SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Here’s an LA times article about it: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/uc-should-keep-sat-and-act-as-admission-requirements-faculty-report-says

Link to the report: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

From the executive summary: “ The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.”

Interesting that this is a UC study but the entire UC system is now test blind for admissions. How does this make sense?

The board of trustees went against the faculty/research group recommendation. There is press on this if you google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

Your > 1500 data is inaccurate. The number is substantially lower that 76K individuals.

Hmm..It is the top 5 percent out of about 2 million individuals...so about right, I think

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/understanding-sat-scores.pdf

Where did you get 95th %ile ... ??? Review the data at the link above, and let me know if that changes your opinion.

The number of individuals in a given year scoring 1500 or higher on the SAT, or 34 or higher on the ACT, is probably close to 32,000 in total. I know there's a desperate narrative floating around that there are more qualified applicants for T20 schools than seats available, but that's simply untrue.

Yes but your analysis doesn’t account for super scoring where kids might not ever get over 1500 on a single test, but might when you only consider their best verbal and math score over several tests. Frankly, I think colleges should bring back the required testing but stop superscoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

Your > 1500 data is inaccurate. The number is substantially lower that 76K individuals.

Hmm..It is the top 5 percent out of about 2 million individuals...so about right, I think

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/understanding-sat-scores.pdf

Where did you get 95th %ile ... ??? Review the data at the link above, and let me know if that changes your opinion.

The number of individuals in a given year scoring 1500 or higher on the SAT, or 34 or higher on the ACT, is probably close to 32,000 in total. I know there's a desperate narrative floating around that there are more qualified applicants for T20 schools than seats available, but that's simply untrue.

Yes but your analysis doesn’t account for super scoring where kids might not ever get over 1500 on a single test, but might when you only consider their best verbal and math score over several tests. Frankly, I think colleges should bring back the required testing but stop superscoring.

100% agree re: ending the super scoring practice - and I also think second, third, fourth, etc. administrations should also not be accepted by colleges and universities. One and done. That should also count for the PSAT. If you take the PSAT9 or PSAT10, you shouldn't be eligible to qualify for NMSQT recognition.

However, the individual making the case for the higher number referenced a %ile. There's no way a %ile could lead you to a number in this case since the practice of super scoring isn't universally utilized by all colleges and universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

Your > 1500 data is inaccurate. The number is substantially lower that 76K individuals.

Hmm..It is the top 5 percent out of about 2 million individuals...so about right, I think

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/understanding-sat-scores.pdf

Where did you get 95th %ile ... ??? Review the data at the link above, and let me know if that changes your opinion.

The number of individuals in a given year scoring 1500 or higher on the SAT, or 34 or higher on the ACT, is probably close to 32,000 in total. I know there's a desperate narrative floating around that there are more qualified applicants for T20 schools than seats available, but that's simply untrue.

I saw a dataset that said about 20,000. I don't know from what year though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

I don’t mean to imply your 1500 gets you in. But it passes that one hurdle for super selective schools. Not submitting a score from suburban Chicago or some other good zip will become more of a red flag than in last 2-3 cycles

Obviously depends on the tier of school we’re talking about. But given this is in the Yale subtopic, I presume we are talking about top 15 schools:

From our private, in talking to my senior kid and 6 of their friends (by the way, they all know what everybody else got on standardized tests, and generally where they are applying ED/REA) I don’t know any applicant (excluding 1st gen) of any race who is not submitting scores for a top 15 school.

So very very few in top 25% of class going TO. Maybe a change?

we're saying the same thing. if you're UMC and/or unhooked, you have no excuse not to submit a test score. If you're an olympic diver w a Hispanic National Merit award, you have more leeway to utilize TO .. because you're more desired.

Most of the DCUM posters are UMC and/or unhooked. Nothing earth shattering here. Most WILL submit scores to colleges like Yale/Dartmouth, will get rejected, and parents will find some "other" to blame.

is this on topic?

Lol
No. Someone just wants to say the same thing over and over again. No one gives a crap.

No one gives a crap about what? The "we want tests to stay" status quo versus the new test optional normal?

Yale might want to go back to testing ( notice the conjecture here). Big deal.

How many DCUMer kids are getting into Yale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Here’s an LA times article about it: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/uc-should-keep-sat-and-act-as-admission-requirements-faculty-report-says

Link to the report: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

From the executive summary: “ The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.”

Interesting that this is a UC study but the entire UC system is now test blind for admissions. How does this make sense?

The board of trustees went against the faculty/research group recommendation. There is press on this if you google.

Janet Napolitano. Failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DC graduated from a top 20 university (reach school) last year and got in with a 29 ACT (well below the 25% range) Attended a wealthy suburban HS and took a few AP classes but didn’t get straight As. Not URM or recruiter athlete but had EC and leadership strengths and is an extremely hard worker with strong work ethic and drive. Had great internships from top companies (no connections) and now working for MBB.

Congrats. But Class of 2019 anecdotes are not useful to current seniors. A lot has changed since your kid was applying to college. Also, Class of 2019 was the year of massive gap year requests, and tons of waitlist movement, where most high school counselors say the class had lots of kids get into school they normally wouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC graduated from a top 20 university (reach school) last year and got in with a 29 ACT (well below the 25% range) Attended a wealthy suburban HS and took a few AP classes but didn’t get straight As. Not URM or recruiter athlete but had EC and leadership strengths and is an extremely hard worker with strong work ethic and drive. Had great internships from top companies (no connections) and now working for MBB.

Congrats. But Class of 2019 anecdotes are not useful to current seniors. A lot has changed since your kid was applying to college. Also, Class of 2019 was the year of massive gap year requests, and tons of waitlist movement, where most high school counselors say the class had lots of kids get into school they normally wouldn't.

DP. Clarification, class of 2020 was the year of massive gap year requests and waitlist movements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

Your > 1500 data is inaccurate. The number is substantially lower that 76K individuals.

Hmm..It is the top 5 percent out of about 2 million individuals...so about right, I think

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/understanding-sat-scores.pdf

Where did you get 95th %ile ... ??? Review the data at the link above, and let me know if that changes your opinion.

The number of individuals in a given year scoring 1500 or higher on the SAT, or 34 or higher on the ACT, is probably close to 32,000 in total. I know there's a desperate narrative floating around that there are more qualified applicants for T20 schools than seats available, but that's simply untrue.

DP. "Qualified" no longer includes test scores, so yes, there are many more "qualified" applicants than seats. (Under tests-required, I'm not sure.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Why is that Dean Coffin so profoundly unlikable?

2. Our NYC private is now advising submit if it's over 25% cut off

3. I'd submit a 1500 to any school in America.

Chicago private. CC also advising to submit if over 25%

NP. Makes sense to me. Felt like I was saying this all last year when the professionals were saying 50%. Essentially, if the score shows the kid is in the ballpark of the enrolled class before test optional (CDS 2020-21), it helps them show they can handle the academics.

Does anyone suppose that high test score kids (1500+) might do better in admissions this year than the crapshoot results of the last three years? Asking for a friend...

I don't know about better, but I do feel like the days of unhooked kids in middle class or wealthier zip codes going TO is over. Submit it or forget it.

There are so many kids who score 1500+ (or the ACT equivalent) that there just aren't enough spaces for them at the top schools.

Someone on here once posted that according to the Common App 2022 report, 76,000+ applicants applied to universities/colleges with an SAT score >1500 or ACT equivalent. There are an additional 98,000 in the 1400-1490 range. That's a lot of smart kids to place.

Your > 1500 data is inaccurate. The number is substantially lower that 76K individuals.

Hmm..It is the top 5 percent out of about 2 million individuals...so about right, I think

https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/understanding-sat-scores.pdf

Where did you get 95th %ile ... ??? Review the data at the link above, and let me know if that changes your opinion.

The number of individuals in a given year scoring 1500 or higher on the SAT, or 34 or higher on the ACT, is probably close to 32,000 in total. I know there's a desperate narrative floating around that there are more qualified applicants for T20 schools than seats available, but that's simply untrue.

DP. "Qualified" no longer includes test scores, so yes, there are many more "qualified" applicants than seats. (Under tests-required, I'm not sure.)

Reference to "qualified" was made in a universe where an objective measurement of qualification is at the heart of the admissions calculus, not one where grade inflation ensures that almost everyone shows up with a GPA trophy. Also, strongly disagree that "qualified" in the T20 range no longer includes test scores. Excluding UCB and UCLA, who else is test blind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Here’s an LA times article about it: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/uc-should-keep-sat-and-act-as-admission-requirements-faculty-report-says

Link to the report: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

From the executive summary: “ The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.”

Interesting that this is a UC study but the entire UC system is now test blind for admissions. How does this make sense?

The board of trustees went against the faculty/research group recommendation. There is press on this if you google.

Judge said SAT was racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Here’s an LA times article about it: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/uc-should-keep-sat-and-act-as-admission-requirements-faculty-report-says

Link to the report: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

From the executive summary: “ The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.”

Interesting that this is a UC study but the entire UC system is now test blind for admissions. How does this make sense?

The board of trustees went against the faculty/research group recommendation. There is press on this if you google.

Judge said SAT was racist.

Look up the founder of the SAT and Eugenics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success. It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family. The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor.

Here’s an LA times article about it: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/uc-should-keep-sat-and-act-as-admission-requirements-faculty-report-says

Link to the report: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

From the executive summary: “ The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.”

Interesting that this is a UC study but the entire UC system is now test blind for admissions. How does this make sense?

The board of trustees went against the faculty/research group recommendation. There is press on this if you google.

Judge said SAT was racist.

Look up the founder of the SAT and Eugenics.

Is the original SAT anything like the current one? Does David Coleman think his test is racist?

[Anonymous]

Where is California's antiracist test that's replacing the SAT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is California's antiracist test that's replacing the SAT?

As soon as they find one where white kids can score as high as Asians, I’m sure they’ll roll it right out.