The role of advanced placement and honors courses in college admissions

Expanding Opportunity in Higher Education: Leveraging Promise

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 75-114

  Geiser, Saul ^a   Santelices, Veronica ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899597867     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. (http://api.cde.ca.gov/datafiles.asp).
2. Harvard, Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue, State University of New York-Buffalo, University of Colorado-Boulder, University of Illinois-Urbana, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, University of Oregon, University of Texas-Austin, University of Washington, and Yale.
3. (http://api.cde.ca.gov/datafiles.asp).
4. (National Research Council, 2002a).
5. Harvard, Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue, State University of New York-Buffalo, University of Colorado-Boulder, University of Illinois-Urbana, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, University of Oregon, University of Texas-Austin, University of Washington, and Yale.
6. BOARS establishes standards for all courses that UC will accept for admissions, including honors-level courses, and oversees an administrative process for approving individual course descriptions submitted by each high school.
7. (http://api.cde.ca.gov/datafiles.asp).
8. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor's degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
9. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10. Atkinson, R. C. (2001). Standardized tests and access to American universities. The 2002 Robert H. Atwell Distinguished Lecture, delivered at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Council on Education, Washington, DC.
11. Campbell, P. (2000). International Baccalaureate program. Paper presented to the Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Math and Science in American Schools meeting, March 26, Irvine, CA.
12. College Board. (2004). AP central-Participation in AP: Annual participation. Retrieved on June 28, 2005, from http://apcentral.collegeboard. com/article/0, 3045,150-156-0-2055,00.html
13. Commission on the Future of the Advanced Placement Program (CFAPP). (2001). Access to excellence: A report of the Commission on the Future of the Advanced Placement program. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
14. Crouse, J., & Trusheim, D. (1988). The case against the SAT. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. CSU Institute for Education Reform. (1999). The Advanced Placement program: California's 1997-98 experience. Sacramento: California State University.
16. CSU Institute for Education Reform. (2001). Characteristics and performance of Advanced Placement classes in California. Sacramento: California State University.
17. Daniel v. California. (1999). Case No: RDVSOC174397, Superior Court of the State of California.
18. Doran, B. J., Dugan, T., & Weffer, R. (1998). Language minority students in high school: The role of language in learning biology concepts. Science Education, 82(3), 311-331.
19. Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M., & Rock, D. A. (1988). Education and American youth. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
20. Eykamp, P. (2003). The effect of Advanced Placement credit on time to degree at the University of California. Paper presented at American Institutional Research 2003 Forum. Oakland, CA: UC Office of the President.
21. Gamoran, A. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. Sociology of Education, 57(4), 812-828.
22. Geiser, S., with R. Studley. (2003). UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and the SAT II at the University of California. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 1-26.
23. Hurwitz, N., & Hurwitz, S. (2003). Is the shine off the AP apple? American School Board Journal, March.
24. Kirst, M. W. (1998). Improving and aligning K-14 standards, admissions, and freshman placement policies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.
25. Kowarsky, J., Clatfelder, D., & Widaman, K. (1998). Predicting university grade-point average in a class of University of California freshmen: An assessment of the validity of a-f GPA and test scores as indicators of future academic performance. Institutional research paper. Oakland, CA: UC Office of the President.
26. Mathews, J. (1998, March 30). 100
27. Newsweek. Morgan, R., & Maneckshana, B. (2000). AP students in college: An investigation of their course-taking patterns and college majors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
28. Morgan, R., & Ramist, L. (1998). Advanced placement students in college: An investigation of course grades at 21 colleges. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
29. National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2004). National school counselor survey. Alexandria, VA: NACAC.
30. National Research Council. (1999a). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31. National Research Council. (1999b). Myths and tradeoffs: The role of tests in undergraduate admissions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
32. National Research Council. (2002a). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
33. National Research Council. (2002b). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools-Report of the content panel on mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
34. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: Race, social class, and tracking students' opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica: RAND.
36. Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (pp. 570-608). New York: Macmillan.
37. Rothstein, J. (2004). College performance predictions and the SAT. Journal of Econometrics, volume 121, 297-317.
38. Santoli, S. (2003). Is there an Advanced Placement advantage? American Secondary Education, 30(3), Summer.
39. University of California. (1982). May 5, 1982, Academic Senate, Northern Section: Notice of Meeting of the Representative Assembly. Berkeley: UC Academic Council.