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: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.

Grade inflation is almost everywhere in college. My kid went to a SLAC where fewer than 20 kids out of 500 graduated summa cum laude (3.8 and above) about 15 years ago. This past year 87 did. A further 57 graduated magna cum laude (3.65) compared to about 20 15 years ago. About half the class had 3.50 and above.

[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.

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.

Grade inflation is almost everywhere in college. My kid went to a SLAC where fewer than 20 kids out of 500 graduated summa cum laude (3.8 and above) about 15 years ago. This past year 87 did. A further 57 graduated magna cum laude (3.65) compared to about 20 15 years ago. About half the class had 3.50 and above.

Maybe the kids are just smarter and worked harder now.

15 years is a long time, why do you assume everything held equal over that time period?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

It’s standardized?

You can take either one or both of two completely different tests (SAT or ACT) that are scored differently on different scales and oh yeah the ACT adds additional subject areas the SAT never touches.

Every school takes either one, they don’t care. You can also take it as many times as your schedule allows, sometimes 4 or 5 times. No limit on attempts. No limit on test prep or outside coaching.

“Standardized” is different from “large cohorts take these tests so we can compare large groups of students”.

It’s a relatively useful sorting tool but to claim it’s an objective standard of anything is laughable.

[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.

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.

Grade inflation is almost everywhere in college. My kid went to a SLAC where fewer than 20 kids out of 500 graduated summa cum laude (3.8 and above) about 15 years ago. This past year 87 did. A further 57 graduated magna cum laude (3.65) compared to about 20 15 years ago. About half the class had 3.50 and above.

Maybe the kids are just smarter and worked harder now.

15 years is a long time, why do you assume everything held equal over that time period?

I dunno. Some freely admit that there is indeed grade inflation.
https://www.businessinsider.com/yale-grade-inflation-good-student-college-stress-2023-12?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=business-sf&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2dhNb6hHnMyCJ1sxnTWc-CHTbA42t1VofJmYYFLwIMpWXPta-p3vTG3eg

Guess one could have a discussion if the reasons provided in the article are valid or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

It’s standardized?

You can take either one or both of two completely different tests (SAT or ACT) that are scored differently on different scales and oh yeah the ACT adds additional subject areas the SAT never touches.

Every school takes either one, they don’t care. You can also take it as many times as your schedule allows, sometimes 4 or 5 times. No limit on attempts. No limit on test prep or outside coaching.

“Standardized” is different from “large cohorts take these tests so we can compare large groups of students”.

It’s a relatively useful sorting tool but to claim it’s an objective standard of anything is laughable.

Did you quote the wrong post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

It’s standardized?

You can take either one or both of two completely different tests (SAT or ACT) that are scored differently on different scales and oh yeah the ACT adds additional subject areas the SAT never touches.

Every school takes either one, they don’t care. You can also take it as many times as your schedule allows, sometimes 4 or 5 times. No limit on attempts. No limit on test prep or outside coaching.

“Standardized” is different from “large cohorts take these tests so we can compare large groups of students”.

It’s a relatively useful sorting tool but to claim it’s an objective standard of anything is laughable.

NP. Google College Board equating process.

[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.

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.

Grade inflation is almost everywhere in college. My kid went to a SLAC where fewer than 20 kids out of 500 graduated summa cum laude (3.8 and above) about 15 years ago. This past year 87 did. A further 57 graduated magna cum laude (3.65) compared to about 20 15 years ago. About half the class had 3.50 and above.

Maybe the kids are just smarter and worked harder now.

15 years is a long time, why do you assume everything held equal over that time period?

DP: Did the average SAT score at that SLAC go up? Did its acceptance rate go down? Maybe it's attracting a stronger body of students than it had 15 years ago.

[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.

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.

Grade inflation is almost everywhere in college. My kid went to a SLAC where fewer than 20 kids out of 500 graduated summa cum laude (3.8 and above) about 15 years ago. This past year 87 did. A further 57 graduated magna cum laude (3.65) compared to about 20 15 years ago. About half the class had 3.50 and above.

Maybe the kids are just smarter and worked harder now.

15 years is a long time, why do you assume everything held equal over that time period?

Yeah....right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?”

If you visit UChicago's admission website, you will see that UChicago accepts scores self-reported in the Common App. If you visit the Common App Testing section, you will see that Common App asks for, and only has room for, the highest score for each section, plus the test date for that score. There are only two SAT sections, Math and Evidence Based Reading and Writing. Hence only two SAT test dates, maximum, can be submitted via the Common App testing section. (ACT has more than two sections and also involves entering highest composite, and so more than two test dates could potentially comprise a student's ACT superscore.)

UChicago does not require all SAT scores to be submitted and has not done so in several years. Virtually all elite colleges do not require all SAT scores to be reported. Georgetown is the most prominent exception.

[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.

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.

Grade inflation is almost everywhere in college. My kid went to a SLAC where fewer than 20 kids out of 500 graduated summa cum laude (3.8 and above) about 15 years ago. This past year 87 did. A further 57 graduated magna cum laude (3.65) compared to about 20 15 years ago. About half the class had 3.50 and above.

Maybe the kids are just smarter and worked harder now.

15 years is a long time, why do you assume everything held equal over that time period?

DP: Did the average SAT score at that SLAC go up? Did its acceptance rate go down? Maybe it's attracting a stronger body of students than it had 15 years ago.

The answer to both questions is not much. The students appear to be pretty much the same as back then. Let me state we aren’t talking about Amherst, etc. here, not even top 20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no war on the SAT. Test optional means optional, not banned. You can still send your scores and they will be considered. My kids have.

Problem is that the diamonds in the rough - the would-be high-scoring kids in the disadvantaged high school - are being advised that they do not need to test, and if they do test and have a score very high for their high school but a bit on the low end for the college, they are being advised not to submit scores. That is all turning out to be bad advice per comments from the Yale AO.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else find it ironic that Ms Paxon criticized HS grade inflation given the average GPA at Brown is 3.8? It’s the most inflated among the Ivies. And possibly the most in the country.

Thank you someone else for noticing!

[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.

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.

Grade inflation is almost everywhere in college. My kid went to a SLAC where fewer than 20 kids out of 500 graduated summa cum laude (3.8 and above) about 15 years ago. This past year 87 did. A further 57 graduated magna cum laude (3.65) compared to about 20 15 years ago. About half the class had 3.50 and above.

Maybe the kids are just smarter and worked harder now.

15 years is a long time, why do you assume everything held equal over that time period?

Yeah....right.

Lake Wobegon effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test optional should stay. Submit if you wish and the school will consider it. Don't submit if you wish and the school will not consider it. Simple. You don't need to get your knickers all tied up in knots just because your DC scored high on the STA/ACT. Submit your score but know that your DC's application will be viewed in its entirety.

GPA is the most important indicator by far because it shows the work that the student puts in all four years of high school.

GPA can be easily skewed by cheating, which is very common in most if not all high schools.

SATs can be improved but not gamed. A 1200 kid is not going to test prep their was to a 1500.

pretty close though. a number of tutors guarantee 200+ points

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Deacon, the dean at Georgetown is like 80 years old. He's got a lot of opinions.

Deacon: It began back in 1995 with the recentering of the SAT, which suddenly made many, many more people have high scores. In the year of recentering, Georgetown went from having 95 students with a 750 verbal score in our applicant pool to more than 1,000. Suddenly, the Lake Wobegon effect was 1,000 people felt themselves more qualified than they used to be. Today our applicant pool has more than 3,000 kids with equivalent scores.

The problem in Northern Virginia is Thomas Jefferson, the science-and-technology magnet school. Jefferson robs all the local schools of their best students, leaving behind a culture that’s more dominated by athletics and rock music and less dominated by APs and high academic achievement. It’s great for the kids who get to Jefferson, but it leaves behind a lot of schools where the top of the class is a lot thinner.

So we don’t see a lot of great candidates from Northern Virginia high schools other than Jefferson. Even those that rank high in the class don’t look great to us. We see much stronger candidates from Montgomery County schools than from Fairfax.

Bullsh@t

NoVA is ENORMOUS. TJ is a teeny, tiny fragment in all those big NoVA counties/HS. He’s living 30 years ago before the population explosion. TJ used to be incredibly selective 30 years ago —and tough as nails school. Their holistic admissions and not telling kids they made Ntl Merit finalists, etc is TJ today. Most kids choose to stay at their own IB HSs, competitive NOVA HS where many get into Ivies.

These public school kids with their rock n roll music! Get off my lawn!

😂😂😂