SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

I don’t disagree with your primary point but as to the subject of this thread, Dartmouth and Yale both found that this test actually does best predict the likelihood of success in college as defined by academics. Further, they seem to being saying that submitting test scores, for their institutions who review in context, is better for students from underresourced backgrounds.

Right, because the SAT was written by people trying to find the right people for Yale and Dartmouth. It is geared quite specifically to identify elite people from certain cultures. Again, it doesn't have to do with today's privileged or underprivileged, necessarily. The point is, it has nothing to do with prep or education. It is written very specifically for one type of intelligence to gain entry to elite schools who teach to that type of brain. Those schools teach very narrowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for sharing, interesting. Requiring scores also helps keep out the upper echelon riff raft. Those privileged over-counseled blood suckers go TO because they don’t have the chops.

LOL. As if plenty of 1500+ scores aren’t the result of intensive, expensive test prep and multiple tries. Come on.

Probably not that many of them. You can affect scores mainly on the margins. And some of that is going to be from having better content knowledge, which... well, guess that impact on student success.

Very poor Asian students come close to outscoring rich white ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

I don’t disagree with your primary point but as to the subject of this thread, Dartmouth and Yale both found that this test actually does best predict the likelihood of success in college as defined by academics. Further, they seem to being saying that submitting test scores, for their institutions who review in context, is better for students from underresourced backgrounds.

Right, because the SAT was written by people trying to find the right people for Yale and Dartmouth. It is geared quite specifically to identify elite people from certain cultures. Again, it doesn't have to do with today's privileged or underprivileged, necessarily. The point is, it has nothing to do with prep or education. It is written very specifically for one type of intelligence to gain entry to elite schools who teach to that type of brain. Those schools teach very narrowly.

If you’re the one who made the point and wrote that the test “does not best predict the likelihood of success in college,” isn’t this inconsistent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

I don’t disagree with your primary point but as to the subject of this thread, Dartmouth and Yale both found that this test actually does best predict the likelihood of success in college as defined by academics. Further, they seem to being saying that submitting test scores, for their institutions who review in context, is better for students from underresourced backgrounds.

Right, because the SAT was written by people trying to find the right people for Yale and Dartmouth. It is geared quite specifically to identify elite people from certain cultures. Again, it doesn't have to do with today's privileged or underprivileged, necessarily. The point is, it has nothing to do with prep or education. It is written very specifically for one type of intelligence to gain entry to elite schools who teach to that type of brain. Those schools teach very narrowly.

The current SAT was written to assess academic skills in preparation for college, per David Coleman.

Yale and Dartmouth indeed are talking about ensuring the applicant is academically prepared for their institutions. If a student does not have the "type of brain" you are referring to, they need not consider applying to Yale/Dartmouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Says the parent whose kid has a 4.4 GPA and is a “bad test taker.” LOL

Yep. The "bad test taker" crowd will be out in full force dissing that dean fella! That's the only outcome they can't buy their way to, so they don't want it but pretend it helps the 'underprivileged' they pretend to care about.

DP

Nope - My DC had both very high test scores and GPA that they worked very hard for. They won awards in STEM field at undergrad and post grad level but their supervisor pointed out it was their work ethic that set them apart.

I place much more store by consistent hard work ethic: Unsurprisingly, credible studies support that GPA is much more important than test scores for predicting future college success.

Yes--it's the work ethic that will get you much further in life as well. I'll take a 3.9+ GPA kid with a 1400 anyway over a 1600/3.75 gpa kid who didn't see the need to complete assignments on time/do the work needed to earn As in HS (or college). Strong work ethic and a smart person will go further than a smart person who only wants to work if it interests them.

[/b]You’ll “take that kid” because that’s your kid.[b]

The on-the-ground difference between a ~ 3.9 and a ~ 3.75 can be explained by so many minor factors as to render the difference materially irrelevant.

By way of example, what if the latter kid took 4 honors classes that his school didn’t weight, finishing with a B grade but an average of 89.4 in those classes. Meanwhile, another kid took those same 4 classes, but the less accelerated, less intensive college prep. versions, and finished with an A grade but an average of 90.2 in those classes.

Are you seriously going to try to convince others that the kid who took the honors classes with a 1600/36 on one-and-done testing has less capacity than your kid who took the CP classes with a 1450/33 on a super scored basis across five test dates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Says the parent whose kid has a 4.4 GPA and is a “bad test taker.” LOL

Yep. The "bad test taker" crowd will be out in full force dissing that dean fella! That's the only outcome they can't buy their way to, so they don't want it but pretend it helps the 'underprivileged' they pretend to care about.

DP

Nope - My DC had both very high test scores and GPA that they worked very hard for. They won awards in STEM field at undergrad and post grad level but their supervisor pointed out it was their work ethic that set them apart.

I place much more store by consistent hard work ethic: Unsurprisingly, credible studies support that GPA is much more important than test scores for predicting future college success.

Yes--it's the work ethic that will get you much further in life as well. I'll take a 3.9+ GPA kid with a 1400 anyway over a 1600/3.75 gpa kid who didn't see the need to complete assignments on time/do the work needed to earn As in HS (or college). Strong work ethic and a smart person will go further than a smart person who only wants to work if it interests them.

[/b]You’ll “take that kid” because that’s your kid.[b]

The on-the-ground difference between a ~ 3.9 and a ~ 3.75 can be explained by so many minor factors as to render the difference materially irrelevant.

By way of example, what if the latter kid took 4 honors classes that his school didn’t weight, finishing with a B grade but an average of 89.4 in those classes. Meanwhile, another kid took those same 4 classes, but the less accelerated, less intensive college prep. versions, and finished with an A grade but an average of 90.2 in those classes.

Are you seriously going to try to convince others that the kid who took the honors classes with a 1600/36 on one-and-done testing has less capacity than your kid who took the CP classes with a 1450/33 on a super scored basis across five test dates?

The best part of your “smart person” label is that you literally dismissed the material difference in cognitive abilities reflected in 200 SAT points but are unwilling to do the same for .15 grade points, or else attribute any difference to work ethic.

Again, you can only justify taking the substantially lower test score kid because that’s your kid. If your kid had produced a one-and-done 1600/36, you would be singing an entirely different tune.

[Anonymous]

This is common sense.

HS grades/success are difficult to compare across applicants - it's very apples to oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Not at Yale and Dartmouth, which is the whole point of this post.

Each one will make their own choice.

For example, Clark noted on the podcast that they have come to a different conclusion from Yale and Dartmouth for their institution.

NP. As long as you’re just talking about Yale/Dartmouth and not implying other colleges will follow suit. They have the demand and brand name, they can do whatever they want and it won’t impact applications. Other colleges need to remain TO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Not at Yale and Dartmouth, which is the whole point of this post.

NP. As long as you’re just talking about Yale/Dartmouth and not implying other colleges will follow suit. They have the demand and brand name, they can do whatever they want and it won’t impact applications. Other colleges need to remain TO.

Each one will make their own choice.

For example, Clark noted on the podcast that they have come to a different conclusion from Yale and Dartmouth for their institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Says the parent whose kid has a 4.4 GPA and is a “bad test taker.” LOL

Yep. The "bad test taker" crowd will be out in full force dissing that dean fella! That's the only outcome they can't buy their way to, so they don't want it but pretend it helps the 'underprivileged' they pretend to care about.

DP

Nope - My DC had both very high test scores and GPA that they worked very hard for. They won awards in STEM field at undergrad and post grad level but their supervisor pointed out it was their work ethic that set them apart.

I place much more store by consistent hard work ethic: Unsurprisingly, credible studies support that GPA is much more important than test scores for predicting future college success.

Yes--it's the work ethic that will get you much further in life as well. I'll take a 3.9+ GPA kid with a 1400 anyway over a 1600/3.75 gpa kid who didn't see the need to complete assignments on time/do the work needed to earn As in HS (or college). Strong work ethic and a smart person will go further than a smart person who only wants to work if it interests them.

[/b]You’ll “take that kid” because that’s your kid.[b]

The on-the-ground difference between a ~ 3.9 and a ~ 3.75 can be explained by so many minor factors as to render the difference materially irrelevant.

By way of example, what if the latter kid took 4 honors classes that his school didn’t weight, finishing with a B grade but an average of 89.4 in those classes. Meanwhile, another kid took those same 4 classes, but the less accelerated, less intensive college prep. versions, and finished with an A grade but an average of 90.2 in those classes.

Are you seriously going to try to convince others that the kid who took the honors classes with a 1600/36 on one-and-done testing has less capacity than your kid who took the CP classes with a 1450/33 on a super scored basis across five test dates?

The best part of your “smart person” label is that you literally dismissed the material difference in cognitive abilities reflected in 200 SAT points but are unwilling to do the same for .15 grade points, or else attribute any difference to work ethic.

Again, you can only justify taking the substantially lower test score kid because that’s your kid. If your kid had produced a one-and-done 1600/36, you would be singing an entirely different tune.

DP - my DC was a one and done very high scores on SAT, ACT and SAT subject tests. However, I still think that that their high GPA for difficult subjects over 4 years was the single biggest predictor for their highly Successful undergrad and post grad journy.

I also think that it is common sense that students from disadvantaged backgrounds or experiences may not be able to afford SAT and ACT tests and prep work. I believe it is in all our interests to reduce barriers to college entry for students who face much greater challenges getting there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

The test is one of many data points to evaluate college readiness. Why discard a valid data point? It may or may not be a better predictor of college success than grades. Different studies point to one or the other. Why not include both and call it a day. No one is saying SATs should be THE determiner for admittance. Just one data point that can be used to help paint a complete picture of the candidate. And the only metric that is identical across different schools and states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

The test is one of many data points to evaluate college readiness. Why discard a valid data point? It may or may not be a better predictor of college success than grades. Different studies point to one or the other. Why not include both and call it a day. No one is saying SATs should be THE determiner for admittance. Just one data point that can be used to help paint a complete picture of the candidate. And the only metric that is identical across different schools and states.

Why not let colleges do what think works for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one reason the PSAT awards are so valuable. If you get “commended” and/or NRSTRA/NAARA/NHRA/etc. you can report the award, reassuring the school that you’re over the bar, while still keeping your actual SAT score out of their CDS data.

Why wouldn't they want your high SAT/ACT score in their CDS data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

The test is one of many data points to evaluate college readiness. Why discard a valid data point? It may or may not be a better predictor of college success than grades. Different studies point to one or the other. Why not include both and call it a day. No one is saying SATs should be THE determiner for admittance. Just one data point that can be used to help paint a complete picture of the candidate. And the only metric that is identical across different schools and states.

Why not let colleges do what think works for them?

“What works for colleges” is often admitting under qualified students to quantitative majors, cashing the tuition checks, and then nudging the students into humanities majors. The graduation rate stays high, the school stays solvent—it’s only the student whose dreams are dashed and the family that loses money.

I’m not saying the schools should be forced to look at SAT scores. I’m saying I’ll make my own determination about what kind of school I’m willing to pay for in part on the basis of my child’s test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one reason the PSAT awards are so valuable. If you get “commended” and/or NRSTRA/NAARA/NHRA/etc. you can report the award, reassuring the school that you’re over the bar, while still keeping your actual SAT score out of their CDS data.

Why wouldn't they want your high SAT/ACT score in their CDS data?

This is if you have a 1400, so you’re “commended,” but the school has a 25th percentile score of 1490 and, like NEU, is telling people not to submit below that line.