The Misguided War on the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This post is so poorly written I cannot make any sense of it. But the points stands, your first post didn't make any point that needed refuting, so trashed people who don't get high test scores.

[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.

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.

Very surprising that a message board crammed with people whose kids do extremely well on standardized tests want very badly to invest those tests with extreme importance.

Wake me when someone whose kid got a 1200 jumps up and down and screams that tests are everything.

[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.

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.

Very surprising that a message board crammed with people whose kids do extremely well on standardized tests want very badly to invest those tests with extreme importance.

Wake me when someone whose kid got a 1200 jumps up and down and screams that tests are everything.

The tide is turning at universities though. Go back and read the articles and data. It's a cycle. Those tests are coming back some time in the future.

[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.

Virtually no one flunks out of these schools, it’s basically impossible to fail out of an Ivy unless you just don’t show up for class ever.

People leave because of finances or because they chose poorly and want something else.

Is it because everyone at these schools are geniuses or is it because the classes aren’t actually that hard and there’s grade inflation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Very surprising that a message board crammed with people whose kids do extremely well on standardized tests want very badly to invest those tests with extreme importance.

Wake me when someone whose kid got a 1200 jumps up and down and screams that tests are everything.

The tide is turning at universities though. Go back and read the articles and data. It's a cycle. Those tests are coming back some time in the future.

Bowdoin has been test optional since before I was born.

I attended college in the early 90’s, it was also at a test optional institution.

The entire University of California system is test blind.

I think the tests are basically dead outside the T50 and elite tech schools where they want to see some kind of objective math grade (fair enough).

If you want to provide that extra data point then great, it can help. But “everyone sits for the test who wants to go to college” is gone.

Your average student attending a good midrange but not elite college is seriously wondering why they would waste time and energy.

When I was in high school SAT II Subject Tests were SUPER IMPORTANT if you wanted to attend a top school. They literally don’t exist any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Very surprising that a message board crammed with people whose kids do extremely well on standardized tests want very badly to invest those tests with extreme importance.

Wake me when someone whose kid got a 1200 jumps up and down and screams that tests are everything.

The tide is turning at universities though. Go back and read the articles and data. It's a cycle. Those tests are coming back some time in the future.

Bowdoin has been test optional since before I was born.

I attended college in the early 90’s, it was also at a test optional institution.

The entire University of California system is test blind.

I think the tests are basically dead outside the T50 and elite tech schools where they want to see some kind of objective math grade (fair enough).

If you want to provide that extra data point then great, it can help. But “everyone sits for the test who wants to go to college” is gone.

Your average student attending a good midrange but not elite college is seriously wondering why they would waste time and energy.

When I was in high school SAT II Subject Tests were SUPER IMPORTANT if you wanted to attend a top school. They literally don’t exist any more.

SAT 2 tests don’t exist because AP exams took their place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Very surprising that a message board crammed with people whose kids do extremely well on standardized tests want very badly to invest those tests with extreme importance.

Wake me when someone whose kid got a 1200 jumps up and down and screams that tests are everything.

The tide is turning at universities though. Go back and read the articles and data. It's a cycle. Those tests are coming back some time in the future.

It's a long thread, but you may have missed the part where the data part gets torn apart by a UW professor who actually understands data.

https://twitter.com/JakeVigdor/status/1744151461456466304

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Very surprising that a message board crammed with people whose kids do extremely well on standardized tests want very badly to invest those tests with extreme importance.

Wake me when someone whose kid got a 1200 jumps up and down and screams that tests are everything.

The tide is turning at universities though. Go back and read the articles and data. It's a cycle. Those tests are coming back some time in the future.

Bowdoin has been test optional since before I was born.

I attended college in the early 90’s, it was also at a test optional institution.

The entire University of California system is test blind.

I think the tests are basically dead outside the T50 and elite tech schools where they want to see some kind of objective math grade (fair enough).

If you want to provide that extra data point then great, it can help. But “everyone sits for the test who wants to go to college” is gone.

Your average student attending a good midrange but not elite college is seriously wondering why they would waste time and energy.

When I was in high school SAT II Subject Tests were SUPER IMPORTANT if you wanted to attend a top school. They literally don’t exist any more.

SAT 2 tests don’t exist because AP exams took their place.

No, we took both.

Val at my school (went to Harvard) took an all AP course load (and you HAD to take the AP test as well) PLUS another 3-4 subject tests.

They were required for admission at Ivy+.

No shortage of AP classes available at my nationally known magnet public HS.

They just vanished because they were no longer useful. Some people took AP instead but today’s applicants are missing an entire genre of subject tests.

And nobody requires AP to apply like SAT 2 was required. The standards changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“When you don’t have test scores, the students who suffer most are those with high grades at relatively unknown high schools, the kind that rarely send kids to the Ivy League,” Deming, a Harvard economist, said. “The SAT is their lifeline.”

My senior fits this definition and I advised them to avoid Ivy League schools in their list as a result. So far it looks like they used the right application strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“When you don’t have test scores, the students who suffer most are those with high grades at relatively unknown high schools, the kind that rarely send kids to the Ivy League,” Deming, a Harvard economist, said. “The SAT is their lifeline.”

My senior fits this definition and I advised them to avoid Ivy League schools in their list as a result. So far it looks like they used the right application strategy.

But there are other lifelines, we call them hooks.

- Star athlete

- URM

- Geographically diverse (speaking of nobody from my school attends Yale)

- 1st Generation student

- High financial need (Ivies are to their credit fantastically generous)

Except you can’t pay Princeton Review $1000 to get better at any of these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“When you don’t have test scores, the students who suffer most are those with high grades at relatively unknown high schools, the kind that rarely send kids to the Ivy League,” Deming, a Harvard economist, said. “The SAT is their lifeline.”

My senior fits this definition and I advised them to avoid Ivy League schools in their list as a result. So far it looks like they used the right application strategy.

But there are other lifelines, we call them hooks.

- Star athlete

- URM

- Geographically diverse (speaking of nobody from my school attends Yale)

- 1st Generation student

- High financial need (Ivies are to their credit fantastically generous)

Except you can’t pay Princeton Review $1000 to get better at any of these.

They have been recruited D3 in one sport but the others are not our reality.

I look at overlooking Ivys and the like as choosing reality. It’s actually quite nice over there, too.

[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.

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.

That is why grades are a better indicator of success. It’s over 4 years and shows grit, determination and ability to figure shit out and get it done.

Who do you want working for you (assume not have similar rigor schedules)
A) 1550 and 3.0 uw gpa
Or
B) 1350 and 3.9uw gpa

I want the one with higher gpa. Because they are the one most likely to give 110% at the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“When you don’t have test scores, the students who suffer most are those with high grades at relatively unknown high schools, the kind that rarely send kids to the Ivy League,” Deming, a Harvard economist, said. “The SAT is their lifeline.”

My senior fits this definition and I advised them to avoid Ivy League schools in their list as a result. So far it looks like they used the right application strategy.

But there are other lifelines, we call them hooks.

- Star athlete

- URM

- Geographically diverse (speaking of nobody from my school attends Yale)

- 1st Generation student

- High financial need (Ivies are to their credit fantastically generous)

Except you can’t pay Princeton Review $1000 to get better at any of these.

URM is no longer allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“When you don’t have test scores, the students who suffer most are those with high grades at relatively unknown high schools, the kind that rarely send kids to the Ivy League,” Deming, a Harvard economist, said. “The SAT is their lifeline.”

My senior fits this definition and I advised them to avoid Ivy League schools in their list as a result. So far it looks like they used the right application strategy.

But there are other lifelines, we call them hooks.

- Star athlete

- URM

- Geographically diverse (speaking of nobody from my school attends Yale)

- 1st Generation student

- High financial need (Ivies are to their credit fantastically generous)

Except you can’t pay Princeton Review $1000 to get better at any of these.

URM is no longer allowed.

It definitely is, as long as you wrote about how it affected your life in the essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Very surprising that a message board crammed with people whose kids do extremely well on standardized tests want very badly to invest those tests with extreme importance.

Wake me when someone whose kid got a 1200 jumps up and down and screams that tests are everything.

The tide is turning at universities though. Go back and read the articles and data. It's a cycle. Those tests are coming back some time in the future.

It's a long thread, but you may have missed the part where the data part gets torn apart by a UW professor who actually understands data.

https://twitter.com/JakeVigdor/status/1744151461456466304

Not quite -- if you read the thread, the conclusion is that SAT scores do a decent job of explaining the data but performance at "elite" high schools, i.e. GPA sorted by schools do better. Ideally, the original paper should have shown components of the interaction model, i.e. controlling for high school GPA, which does a better job of predicting freshman GPA -- SAT scores or "elite-ness" of the school. But in the test optional world, AOs likely rely on a short-hand of school rep. So as Leonhardt's article points out -- this squeezes out bright kids from middling schools, who may submit an SAT score v/s an student from an "elite" school who doesn't. In any case Vigdor concedes that the best remedy is to eliminate legacy/faculty/donor preferences (and even athletic ones). Everything else is shuffling deck chairs on a sinking ship.