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: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.

This is an idiotic argument. You don’t seem have a concept of 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: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?

They are taking the top percent of academic achievers--I'm pretty sure these are not kids who fail. They typically aren't even kids who ever got a B+ before college either .

[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.

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.

Depends on the job.
If I'm in charge of hiring brain surgeons at a hospital, I want the one that gets the right answer the FIRST time, in the shortest amount of time. I don't want the person that eventually got the right answer, after being given "extra time" and 15 chances to "try again."

[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.

My kid got an 1140 and I did say that, earlier in the thread. Perhaps you consider yourself too intelligent to read?

[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.

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.

With the runaway train of grade inflation, the choice is more often something like this ...

A) 1600/36 and 3.75 u/w GPA
vs.
(B) 1230/26 and 4.00 u/w GPA

I'm talking the former 10/10 times. Besides, determination and "the ability to figure shit out" has evolved into rampant cheating for some, and getting full credit for exam and assignment makeovers for most others across the HS landscape.

[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.

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.

Depends on the job.
If I'm in charge of hiring brain surgeons at a hospital, I want the one that gets the right answer the FIRST time, in the shortest amount of time. I don't want the person that eventually got the right answer, after being given "extra time" and 15 chances to "try again."

So you think that medicine works by getting the answer right immediately the first time, every time?

Have I got big news for you. Well actually your future doctors have big news for you right after this next round of tests.

[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 is an accurate summation of the parents who post here, as is there desperate insistence that only colleges in the top 10, 20, 50, or 80 (depending on where their kid got in), matter. Truth? I took undergraduate classes at a T10 school and as at CUNY. At both my professors came the same highly-ranked schools. The classes were about the same rigor. Did the t10 have more polished and sophisticated students? Sure. Did that affect my learning experience? Not really. If anything, the profs at CUNY were a lot happier to see me, and a lot more engaged.

[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.

My kid got an 1140 and I did say that, earlier in the thread. Perhaps you consider yourself too intelligent to read?

I’m too intelligent to read what you post

[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.

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 is an accurate summation of the parents who post here, as is there desperate insistence that only colleges in the top 10, 20, 50, or 80 (depending on where their kid got in), matter. Truth? I took undergraduate classes at a T10 school and as at CUNY. At both my professors came the same highly-ranked schools. The classes were about the same rigor. Did the t10 have more polished and sophisticated students? Sure. Did that affect my learning experience? Not really. If anything, the profs at CUNY were a lot happier to see me, and a lot more engaged.

If you really want your kid to work on Wall Street, send them to Baruch.

[Anonymous]

People keep blathering about grade inflation. The implication that kids with “inflated” gpas wont necessarily do well in college (that is the gpa is not a good indicator of success). Yet EVERY kid from FCPS that I know -even the weak ones with truly inflated grades due to retake policies and the like- are not only doing well but have said they feel entirely prepared for college. Not one has flamed out.

And before all you statisticians flame me for anecdotes vs. statistics, I’m aware. But those anecdotes aren’t irrelevant either. And this is over the last few years of friends/friends kids. Even the weak students.

[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.

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.

Depends on the job.
If I'm in charge of hiring brain surgeons at a hospital, I want the one that gets the right answer the FIRST time, in the shortest amount of time. I don't want the person that eventually got the right answer, after being given "extra time" and 15 chances to "try again."

So you think that medicine works by getting the answer right immediately the first time, every time?

Have I got big news for you. Well actually your future doctors have big news for you right after this next round of tests.

Yes, I think brain surgery does work like that. Do you think brain surgeons get a few "do overs" when they accidentally slice through a part of the brain they weren't supposed to?

[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.

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.

This is an idiotic argument. You don’t seem have a concept of grade inflation.

How can you determine any meaningful information at all? It’s just numbers floating in space.

Congrats, you just figured out why schools want to see essays, interviews, ECs, and recommendation letters.

The right answer is “don’t hire either one, because they didn’t give you any relevant information.”

I actually run a business. I want to hear from former bosses and co-workers and see their P&L numbers. I would like to meet them and try to assess their personality and character. I would like to learn if they have relevant experience or knowledge.

Financial or merit aid can run into the hundreds of thousands for a single student, you’re willing to commit a quarter million dollars based on two numbers and nothing else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People keep blathering about grade inflation. The implication that kids with “inflated” gpas wont necessarily do well in college (that is the gpa is not a good indicator of success). Yet EVERY kid from FCPS that I know -even the weak ones with truly inflated grades due to retake policies and the like- are not only doing well but have said they feel entirely prepared for college. Not one has flamed out.

And before all you statisticians flame me for anecdotes vs. statistics, I’m aware. But those anecdotes aren’t irrelevant either. And this is over the last few years of friends/friends kids. Even the weak students.

How many of them went into a tough STEM program? “My classes in high school were easy and I did not really have to work hard” is the kid who is most likely to crash and burn (or at least switch to a humanities major) in college STEM programs.

[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.

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 is an accurate summation of the parents who post here, as is there desperate insistence that only colleges in the top 10, 20, 50, or 80 (depending on where their kid got in), matter. Truth? I took undergraduate classes at a T10 school and as at CUNY. At both my professors came the same highly-ranked schools. The classes were about the same rigor. Did the t10 have more polished and sophisticated students? Sure. Did that affect my learning experience? Not really. If anything, the profs at CUNY were a lot happier to see me, and a lot more engaged.

This is a fair point.

The people that are trying to figure out the complexities of a Test Optional universe are almost always interested in top 50 schools.

Not a lot of people stressing out about the test policies at the University Of North Alabama.

But, for top 50 or so, it does matter how you play this. And for the other 4000 colleges, it really doesn't.

And you can get a decent education in a lot of different places.

[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.

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.

With the runaway train of grade inflation, the choice is more often something like this ...

A) 1600/36 and 3.75 u/w GPA
vs.
(B) 1230/26 and 4.00 u/w GPA

I'm talking the former 10/10 times. Besides, determination and "the ability to figure shit out" has evolved into rampant cheating for some, and getting full credit for exam and assignment makeovers for most others across the HS landscape.

That didn't/odesn't exist at my kid's HS except the spring of 2020. Otherwise, my kids get the grades they earn the first time, with a few (typically stem course) that allowed getting half credit for a detailed explanations/showing what you did wrong for each and every question on a test/quiz and then if you did it correct you could only get at most 50% back (and many times you didn't get the full 50% if you didn't explain your errors in detail. I personally have no issues with that because the ultimate goal of a Calc or Chem or Physics class is to learn the material---so the way to "earn more credit" was by thoroughly working thru your errors. Great learning experience for kids who do it correctly.

Sort of the same way that in college "a better grade on your final for the part of midterm A can replace your midterm A grade, same for the final portion of midterm B and so on" That means your kid knew the material better at the end of the semester, which is the ultimate goal of a class/education---to learn. I see nothing wrong with a kid getting a 50% on a midterm and then acing that part of the final and getting a 100% for the midterm.
In the real world, it's not about taking tests, it's about learning and exploring and figuring out how best to solve the problems at your job. Sure I'd like someone who solves it correctly the first time, but in the world of science/engineering even highly experience employees do make mistakes and might take a few iterations to figure it out.