in my day). And when I was still on the job market, I was bummed that my law school transcript didn't say who taught my Financial Accounting class at the business school -- it was Roman Weil, and that actually means something to some people, but I never got the benefit of that on my transcript.

The uselessness of transcripts also leads to over-reliance on the name brand of the school to signal something about the applicant.We went on to discuss grade inflation more generally, and I recalled a Boston Globe article from the early 2000's about the fact that 91% of Harvard undergraduates had graduated with honors that year. (The rest of the ivies are pretty inflationary too, so I'm not just picking on Harvard, although it has seemed to be the worst offender.)

So I throw that out there, because transcripts are so unhelpful not just in the job hiring process, but also in the graduate school admissions process.  When applicants complain about the seeming over-reliance on standardized test scores, understand that most transcript are in fact very, very hard to interpret in any meaningful way.

It's been a busy weekend, wrapping up Round 2 business school applications and responding to people whose December LSAT scores came out yesterday. (Admissions officers love to mess with our holidays, don't they?) On the LSAT front in particular, there's been some ecstatic news for some, and some not-so-happy news for others. And for the not-so-happy folks, let me remind you not to wrap your whole identities around this test. It's a big world out there, and you don't have to let one test determine your place in it. (More on that here and here.)

In the universe of workplace issues, I gave an interview recently for a human resources magazine about Generation Y in the workplace. If you want to see what's on their minds over in HR, take a look here (SMB Human Resources). The same issue, at the same link, also has an interesting article about Facebook and MySpace in the workplace, and why some employers are saying, "no thanks."

And while I'll likely be posting again before Christmas, in case I don't, I'll close with one of my favorite pastimes, making fun of the worst of academia. From The Independent (London), "The Snowman: A Tale of Modern Masculinity":

Dr Tricia Cusack, an art historian, has, for the periodical New Formations, discerned inappropriateness in the very nature of Christmas: "Some members of cultural minorities in Britain find the central power relationship of Christmas threatening, not to speak of its whiteness - a white Christ, a white snowman."

It is the snowman that bothers Dr Cusack most - not just his threatening whiteness, but also his masculinity, his "phallic carrot-nose", his location in a semi-public space or garden "to substantiate an ideology upholding a gendered spatial/social system, marking women's proper sphere as the domestic/private, and men's as the commercial/public." The snowman "animates the garden or field with an anthropomorphic presence, a household god keeping nature in order."

Surely it was no accident that "in view of the western narrative of actual masculine domination of nature/female, ... out of virgin snow a male icon is built."

Merry Christmas, everyone!

An update email I received from the Department of State:

Hello:

You have subscribed to the U.S. Department of State careers website listserve. We would like to inform you of the launch of our new U.S. Department of State's career website. Please update your bookmarks, the old ones will not work with our new navigation.

We would also like to inform you that we are now accepting registrations for the 2007 Foreign Service Officer Test.  Please click here to read about the new Foreign Service Officer Selection Process, and also about the medical and security clearances, as well as an explanation of the Super Critical/Critical Needs languages.

This service is provided free of charge by the Office of Recruitment at the U.S. Department of State.  Visit us on the web at http://careers.state.gov.

Learned about this cool new test prep service based in NYC -- it promises a "holistic" approach to test prep, so you're not just learning how to ace the test (SAT, GMAT, LSAT, etc.), but also learning how to tackle your test anxiety and stress using tools like hypnosis. I haven't ever tried a holistic approach to test prep, but given the number of applicants I hear from who feel absolutely crippled by their test anxiety, I thought I'd share it with you here. Apparently the founder (Bara Sapir) also has a 5-CD course coming out.

More info here.

I received an interesting question recently from Nick, instructor at Mentor Test Prep in DC:

Several LSAT students have asked me what sort of discount an LSAT score that is won under accommodated testing conditions (usually extra time) is given in the minds of law school admissions officers.

I've told most of them that you likely won't hear it from the lips of admissions officers, but I imagine there would be a not-insubstantial discounting of that score, given the implications for the student's ability to excel under the strict timing requirements of law school exams and later practice.

Would you care to tackle that one?  I'm operating on pure gut instinct, and I'd like to be able to speak with some measure of authority on this matter.

This is a controversial topic, and I’m sure I’ll be receiving some hate mail in response, but here goes.

First: As an applicant, purely for admissions purposes, you're likely better off applying with a higher accommodated score than a lower unaccommodated one. (For human development purposes, though, I agree with Paragon to Pieces that accommodations can have a corrupting effect.) Law schools care an inordinate amount about the numbers, no matter what they say publicly. They don’t have to report accommodated scores to the ABA (and by extension to US News), but even so, higher numbers are always better. What an applicant has to worry about is how he stacks up with his higher accommodated number against someone with the same unaccommodated number. Better to be in that particular horse race, though, than to be outside of striking distance because of a lower number.

Second: Plenty of admissions officers are skeptical about accommodations for learning disabilities. They won't say that, but it's true. LSAC might accommodate someone who has trouble “processing information quickly” (or some variation on that theme), and law schools might accommodate such a person in the classroom. The real world won’t, however, and I worry – and plenty of admissions officers worry – about how people who lack skills that are fundamental to practicing law are going to do when they’re outside of the protective cocoon of law school.

Third: Admissions officers generally don’t like to read the reports that explain what the disability is, or what the specific accommodations were. All they look at is the asterisk next to the LSAT score designating it as accommodated. There are universities whose in-house counsel won’t even let admissions officers read the underlying reports. Why? Because knowing what the disability is opens admissions officers up to lawsuits under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Universities prefer to live in a don’t-ask-don’t-tell regime.

Fourth: What all that means for applicants is that if your disability is a physical one (rather than a learning disability), it’s in your interest to write an addendum explaining the nature of the disability. Someone who’s in a wheelchair is still going to have an easier time practicing law than someone who has trouble processing words quickly. If your disability is a learning disability, keep your mouth shut. Do not volunteer any information about the disability; just take the upside of the higher score, and the upside of don’t-ask-don’t-tell.

Fifth: This whole issue is likely to go the way of the dodo. As a result of lawsuits (naturally), neither the GMAT, the GRE, nor the SAT designates scores as accommodated anymore. The days of asterisked LSAT scores have to be numbered. See here, here, and here.

More Ivey Files postings on this issue here and here.

Interesting posting at blog 'Number 2 Pencil' here. (Her "About Me" page is interesting too.)

Article by an attorney who specializes in accommodations issues here.

Article in favor of non-designated scores here.

Some moron tried to buy an advance copy of the LSAT exam from two LSAC employees by leaving a hundred dollar bill under their windshield wipers in the employee parking lot. How profoundly stupid on so many levels, not least: did he really think they'd be tempted to compromise their ethics and jeopardize their jobs for a hundred bucks? What planet does he live on? (In the sting, he upped the amount to $5,000, which changed hands in a McDonald's parking lot. Classy.) He is now being charged with four felonies.

As an admissions officer I once busted a guy after I suspected that his LSAT report looked phony. Indeed it was, although I have to give him props for the quality of his forgery. It turns out he had broken into our offices to doctor his file, and things proceeded to their sad conclusion from there. Even sadder: he likely would have gotten in without the fraud, breaking and entering, etc.

It's depressing that people do such stupid things, with such alarming consequences, all just to get into law school. Law school!

Note to would-be cheaters: If you get busted, no legitimate law school or state bar will touch you with a ten-foot pole. Your career will be over before it even starts.

I'll put this one in the "what was he thinking" file...

Here’s a little secret that law admissions officers don’t want you to know. If you go up to them at a law school forum and ask, “Should I write an addendum about [insert blemish on record here]?” they will almost always say, “Yes, that’s a fabulous idea, I really want to hear about that sad tale in your application,” even if they complain bitterly to themselves about all the many stupid, whiny, zero-value-adding addenda they receive year after year after year.

Why? Because saying “yes” gets you out of their hair much faster, and it gets you out of their hair faster because that’s the answer you wanted to hear. Because saying “yes” means they get to watch you walk away happy and eager to apply and full of warm and fuzzy feelings about how kind and sympathetic those people at School X are.

If they say “no,” they’ll have to spend all this time deflecting your follow-up questions, and tapdancing around the fact that your reasons for flubbing your first LSAT are pretty dumb, or that there’s really little you can say in an addendum to mitigate a GPA that is way too low for them. It’s much, much easier to say “yes” and then ding you later when they’re not looking you in the eye.*

Reason number two: Remember that they want to drum up as many applications as possible and ding as many as possible to help their rankings, so scaring you off with a “no” would not be in their self-interest. They want you to think that you can talk your way out of a deal-breaking blemish with a simple addendum. But think of it this way: How irritating would it be to read gazillions of essays from people about how they really do look like Angelina Jolie, that the stupid mirror is “undermeasuring” them? That’s what a lot of applicants are effectively doing in their addenda, and you bet it gets irritating to read those over and over again.

Bottom line: Most addenda I’ve seen do more harm than good. I hope this gives some peace of mind to the applicants who drive themselves into a tizzy over the conflicting advice they’re getting about addenda, for example on this recent discussion board thread.

* Keep in mind that there are things you can do to mitigate a bumpy transcript, for example taking more courses to show them a cleaner, more recent set of grades, but doing is very different from talking, and addenda are usually all talk. And as I’ve written about in more detail in my book, I’ve rarely ever seen an effective LSAT addendum – didn’t prepare for the first one? Forgot to cancel? Decided not to cancel and took your chances after some guy’s cell phone went off during the entire reading comp section? None of those reasons reflects well on you in an addendum; just let the higher score speak for itself. Arguing in favor of the higher score is much less important now anyway since the ABA stopped requiring schools to average scores back in June 2006. Schools have a huge incentive to take your highest score, regardless of what they say about taking a “holistic” view of all your scores.

Interesting blurb in today's New York Times Magazine on empty-stomach intelligence:Hunger makes the best sauce, goes the maxim. According to researchers at Yale Medical School, it may make quadratic equations and Kant’s categorical imperative go down easier too. The stimulation of hunger, the researchers announced in the March issue of Nature Neuroscience, causes mice to take in information more quickly, and to retain it better — basically, it makes them smarter. And that’s very likely to be true for humans as well.... [Researcher] Horvath says we can use the hormonal discoveries to our cognitive advantage. Facing the LSAT, a final exam or a half-day job interview? Go in mildly hungry, not carbo-loaded for endurance, and snack to maintain that edgy state.