The Misguided War on the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a strong argument for bringing back SAT subject tests as well.

The SAT II Math Level 2, Physics, Chemistry, US History, etc. were all very useful in helping determine preparation.

Along these lines, Emory has said it is

weighing “external assessment” more heavily than GPA, with a particular focus on AP scores.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2023/10/23/assessing-college-readiness-pandemic-generation

[Anonymous]

The entire point of the SAT was to move beyond all the advantages that wealthy families have. It allowed smart but otherwise disadvantaged students to show their chops.

TO works for the rich and hurts everyone else.

If you believe that the rich are somehow able to "buy" higher SAT scores then TO doesn't help the rich. They can just prep their way to a 1500 no problem, and they should want the poors to have to submit their inferior unprepped scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional should stay. Submit if you wish and the school will consider it. Don't submit if you wish and the school will not consider it. Simple. You don't need to get your knickers all tied up in knots just because your DC scored high on the STA/ACT. Submit your score but know that your DC's application will be viewed in its entirety.

GPA is the most important indicator by far because it shows the work that the student puts in all four years of high school.

GPA can be easily skewed by cheating, which is very common in most if not all high schools.

SATs can be improved but not gamed. A 1200 kid is not going to test prep there was to a 1500.

You know that colleges have been in the admissions business a long time right? You don't think they have devised a way to compare GPA and rigor across schools? They have regional reps that know the quality of high schools and they have a long track record of data to assess students coming from the high schools. Colleges are not stupid. They all indicate in their common data sets that the GPA is the most important indicator. Ignore that at your peril. And go on some misguided attack on TO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional is here to stay.

Pendulums always swing...

Yes they do.

Covid made things weird for a couple of years.

I think test preferred is where it's at presently. I mean if you are a white or asian kid who is not playing Duke basketball, it's not a TO universe today regardless.

I don't think the ACT or SAT will be mandatory again. But you need some serious hooks to avoid it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades.
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back.

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores. Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated. Source: UC system and Purdue research.

My annoyance is that my DD studied hard and did really well on the SAT - similar to her sisters that got into top 20 schools. But, we went TO b/c the scores that are now reported are much higher as no one is reporting. We agonized over this decision. She lost a valuable side to her application. And, I think every year scores will continue to go up as those on the 25-50% will no longer report. Just a horrible decision.

Hard to guess why one wouldn't submit a strong score, even if it's on the low end for the school. Sorry to be critical of this decision-making, but personally, I think that's a mistake. Submit and then let the chips fall, rather than let the college assume the score was worse.

Because the average scores are so high now that you need a near perfect score to submit.

Of course we cannot know for sure, but TO colleges say they do not assume the scores were worse if not submitted. Thats what makes TO so wrong to me, it’s a guessing game now. A game that most SES and URM will not know how to play and this TO ends up hurting them rather than helping.

I agree that the PP probably received advice not to submit; I'm just saying I think that was bad advice. And I agree completely that URMs and low SES get hurt by test optional for the same reason - bad advice not to take tests and submit the scores.

While most TO colleges may say they do not assume scores were worse if not submitted, it is a logical assumption. It's hard to see how they don't make such an assumption here in 2024.

It is often said "don't submit if your score is under the 50th percentile".

If you don't submit, then the college could assume either (a) you were between 25th and 50th percentile, which means you are perfectly capable of succeeding at the school, or (b) you were below the 25th percentile, and thus significantly less likely to succeed at the school.

The AO could use other factors in your application in order to guess whether you were a or b. Strong gpa with a rigorous curriculum, that's probably (a). And in that case, they'd lean towards admitting you without knowing the exact SAT score. Weak gpa and non-rigorous curriculum, that's probably (b), and they'd lean towards rejecting you without knowing the exact SAT score. Therefore, knowing the exact SAT score probably doesn't matter all that much.

And we know that some colleges don't believe the SAT score is suggestive of ability to succeed at their college. Why would they even bother making any assumptions about you if you didn't submit a score? It doesn't matter to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional should stay. Submit if you wish and the school will consider it. Don't submit if you wish and the school will not consider it. Simple. You don't need to get your knickers all tied up in knots just because your DC scored high on the STA/ACT. Submit your score but know that your DC's application will be viewed in its entirety.

GPA is the most important indicator by far because it shows the work that the student puts in all four years of high school.

GPA can be easily skewed by cheating, which is very common in most if not all high schools.

SATs can be improved but not gamed. A 1200 kid is not going to test prep there was to a 1500.

You know that colleges have been in the admissions business a long time right? You don't think they have devised a way to compare GPA and rigor across schools? They have regional reps that know the quality of high schools and they have a long track record of data to assess students coming from the high schools. Colleges are not stupid. They all indicate in their common data sets that the GPA is the most important indicator. Ignore that at your peril. And go on some misguided attack on TO.

They indicate that because that's all they have now that test scores are off the table.

[Anonymous]

It is often said "don't submit if your score is under the 50th percentile".

That is outdated. The new advice this year is to submit if your score is close to the 25th percentile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is other excellent research that questions the ability if test scores to determine acumen or college success. TO is a good approach -- consider test scores if you want to submit. So, that rural kid w/unknown school can use that as part of their portfolio.

So tired of people trying to make this a thing again and again. If you invested in enrichment to yield high scores and expect that to mean more than it does (looking at you, mag parents who have kids submit SAT and ACT), that's on you. How about you focus on helping your kid present the best portfolio they can.

What would that be? Essay written by consultants, EC that is set up by parents or money, etc...If we are measuring students academic performance GPA, SAT would be reflection of students caliber.

Honestly, I’d argue a standardized test is the only way to get a true reflection of student achievement. Sure, there’s test prep that can help you get a better score. But it’s still way more objective than ECs, essays, or GPA (a 4.0 at one school might be the equivalent of a 2.5 or 3.0 at another—regardless of the purported “rigor” of the class).

It’s not perfect, but it’s definitely the best objective way at measuring achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional should stay. Submit if you wish and the school will consider it. Don't submit if you wish and the school will not consider it. Simple. You don't need to get your knickers all tied up in knots just because your DC scored high on the STA/ACT. Submit your score but know that your DC's application will be viewed in its entirety.

GPA is the most important indicator by far because it shows the work that the student puts in all four years of high school.

GPA can be easily skewed by cheating, which is very common in most if not all high schools.

SATs can be improved but not gamed. A 1200 kid is not going to test prep there was to a 1500.

You know that colleges have been in the admissions business a long time right? You don't think they have devised a way to compare GPA and rigor across schools? They have regional reps that know the quality of high schools and they have a long track record of data to assess students coming from the high schools. Colleges are not stupid. They all indicate in their common data sets that the GPA is the most important indicator. Ignore that at your peril. And go on some misguided attack on TO.

They indicate that because that's all they have now that test scores are off the table.

Some well know private schools in NY and the Mid Atlantic area have reps from ivies that visit multiple times a year. I’m sure they can tell that kids at those schools had more rigor than those in innercity Baltimore.

But most colleges do not have reps across the country that make it a point to know how rigorous a relatively well funded suburban school district in cities too small to be universally. There are over 23,000 high schools in the United States. No way they know the overall rigor/grading methods of each individual teacher. Because there can be a large variation even in the same school, of how tough the same course is/what earns an A—depending on the tescher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Here comes the one-and-done-1600 mom pushing her kid's interests. If her kid hadn't lucked out that day, she'd be singing a different tune.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS students should get one bite at the apple. ACT, SAT, their choice. But one at bat. That’s it. This super scoring horseshit is the one of the most bizarre developments since I was applying to college hundreds of years ago.

Here comes the one-and-done-1600 mom pushing her kid's interests. If her kid hadn't lucked out that day, she'd be singing a different tune.

What's your issue? You're apparently arguing against the value of tests in the admissions process because you have some personal motivation, which you try to cloak with the "tests are biased" horseshit. As for kids "lucking out", ask any one of the parents whose kid crushed the ACT (36, all subpart 36s on first attempt) or the SAT (1600 on first attempt) and I'd bet every last one of those kids also crushed the PSAT, their AP exams, every other standardized test they ever took, etc.

Face it, a system focused almost entirely on GPA and rigor (e.g., the UC and especially the CSU systems) is a horrendous bargain with the grade inflation and assorted chicanery that students and the parents are pulling to distort GPAs these days. Of course, nobody like you can explain how your kid's GPA was achievable with their "bad test taking" handicap, but I guess that will have to remain one of life's little mysteries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ that was from my eye-balling of the graph in the NYT article. No score applicants fell around 1300 SAT applicants, as far as college GPA for the schools in the study, which I believe were about 15-20 elite colleges.

Oh actually, it’s a lot lower than 25th percentile. 1300 is 1/4 of the way from 1200 to 1600 (the range), but I wasn’t paying attention to the density of the datapoints. Probably closer to 90% of scores were higher than 1300 for those schools during that time period. But that’s where the no-test applicants landed as far as their success in college.

No. I keep saying this but the SAT scores are nonlinear. A 1350 is probably closer to a1600 than it is to a 1200. A 1200 is ~68 percentile. A 1300 is ~89-90 percentile. THIS is why splitting hairs over what seem like big absolute differences at the high end really is useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional should stay. Submit if you wish and the school will consider it. Don't submit if you wish and the school will not consider it. Simple. You don't need to get your knickers all tied up in knots just because your DC scored high on the STA/ACT. Submit your score but know that your DC's application will be viewed in its entirety.

GPA is the most important indicator by far because it shows the work that the student puts in all four years of high school.

GPA can be easily skewed by cheating, which is very common in most if not all high schools.

SATs can be improved but not gamed. A 1200 kid is not going to test prep there was to a 1500.

You know that colleges have been in the admissions business a long time right? You don't think they have devised a way to compare GPA and rigor across schools? They have regional reps that know the quality of high schools and they have a long track record of data to assess students coming from the high schools. Colleges are not stupid. They all indicate in their common data sets that the GPA is the most important indicator. Ignore that at your peril. And go on some misguided attack on TO.

They indicate that because that's all they have now that test scores are off the table.

Nope that's not true. Common data sets have indicated the importance of GPA well before 2019, it's always been the most important thing.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was a good column, I also think they should bring back the subject tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional should stay. Submit if you wish and the school will consider it. Don't submit if you wish and the school will not consider it. Simple. You don't need to get your knickers all tied up in knots just because your DC scored high on the STA/ACT. Submit your score but know that your DC's application will be viewed in its entirety.

GPA is the most important indicator by far because it shows the work that the student puts in all four years of high school.

GPA can be easily skewed by cheating, which is very common in most if not all high schools.

SATs can be improved but not gamed. A 1200 kid is not going to test prep there was to a 1500.

You know that colleges have been in the admissions business a long time right? You don't think they have devised a way to compare GPA and rigor across schools? They have regional reps that know the quality of high schools and they have a long track record of data to assess students coming from the high schools. Colleges are not stupid. They all indicate in their common data sets that the GPA is the most important indicator. Ignore that at your peril. And go on some misguided attack on TO.

This is the myth AOs spread. They don't know all thousands of US high schools. These AOs aren't FBI special agents. They are people who couldn't get a real job.
GPA is only useful for comparing within a school, and even then it's not very useful because of different course selection and high straight A rates.