The Misguided War on the SAT

[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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

The lot of you are little more than insufferable navel gazers. This thread is RIDICULOUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

The lot of you are little more than insufferable navel gazers. This thread is RIDICULOUS.

So you have nothing to say to refute the points or add towards the discussion, and instead resort to insults, how sad. Another "ringing" endorsement of quality of TO advocates...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is there to disagree with here? You have data showing test optional students flunking out? Or you think a 3.3 is failing? Which part do you not agree with? If it's the second pointm you have serious problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

Can you please tell us where you went to college and what your GPA was, please? Also, I completely disagree that colleges should just take the top test scorers with the highest GPAs, and they don't. And there's a reason for that. College isn't an award. It's education, a phase of life, opportunity. Many different kinds of people are admitted and do many different kinds of things with their degrees. It's such a good thing that the people here who think that the top spots should be awarded to the very top scores and just go down on a scale from there are not the ones running our institutions. The world would be a horrible place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

The lot of you are little more than insufferable navel gazers. This thread is RIDICULOUS.

You don’t understand the DCUM ethos.

Everything should be objective and the highest scores win.

However if someone else beats my kids scores or their kid is more appealing in other ways it’s not legitimate, it’s woke nonsense or a biased process.

When my kid wins it’s fair. You can tell how fair a process is by whether my kid won or not.

If you point out that seems wrong and biased then you are dumbing down schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

The lot of you are little more than insufferable navel gazers. This thread is RIDICULOUS.

So you have nothing to say to refute the points or add towards the discussion, and instead resort to insults, how sad. Another "ringing" endorsement of quality of TO advocates...

Sounds like PP hit a nerve. You didn't actually make any points, accept to insult a very decent GPA. You did not go to a top 10 college, did you? You're certainly not a leader at one, or any relevant organization for that matter, are you? I'm guessing you're a NoVa mom who is made that here 1550 average little darling didn't get into a top 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

My kid with 1550 SAT and well below average grades from a rigorous private school currently has a 2.6 at a top 20 university. And I still think he's doing fine. He has a learning disability and works his butt off to stay afloat, despite being incredibly bright. I mean, he must be bright right? He got that high test score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

This is where I have a problem with the journalist's analysis - 95% of kids go to ordinary regional public universities where the ability to GRADUATE matters most of all. Doesn't matter if it's a 2.9 or 4.0 GPA - graduating at all is the most important thing. This analysis takes what may be a factor in the top 50 and attempts to extrapolate it to ALL universities which just highlights the elite ignorance of the the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

The lot of you are little more than insufferable navel gazers. This thread is RIDICULOUS.

So you have nothing to say to refute the points or add towards the discussion, and instead resort to insults, how sad. Another "ringing" endorsement of quality of TO advocates...

Sounds like PP hit a nerve. You didn't actually make any points, accept to insult a very decent GPA. You did not go to a top 10 college, did you? You're certainly not a leader at one, or any relevant organization for that matter, are you? I'm guessing you're a NoVa mom who is made that here 1550 average little darling didn't get into a top 10.

Oh not at all, I just dislike it when people, rather than trying to refute a point or bring a new perspective (to try change minds etc) resort to insults. And before you says that's what I did too, was just trying to make a point of how that looks.

Anyway, before you assume, nope not a mom (yet), am 30 but planning on it soon ish, but yes N. Arlington. I am also an immigrant (came to US for Uni, specifically Georgetown which yes ain't top 10 or even close to it) so my view of admissions is based on my international background. Discovered this forum by accident when we were looking to buy our first home and were searching for info on public schools (outside of just looking at Greatschools, and Niche, wanted to hear people's perspectives and we don't have any friends with kids old enough yet...or really kids in general) to help determine where to get (and what compromises to make given high rates). So hope that partially explains why on dcum.

Anyway with that out of the way what point are you trying to make? Sure scores are not everything (nor did I suggest that) and agreed there comes a point where there is not that much of a difference between 1500 and 1550 (and frankly not all 1500s are equal either, a 1500 from a sheltered student with all benefits is not as impressive as 1500 or even 1450 from a disadvantaged background). But that being said, should we not aim to have as much data as possible when making admission decision, rather than trying to reduce the data and make it more of a guesswork (to a lesser extent). The article (if the data in it is to be believed) shows that SAT is a stronger predictor of college performance than GPA. Therefore, if we require GPA, should we not also require SAT? Moreover, as the article points out (and to me the logic is sound), including the SAT does help less privalaged students get in (because the score is an extra data point to use, without which someone from a "lesser" high school may get overlooked). The SAT itself in isolation does not say much (in my view, but any data in isolation can be useless), but when combined with all the other information submitted as part of an application, I think it has tremendous value (especially given how GPAs or GPA standard between schools can vary wildly).

One thing I do wonder though (and I haven't looked into this at all) is, for the top 10-20 or whatever schools, I wonder what percentage of those they accepted submitted scores, vs the percentage that did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

The lot of you are little more than insufferable navel gazers. This thread is RIDICULOUS.

So you have nothing to say to refute the points or add towards the discussion, and instead resort to insults, how sad. Another "ringing" endorsement of quality of TO advocates...

Sounds like PP hit a nerve. You didn't actually make any points, accept to insult a very decent GPA. You did not go to a top 10 college, did you? You're certainly not a leader at one, or any relevant organization for that matter, are you? I'm guessing you're a NoVa mom who is made that here 1550 average little darling didn't get into a top 10.

Oh not at all, I just dislike it when people, rather than trying to refute a point or bring a new perspective (to try change minds etc) resort to insults. And before you says that's what I did too, was just trying to make a point of how that looks.

Anyway, before you assume, nope not a mom (yet), am 30 but planning on it soon ish, but yes N. Arlington. I am also an immigrant (came to US for Uni, specifically Georgetown which yes ain't top 10 or even close to it) so my view of admissions is based on my international background. Discovered this forum by accident when we were looking to buy our first home and were searching for info on public schools (outside of just looking at Greatschools, and Niche, wanted to hear people's perspectives and we don't have any friends with kids old enough yet...or really kids in general) to help determine where to get (and what compromises to make given high rates). So hope that partially explains why on dcum.

Anyway with that out of the way what point are you trying to make? Sure scores are not everything (nor did I suggest that) and agreed there comes a point where there is not that much of a difference between 1500 and 1550 (and frankly not all 1500s are equal either, a 1500 from a sheltered student with all benefits is not as impressive as 1500 or even 1450 from a disadvantaged background). But that being said, should we not aim to have as much data as possible when making admission decision, rather than trying to reduce the data and make it more of a guesswork (to a lesser extent). The article (if the data in it is to be believed) shows that SAT is a stronger predictor of college performance than GPA. Therefore, if we require GPA, should we not also require SAT? Moreover, as the article points out (and to me the logic is sound), including the SAT does help less privalaged students get in (because the score is an extra data point to use, without which someone from a "lesser" high school may get overlooked). The SAT itself in isolation does not say much (in my view, but any data in isolation can be useless), but when combined with all the other information submitted as part of an application, I think it has tremendous value (especially given how GPAs or GPA standard between schools can vary wildly).

One thing I do wonder though (and I haven't looked into this at all) is, for the top 10-20 or whatever schools, I wonder what percentage of those they accepted submitted scores, vs the percentage that did not.

If you haven't noticed, Americans raised in this country have been indoctrinated and lost common sense. This is no longer the good old America. It's sad but true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

The lot of you are little more than insufferable navel gazers. This thread is RIDICULOUS.

You don’t understand the DCUM ethos.

Everything should be objective and the highest scores win.

However if someone else beats my kids scores or their kid is more appealing in other ways it’s not legitimate, it’s woke nonsense or a biased process.

When my kid wins it’s fair. You can tell how fair a process is by whether my kid won or not.

If you point out that seems wrong and biased then you are dumbing down schools.

^
THIS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

My kid with 1550 SAT and well below average grades from a rigorous private school currently has a 2.6 at a top 20 university. And I still think he's doing fine. He has a learning disability and works his butt off to stay afloat, despite being incredibly bright. I mean, he must be bright right? He got that high test score.

Not sure if sarcasm was implied there but:

1. The SAT is not an intelligence test.
2. Pretty sure a kid with a "learning disability" got extra time to take any standardized test. You'd be surprised how prevalent this is. Sshhhh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

The lot of you are little more than insufferable navel gazers. This thread is RIDICULOUS.

So you have nothing to say to refute the points or add towards the discussion, and instead resort to insults, how sad. Another "ringing" endorsement of quality of TO advocates...

Sounds like PP hit a nerve. You didn't actually make any points, accept to insult a very decent GPA. You did not go to a top 10 college, did you? You're certainly not a leader at one, or any relevant organization for that matter, are you? I'm guessing you're a NoVa mom who is made that here 1550 average little darling didn't get into a top 10.

Oh not at all, I just dislike it when people, rather than trying to refute a point or bring a new perspective (to try change minds etc) resort to insults. And before you says that's what I did too, was just trying to make a point of how that looks.

Anyway, before you assume, nope not a mom (yet), am 30 but planning on it soon ish, but yes N. Arlington. I am also an immigrant (came to US for Uni, specifically Georgetown which yes ain't top 10 or even close to it) so my view of admissions is based on my international background. Discovered this forum by accident when we were looking to buy our first home and were searching for info on public schools (outside of just looking at Greatschools, and Niche, wanted to hear people's perspectives and we don't have any friends with kids old enough yet...or really kids in general) to help determine where to get (and what compromises to make given high rates). So hope that partially explains why on dcum.

Anyway with that out of the way what point are you trying to make? Sure scores are not everything (nor did I suggest that) and agreed there comes a point where there is not that much of a difference between 1500 and 1550 (and frankly not all 1500s are equal either, a 1500 from a sheltered student with all benefits is not as impressive as 1500 or even 1450 from a disadvantaged background). But that being said, should we not aim to have as much data as possible when making admission decision, rather than trying to reduce the data and make it more of a guesswork (to a lesser extent). The article (if the data in it is to be believed) shows that SAT is a stronger predictor of college performance than GPA. Therefore, if we require GPA, should we not also require SAT? Moreover, as the article points out (and to me the logic is sound), including the SAT does help less privalaged students get in (because the score is an extra data point to use, without which someone from a "lesser" high school may get overlooked). The SAT itself in isolation does not say much (in my view, but any data in isolation can be useless), but when combined with all the other information submitted as part of an application, I think it has tremendous value (especially given how GPAs or GPA standard between schools can vary wildly).

One thing I do wonder though (and I haven't looked into this at all) is, for the top 10-20 or whatever schools, I wonder what percentage of those they accepted submitted scores, vs the percentage that did not.

People: she is not indicative of Georgetown students. My kids are there and most people they encounter are more critical, empathetic, and cool. This one is quite insecure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low.

My kid with 1550 SAT and well below average grades from a rigorous private school currently has a 2.6 at a top 20 university. And I still think he's doing fine. He has a learning disability and works his butt off to stay afloat, despite being incredibly bright. I mean, he must be bright right? He got that high test score.

Not sure if sarcasm was implied there but:

1. The SAT is not an intelligence test.
2. Pretty sure a kid with a "learning disability" got extra time to take any standardized test. You'd be surprised how prevalent this is. Sshhhh.

I wouldn't call it sarcasm so much as facetiousness. Everybody here argues that the SAT score is what measures students' ability to do well and yes, many inply that translates to how "smart" they are. My son is objectively intelligent, so maybe they're right, but sure as heck didn't predict how badly he would do in college. His grades did, though.