I cannot overstate how often I used Landscape during both committee-based evaluation (CBE) application review and our admissions committee. Literally every time I saw a student with an SAT or ACT score that was below our "admitted students range" I would check Landscape to see how they stacked up against their school peers. And guess what, I easily did that without mentioning race or ethnicity. I simply said "Student A's SAT is below our admitted student profile but is 100 points above their school's 75th percentile." In most cases that redirected the conversation away from "did they hit their number?" to "can they still do the work as a prospective college student?" Multiple forms of context should continue to matter during application review, and if it doesn't what's the point of even hiring humans to read any applications in the first place?
Contextualizing students' achievements has never been easy. And yet, admissions officers endeavor to understand the availability of quality #collegecounseling, rigorous coursework, and meaningful activities in their territories. But nuances about systemic challenges to learning aren't always apparent and it's impossible to discern many after a single 30 minute high school visit. And last week, after a quiet press release on College Board's website, it got harder for college reps to categorize a student's achievement compared to their resources with the discontinuation of the Landscape. 🔗 Last week's press release: https://lnkd.in/gga9cgiM While it's unclear what triggered the discontinuation (CB didn't comment on the NYT article below), the Landscape was in Edward Blum & Students for Fair Admissions' crosshairs, according to reporting. 📰 Reporting from NYT about the discontinuation: https://lnkd.in/gKiztVpe