The Misguided War on the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being below 25%ile for a highly selective school doesn't mean "unable to succeed". They aren't flunking a quarter of their students. Schools have a wide range of easier and harder classes. Top prepared students enter taking 300 level classes in their first year, and least prepared students start at 100 level classes.

I said "significantly less likely to succeed" not "unable to succeed". And colleges think that is true, or they wouldn't reject the majority of applicants at 25% or below. Ought to be obvious that kids in that cohort are more likely to drop out or flunk out than kids in the higher cohorts, and also that many of the kids in the under 25% cohort are "special cases" like legacies and athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being below 25%ile for a highly selective school doesn't mean "unable to succeed". They aren't flunking a quarter of their students. Schools have a wide range of easier and harder classes. Top prepared students enter taking 300 level classes in their first year, and least prepared students start at 100 level classes.

I said "significantly less likely to succeed" not "unable to succeed". And colleges think that is true, or they wouldn't reject the majority of applicants at 25% or below. Ought to be obvious that kids in that cohort are more likely to drop out or flunk out than kids in the higher cohorts, and also that many of the kids in the under 25% cohort are "special cases" like legacies and athletes.

With the understanding that the protest over TO from DCUM posters is really over the T25 level schools, graduation rates are pretty high. Students admitted seldom "flunk out." And some arguing that TOs may graduate with a 3.1 vs a 3.2 non TO is silly.

The SAT might "predict" the freshman year of college, but it takes 4 years to graduate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, or even the article, so apologize if this has been covered. I did read the summary in today's NYT email, which included a graph showing how much more "successful" those how submitted high scores are than those who are "missing scores." Am I the only one who thinks that a kid who got straight As at a low-performing high school then goes on to an MIT, Brown, or other top college based on those grades and no test scores, then gets somewhere between a 3.2 and 3.5 is still really successful? The whole premise is that success is 3.6 or higher and the rest are failures. How can we not all see what our society is becoming? Those first-gen, 3.3 kids at Brown are going to go on to do great things. But the Charlie Deacons and Christina Paxsons of the world think anything less than a 3.6 is not success? These TO kids are not failing out. They're doing just fine and getting incredible opportunities, which they earned!

I think you mis-read the intent of the graphs. It's not that 3.6+ GPAs are signs of success, but rather that test scores are highly correlative with college academic performance. High school GPAs, on the other hand, are not. The former shows a pretty clear incline - higher SAT = higher college GPA, but high school GPAs (ranging from 3.2 - 4.0) correlate to a nearly flat line with regard to college GPA, i.e., a higher high school GPA does not indicate better academic performance in college.

This is not to say, by the way, that Leonhardt's use of statistics is correct. He is clearly manipulating the data, or at least not giving the full story, in his piece. The best indicator of college success, according to statisticians who do a deep dive into the data, appears to be whether a student attended an elite high school - this opens up a whole other can of worms....

I appreciate your wise feedback on this. I don't think I misread the intent. I understand, it's correlative. But so what? Students with high GPAs and no test scores are still doing just fine, so what does it matter that those who submit high test scores do a little better in top colleges than those who don't? It doesn't matter. Life is not lived on a sliding scale, with the best, most successful, happiest people who make the world a better place scoring the highest and getting the highest GPAs while the rest of the losers mean nothing. That's what I take issue with. A few select people are born with incredible intellect and can score high and do well in college easily. Others were not born with that privilege and have to work harder. They more score a little lower, but if they work hard, contribute to society, and do well, why shouldn't they have oppportunities, just because of one stupid test, which was written a long time ago by people who created it around one certain type of learning?

PP here. I think that the concern is the threshold at which a student cannot graduate. I agree fully that GPA does not really matter, but the ability to graduate from the college into which one matriculates as a freshman is important. Adjacent to that concern is the students who transfer out to a college with less academic rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

But kids apply TO because their scores are bad. Either they took the test an got a bad score, or didn't even bother to take the test because they already knew they would score bad.
This isn't 2020--there's no excuse for not taking the SAT or ACT.

Kids apply TO not because their scores are bad, but because they *think* their scores are bad. TO has inflated statistics to the point where students are actually considering whether to retest with a 1500 on the SAT. Admissions used to consider test scores and class rank as a measure of how students perform in their specific environment. I do think this information is valuable in evaluating students along with other factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

But kids apply TO because their scores are bad. Either they took the test an got a bad score, or didn't even bother to take the test because they already knew they would score bad.
This isn't 2020--there's no excuse for not taking the SAT or ACT.

Kids apply TO not because their scores are bad, but because they *think* their scores are bad. TO has inflated statistics to the point where students are actually considering whether to retest with a 1500 on the SAT. Admissions used to consider test scores and class rank as a measure of how students perform in their specific environment. I do think this information is valuable in evaluating students along with other factors.

+1. Students re-taking SATs to improve their 1500 is a shame, and I fully blame college admissions policies for this. This is a huge reason why test optional should not stay. A much more realistic range of SAT scores is important for potential applicants.

[Anonymous]

Maybe schools should no longer report data relating to standardized testing. While the intent is transparency, it only seems to cause hysteria. If you want to submit, submit. If you don't, don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

But kids apply TO because their scores are bad. Either they took the test an got a bad score, or didn't even bother to take the test because they already knew they would score bad.
This isn't 2020--there's no excuse for not taking the SAT or ACT.

Kids apply TO not because their scores are bad, but because they *think* their scores are bad. TO has inflated statistics to the point where students are actually considering whether to retest with a 1500 on the SAT. Admissions used to consider test scores and class rank as a measure of how students perform in their specific environment. I do think this information is valuable in evaluating students along with other factors.

If you have been told that a 1500 isn't quite good enough then you have been lied to!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

But kids apply TO because their scores are bad. Either they took the test an got a bad score, or didn't even bother to take the test because they already knew they would score bad.
This isn't 2020--there's no excuse for not taking the SAT or ACT.

Kids apply TO not because their scores are bad, but because they *think* their scores are bad. TO has inflated statistics to the point where students are actually considering whether to retest with a 1500 on the SAT. Admissions used to consider test scores and class rank as a measure of how students perform in their specific environment. I do think this information is valuable in evaluating students along with other factors.

If you have been told that a 1500 isn't quite good enough then you have been lied to!

Wouldn't be hard to find a thread in DCUM College where people are sagely agreeing that you shouldn't submit a 1500 to Elite College X.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

But kids apply TO because their scores are bad. Either they took the test an got a bad score, or didn't even bother to take the test because they already knew they would score bad.
This isn't 2020--there's no excuse for not taking the SAT or ACT.

Kids apply TO not because their scores are bad, but because they *think* their scores are bad. TO has inflated statistics to the point where students are actually considering whether to retest with a 1500 on the SAT. Admissions used to consider test scores and class rank as a measure of how students perform in their specific environment. I do think this information is valuable in evaluating students along with other factors.

If you have been told that a 1500 isn't quite good enough then you have been lied to!

We’ve all been told this. Try again etc. easy to raise with a little prep….blah blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being below 25%ile for a highly selective school doesn't mean "unable to succeed". They aren't flunking a quarter of their students. Schools have a wide range of easier and harder classes. Top prepared students enter taking 300 level classes in their first year, and least prepared students start at 100 level classes.

I said "significantly less likely to succeed" not "unable to succeed". And colleges think that is true, or they wouldn't reject the majority of applicants at 25% or below. Ought to be obvious that kids in that cohort are more likely to drop out or flunk out than kids in the higher cohorts, and also that many of the kids in the under 25% cohort are "special cases" like legacies and athletes.

With the understanding that the protest over TO from DCUM posters is really over the T25 level schools, graduation rates are pretty high. Students admitted seldom "flunk out." And some arguing that TOs may graduate with a 3.1 vs a 3.2 non TO is silly.

The SAT might "predict" the freshman year of college, but it takes 4 years to graduate.

It does depend on the program. If you are in the 25th percentile or below for math at MIT, CalTech, or Mudd, flunking out is a definite concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

But kids apply TO because their scores are bad. Either they took the test an got a bad score, or didn't even bother to take the test because they already knew they would score bad.
This isn't 2020--there's no excuse for not taking the SAT or ACT.

Kids apply TO not because their scores are bad, but because they *think* their scores are bad. TO has inflated statistics to the point where students are actually considering whether to retest with a 1500 on the SAT. Admissions used to consider test scores and class rank as a measure of how students perform in their specific environment. I do think this information is valuable in evaluating students along with other factors.

PP you quoted here.
Yes, I see your point there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Being below 25%ile for a highly selective school doesn't mean "unable to succeed". They aren't flunking a quarter of their students. Schools have a wide range of easier and harder classes. Top prepared students enter taking 300 level classes in their first year, and least prepared students start at 100 level classes.

I said "significantly less likely to succeed" not "unable to succeed". And colleges think that is true, or they wouldn't reject the majority of applicants at 25% or below. Ought to be obvious that kids in that cohort are more likely to drop out or flunk out than kids in the higher cohorts, and also that many of the kids in the under 25% cohort are "special cases" like legacies and athletes.

With the understanding that the protest over TO from DCUM posters is really over the T25 level schools, graduation rates are pretty high. Students admitted seldom "flunk out." And some arguing that TOs may graduate with a 3.1 vs a 3.2 non TO is silly.

The SAT might "predict" the freshman year of college, but it takes 4 years to graduate.

It does depend on the program. If you are in the 25th percentile or below for math at MIT, CalTech, or Mudd, flunking out is a definite concern.

Again, students accepted to those techie schools graduate at high rates. We all know about MIT as one of the few T25s mandating the SAT/ACT. CalTech and Mudd are TO and know how to pick their class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, or even the article, so apologize if this has been covered. I did read the summary in today's NYT email, which included a graph showing how much more "successful" those how submitted high scores are than those who are "missing scores." Am I the only one who thinks that a kid who got straight As at a low-performing high school then goes on to an MIT, Brown, or other top college based on those grades and no test scores, then gets somewhere between a 3.2 and 3.5 is still really successful? The whole premise is that success is 3.6 or higher and the rest are failures. How can we not all see what our society is becoming? Those first-gen, 3.3 kids at Brown are going to go on to do great things. But the Charlie Deacons and Christina Paxsons of the world think anything less than a 3.6 is not success? These TO kids are not failing out. They're doing just fine and getting incredible opportunities, which they earned!

I think you mis-read the intent of the graphs. It's not that 3.6+ GPAs are signs of success, but rather that test scores are highly correlative with college academic performance. High school GPAs, on the other hand, are not. The former shows a pretty clear incline - higher SAT = higher college GPA, but high school GPAs (ranging from 3.2 - 4.0) correlate to a nearly flat line with regard to college GPA, i.e., a higher high school GPA does not indicate better academic performance in college.

This is not to say, by the way, that Leonhardt's use of statistics is correct. He is clearly manipulating the data, or at least not giving the full story, in his piece. The best indicator of college success, according to statisticians who do a deep dive into the data, appears to be whether a student attended an elite high school - this opens up a whole other can of worms....

I appreciate your wise feedback on this. I don't think I misread the intent. I understand, it's correlative. But so what? Students with high GPAs and no test scores are still doing just fine, so what does it matter that those who submit high test scores do a little better in top colleges than those who don't? It doesn't matter. Life is not lived on a sliding scale, with the best, most successful, happiest people who make the world a better place scoring the highest and getting the highest GPAs while the rest of the losers mean nothing. That's what I take issue with. A few select people are born with incredible intellect and can score high and do well in college easily. Others were not born with that privilege and have to work harder. They more score a little lower, but if they work hard, contribute to society, and do well, why shouldn't they have oppportunities, just because of one stupid test, which was written a long time ago by people who created it around one certain type of learning?

PP here. I think that the concern is the threshold at which a student cannot graduate. I agree fully that GPA does not really matter, but the ability to graduate from the college into which one matriculates as a freshman is important. Adjacent to that concern is the students who transfer out to a college with less academic rigor.

Right. And the data doesn't show that effect--people flunking out. The data shows a difference between 3.3 and 3.6. Who cares? That is irrelevant. Everybody is missing the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Super scores have been around for a while. I know they were doing it when I applied to college in 1992

Might suggest 2 tries since there will be some with legitimate extenuating circumstances - but just don't allow super-scoring at all.

On another note, I just don't get the rationale at all for TO - schools should be encouraged to accept students with a reasonable range and not just all 35/36. Knowing where students might need more support would be very helpful, even with the essay and freshman writing seminar placement.

Right. TO isn't because test scores are bad. TO is because the culture around admissions is insane, perpetuated by AOs.

But kids apply TO because their scores are bad. Either they took the test an got a bad score, or didn't even bother to take the test because they already knew they would score bad.
This isn't 2020--there's no excuse for not taking the SAT or ACT.

Kids apply TO not because their scores are bad, but because they *think* their scores are bad. TO has inflated statistics to the point where students are actually considering whether to retest with a 1500 on the SAT. Admissions used to consider test scores and class rank as a measure of how students perform in their specific environment. I do think this information is valuable in evaluating students along with other factors.

+1. Students re-taking SATs to improve their 1500 is a shame, and I fully blame college admissions policies for this. This is a huge reason why test optional should not stay. A much more realistic range of SAT scores is important for potential applicants.

This is absolutely the reason to reinstate testing. As a data point only, not as a gatekeeper to let in only 1550s and above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole thread, or even the article, so apologize if this has been covered. I did read the summary in today's NYT email, which included a graph showing how much more "successful" those how submitted high scores are than those who are "missing scores." Am I the only one who thinks that a kid who got straight As at a low-performing high school then goes on to an MIT, Brown, or other top college based on those grades and no test scores, then gets somewhere between a 3.2 and 3.5 is still really successful? The whole premise is that success is 3.6 or higher and the rest are failures. How can we not all see what our society is becoming? Those first-gen, 3.3 kids at Brown are going to go on to do great things. But the Charlie Deacons and Christina Paxsons of the world think anything less than a 3.6 is not success? These TO kids are not failing out. They're doing just fine and getting incredible opportunities, which they earned!

I think you mis-read the intent of the graphs. It's not that 3.6+ GPAs are signs of success, but rather that test scores are highly correlative with college academic performance. High school GPAs, on the other hand, are not. The former shows a pretty clear incline - higher SAT = higher college GPA, but high school GPAs (ranging from 3.2 - 4.0) correlate to a nearly flat line with regard to college GPA, i.e., a higher high school GPA does not indicate better academic performance in college.

This is not to say, by the way, that Leonhardt's use of statistics is correct. He is clearly manipulating the data, or at least not giving the full story, in his piece. The best indicator of college success, according to statisticians who do a deep dive into the data, appears to be whether a student attended an elite high school - this opens up a whole other can of worms....

I appreciate your wise feedback on this. I don't think I misread the intent. I understand, it's correlative. But so what? Students with high GPAs and no test scores are still doing just fine, so what does it matter that those who submit high test scores do a little better in top colleges than those who don't? It doesn't matter. Life is not lived on a sliding scale, with the best, most successful, happiest people who make the world a better place scoring the highest and getting the highest GPAs while the rest of the losers mean nothing. That's what I take issue with. A few select people are born with incredible intellect and can score high and do well in college easily. Others were not born with that privilege and have to work harder. They more score a little lower, but if they work hard, contribute to society, and do well, why shouldn't they have oppportunities, just because of one stupid test, which was written a long time ago by people who created it around one certain type of learning?

PP here. I think that the concern is the threshold at which a student cannot graduate. I agree fully that GPA does not really matter, but the ability to graduate from the college into which one matriculates as a freshman is important. Adjacent to that concern is the students who transfer out to a college with less academic rigor.

Right. And the data doesn't show that effect--people flunking out. The data shows a difference between 3.3 and 3.6. Who cares? That is irrelevant. Everybody is missing the point.

We aren’t missing the point, we just don’t agree with it.