The Misguided War on the SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That’s mechanical skill. Either their hand is steady or it isn’t.

Brain surgeries are planned and plotted well in advance. Nobody wings it, there is a process to follow with lots of imaging and testing ahead of time. There may even be an exploratory round to see what’s happening inside before taking action.

Nobody’s performing irreparable brain surgeries as an 18 year old, not even Doogie Howser who is fictional. The comparison to HIGH SCHOOL GRADES is lunacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That’s mechanical skill. Either their hand is steady or it isn’t.

Brain surgeries are planned and plotted well in advance. Nobody wings it, there is a process to follow with lots of imaging and testing ahead of time. There may even be an exploratory round to see what’s happening inside before taking action.

Nobody’s performing irreparable brain surgeries as an 18 year old, not even Doogie Howser who is fictional. The comparison to HIGH SCHOOL GRADES is lunacy.

Hey, you asked who I would rather hire and I told you. It’s my pretend hospital and I will determine the criteria to hire the pretend surgeons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They don’t flunk out kids at the top schools. I was a TA at UVA; kids that turned in substandard work and didn’t try very hard would generally get a B or B-; the absolute dregs would get a C or C+. I imagine it’s much worse at top schools.

[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.

Grades better than SATs is not the question. The question is whether grades combined with SATs produces the best predictor. The answer is yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure if sarcasm was implied there but:

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

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

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

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

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

Bowdoin has been test optional since before I was born.

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

The entire University of California system is test blind.

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

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

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

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

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

And they objectively tested knowledge. Less ability to "change the rubric" to try to wipe away score differentials by race.

[Anonymous]

I was at a UChicago tour yesterday and someone asked if they can see how many times a kid takes the SAT - “do you know if that superscored SAT is high because a kid took it 10 times?” They said they do see that. And recommend just a couple times.

This was all news to me

[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.

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

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

They don’t flunk out kids at the top schools. I was a TA at UVA; kids that turned in substandard work and didn’t try very hard would generally get a B or B-; the absolute dregs would get a C or C+. I imagine it’s much worse at top schools.

UVA used to be known for serifs grade inflation it was hard to find anyone under a 3.8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was at a UChicago tour yesterday and someone asked if they can see how many times a kid takes the SAT - “do you know if that superscored SAT is high because a kid took it 10 times?” They said they do see that. And recommend just a couple times.

This was all news to me

They see all the tests used to create the superscore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That’s mechanical skill. Either their hand is steady or it isn’t.

Brain surgeries are planned and plotted well in advance. Nobody wings it, there is a process to follow with lots of imaging and testing ahead of time. There may even be an exploratory round to see what’s happening inside before taking action.

Nobody’s performing irreparable brain surgeries as an 18 year old, not even Doogie Howser who is fictional. The comparison to HIGH SCHOOL GRADES is lunacy.

Hey, you asked who I would rather hire and I told you. It’s my pretend hospital and I will determine the criteria to hire the pretend surgeons.

It’s your pretend hospital, but you would rather hire someone who didn’t receive special instruction, didn’t practice over and over, etc? Odd.

[Anonymous]

I don’t have a firm opinion on SAT vs grades, but I do think the tendency of education bureaucrats to succumb to trends in the absence of evidence and common sense is really disheartening. I mean, decades of reading instruction that didn’t work; and trendy approaches like “inquiry based learning” for math that also fail. It seems like these days everything drives ed policy EXCEPT what kids & young people actually need to learn specific content and skills. Which yes, is the point of education.

So in this light, I think suddenly doing away with the SAT based on basically a trend in ed policy is a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That’s mechanical skill. Either their hand is steady or it isn’t.

Brain surgeries are planned and plotted well in advance. Nobody wings it, there is a process to follow with lots of imaging and testing ahead of time. There may even be an exploratory round to see what’s happening inside before taking action.

Nobody’s performing irreparable brain surgeries as an 18 year old, not even Doogie Howser who is fictional. The comparison to HIGH SCHOOL GRADES is lunacy.

Hey, you asked who I would rather hire and I told you. It’s my pretend hospital and I will determine the criteria to hire the pretend surgeons.

It’s your pretend hospital, but you would rather hire someone who didn’t receive special instruction, didn’t practice over and over, etc? Odd.

"Practice" on a fake model/self exam? Sure.
On a live human/actual exam? No.

[Anonymous]

Leaving out standardized scores was a big mistake. What are the colleges left with to evaluate students? Grades? Grading varies significantly by school and grade inflation has been rampant in high school, particularly at upper middle class public schools. Class rank? The above applies and most schools don't even report it. The percent in the top 10% colleges report can be reflective of only 25% or so of enrolled students in many cases. Extracurriculars and essays? This favors educated, affluent, connected families. They should have never discontinued or discounted standardized tests because it is the only standardized thing in the submission. If the school needs to evaluate the standardized test in light of the student's circumstances, so be it, but it will still be valuable in evaluating against students of similar backgrounds. MIT realized it could not validate an applicant's proficiency based on grades alone and started requiring standardized tests again. They are in an international competition to maintain their standing and cannot afford the risk test-optional causes for them. I think others should follow their lead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leaving out standardized scores was a big mistake. What are the colleges left with to evaluate students? Grades? Grading varies significantly by school and grade inflation has been rampant in high school, particularly at upper middle class public schools. Class rank? The above applies and most schools don't even report it. The percent in the top 10% colleges report can be reflective of only 25% or so of enrolled students in many cases. Extracurriculars and essays? This favors educated, affluent, connected families. They should have never discontinued or discounted standardized tests because it is the only standardized thing in the submission. If the school needs to evaluate the standardized test in light of the student's circumstances, so be it, but it will still be valuable in evaluating against students of similar backgrounds. MIT realized it could not validate an applicant's proficiency based on grades alone and started requiring standardized tests again. They are in an international competition to maintain their standing and cannot afford the risk test-optional causes for them. I think others should follow their lead.

Agree. Colleges really had to make it optional for the high school class of 2021 because many of those students really couldn't test due to Covid. But the high school class of 2022 had plenty of opportunity (I have a kid in that class.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was at a UChicago tour yesterday and someone asked if they can see how many times a kid takes the SAT - “do you know if that superscored SAT is high because a kid took it 10 times?” They said they do see that. And recommend just a couple times.

This was all news to me

What you were told is patently false. UChicago only sees scores self-reported in the Common App. Common App asks for the highest section scores. For SAT, that's TWO test dates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was at a UChicago tour yesterday and someone asked if they can see how many times a kid takes the SAT - “do you know if that superscored SAT is high because a kid took it 10 times?” They said they do see that. And recommend just a couple times.

This was all news to me

What you were told is patently false. UChicago only sees scores self-reported in the Common App. Common App asks for the highest section scores. For SAT, that's TWO test dates.

How do you know “That’s patently false?”