Value of GPA vs. test scores

[Anonymous]

No question grades are inflated but colleges use them much more than test scores at the moment. Even the schools going back to testing seem to view testing as a way to validate grades as opposed to an individual variable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is geared towards *average* college bound students. It’s basic and pretty useless for assessing high fliers.

This is not true according to research from harvard and brown.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

In fact SAT scores seem even MORE important at selective colleges than non-selective colleges where GPA seems to be more important.

And what colleges would those be? Most top colleges have a significant percent of students were admitted who applied via TO. Check out the common data sets. It’s eye opening. College WANT test optional so they have lots of flexibility in who they can admit!

We are all aware of the small handful of colleges that recently announced they’re returning to test required or test considered.

BUT most selective colleges remain test optional. I say selective, which is a broader group than Top 5 or Top 10 or whatever.

[Anonymous]

My impressions are that some very selective schools have determined it correlated and do want to see test scores, but also know it isn’t PC so some expanded to AP to show also. Others, even selective want to remain TO to keep the applications coming in for their numbers of the additional freedom to choose who they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you explain students faking disabilities for extra time and doing better because of this? It’s not merely college aptitude. Everyone would do better w more time, especially on the ACT. Things are not standardized, unfortunately; and college’s don’t who has had extra time. It tests parental aggressiveness and wealth—who can pay $7k for neurological testing to shady doctors.

Perhaps this is true to some degree, but how do you explain average standardized test scores remaining flat and even declining over time? And how do you explain that fact regarding the average test score in the context of students taking 3, 4, 5 and even more re-takes? I’m not going to drive the point further home by mentioning the widespread availability of test prep materials …

If everyone “would do better” with additional time, why are they actually doing worse - on average - with the substantial benefit of repeated exposure to the test content and unlimited exposure to test prep materials, whether via paid private coaching or access to resources like Khan Academy?

Yeah, complaints about testing invariably fall apart when you examine the actual facts. The “everyone would do better” claim is usually just a parent with an ax to grind because their kid didn’t do as well as a kid that they “think” had some form of time accommodation.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if I buy the argument about SAT scores being more predictive than GPA of success in college. There are lots of kids who take large numbers of APs and do very well on the tests but who do not test as well on the SAT/ACT. As far as grade inflation goes, there are lots of kids at my child's high school who receive Bs in the class but then get 4s/5s on the exams. Teachers want very high pass rates on the exam and often make the class harder than the test. I am not sure that is true in the majority of high schools though. I think the SAT and ACT can be predictive of success in the absence of better markers, like proven success in a strong college prep curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always thought this, I believe some are bad test takers but not in the numbers people claim. It’s hard to swallow when my B private school student got a 33 act with no prep, but looks “bad” in a sea of 4.0’s. Mine likes the test, struggles more on regular class tests and memorization of material.

If the article is correct and A students are average and should expect mediocre tests scores, your B-average student with high test scores looks like someone who happens to test well on standardized but isn’t actually a very good student. I’m not sure that’s the better problem to have.

No, it just means they’re lazy and wasting their potential. That’s all.

Couldn’t the harsh be said in reverse too, maybe some 4.0’s are too lazy to put in the work to do the necessary preparation if the test doesn’t come easily?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this topic has been discussed several times before on this board, but this article was fairly persuasive to me. Sure, the testing agencies have financial skin in this game, but you can't deny the fact the grade inflation has devalued the reliability of GPAs.

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4953230-parents-misconception-gpa-sat-act/

So you think test scores have not been manipulated?

Exactly, SATs are now +200 or more than what they were 35 years ago. Still back then only 5% of my class even had an A average and maybe 2 out of 500 kids had a 4.0,

I'm not sure the grade inflation matters. Sure it was harder to get a 4.0 when I was in school but my kids seem to be getting a better education than I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always thought this, I believe some are bad test takers but not in the numbers people claim. It’s hard to swallow when my B private school student got a 33 act with no prep, but looks “bad” in a sea of 4.0’s. Mine likes the test, struggles more on regular class tests and memorization of material.

If the article is correct and A students are average and should expect mediocre tests scores, your B-average student with high test scores looks like someone who happens to test well on standardized but isn’t actually a very good student. I’m not sure that’s the better problem to have.

No, it just means they’re lazy and wasting their potential. That’s all.

Exactly. There’s a negligible difference in intelligence, vs a clear track record of keeping up with responsibilities. These are lifelong traits, and the guy who only shows on test day just isn’t good for much. There used to be a tendency to coddle these kids, as if capturing that potential was possible and somehow more important than encouraging the students who work. That was misguided and the pendulum has swung.

[Anonymous]

Does my 3.3uw/1470 count as lazy? Only honors and AP classes. Genuinely curious where this line is?

[Anonymous]

I think a combination of GPA, rigor, class rank and school history is the #1 combination everywhere. It's the reason my school sends people to UGA regularly in EA with a 4.1 weighted GPA, which is far below their 25% - because they know the school and difficulty.
Any kid who can score a high enough GPA with rigor is probably going to test well enough to be within their range. It is only the major outliers who may raise an eyebrow. Just my opinion

[Anonymous]

I don’t so much have an axe to grind about standardizing tests per se, but I think both the format and the arms race mentality are problematic. The MCQ format is a terrible way to assess a student pedagogically. It benefits only the test administrators because it’s fast and cheap to grade. But it’s susceptible to being gamed out. A student can improve dramatically by getting better at the test taking strategies that aren’t related to understanding the underlying content.

As for the second point, standardized tests are best used as one datapoint to make sure the applicant has the baseline knowledge set and skills. Not as a competition to get a perfect score. The average SAT score at Harvard in the early 1990s was UNDER 1400. Now people on this board scoff at scores like that. Scores are not linear. In reality there is a minuscule difference between 1400 and a 1600. There is a bigger difference between 1200 and 1300 than there is between 1300 and 1600.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t so much have an axe to grind about standardizing tests per se, but I think both the format and the arms race mentality are problematic. The MCQ format is a terrible way to assess a student pedagogically. It benefits only the test administrators because it’s fast and cheap to grade. But it’s susceptible to being gamed out. A student can improve dramatically by getting better at the test taking strategies that aren’t related to understanding the underlying content.

As for the second point, standardized tests are best used as one datapoint to make sure the applicant has the baseline knowledge set and skills. Not as a competition to get a perfect score. The average SAT score at Harvard in the early 1990s was UNDER 1400. Now people on this board scoff at scores like that. Scores are not linear. In reality there is a minuscule difference between 1400 and a 1600. There is a bigger difference between 1200 and 1300 than there is between 1300 and 1600.

Simply untrue. If you won’t consider the ceiling effect, you’ll never understand why the difference between a 1400 and a 1600 is far from minuscule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No question grades are inflated but colleges use them much more than test scores at the moment. Even the schools going back to testing seem to view testing as a way to validate grades as opposed to an individual variable.

This is the vibe I’m getting too

[Anonymous]

Tons of rich kids cheated SAT in my HS. In particular rich dumb athletes.

They even had a map of test score sites they can get it done. One guy on football team had someone take there test in Hawaii. They even fly the person in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is geared towards *average* college bound students. It’s basic and pretty useless for assessing high fliers.

This is not true according to research from harvard and brown.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

In fact SAT scores seem even MORE important at selective colleges than non-selective colleges where GPA seems to be more important.

And what colleges would those be? Most top colleges have a significant percent of students were admitted who applied via TO. Check out the common data sets. It’s eye opening. College WANT test optional so they have lots of flexibility in who they can admit!

We are all aware of the small handful of colleges that recently announced they’re returning to test required or test considered.

BUT most selective colleges remain test optional. I say selective, which is a broader group than Top 5 or Top 10 or whatever.

By handful you mean any reasonably competitive college or university. Only ones that had a low bar to begin with are sticking with TO. Don't really see the problem here.