SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best SAT prep resources (past exams) are free. The good prep books (college panda, Erica meltzer, orange book, studylark) are relatively cheap, and free if your resort to piracy. Lastly, KhanAcademy has a great question database

No they're not. Better than what was previously available for free? Yes. Best? Nope. I taught test prep. Not all materials (even practice tests) are equal. There are better materials and formats (class and tutoring are more effective than self study). But, the Khan stuff is a good start. For a disciplined kid, I would also buy Kallis (good explanations and practice tests) and Princeton Review (some good strategy, research and practice tests). But, some kids will really benefit from a class or one-on-one format.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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


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



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

Where is the credible research there? A Forbes puff piece with no link to an actual report or data or an opinion price from “weilcollegeadvising.com”?

Contrast this to the UC regents report (very carefully researched, using millions of student records) and all of the research coming from Kuncel and Sackett from UMN using data from millions of students across many schools.

The reality is the people saying that standardized test scores should be considered are the moderate/compromise position. If people were arguing that only test scores should count and we should ignore HS GPA despite ample evidence that it predicts college success people would think you were insane; that’s essentially the same position the “eliminate standardized testing” people are taking. Most rational people know that standardized testing isn’t the whole picture, but can add a very valuable data point in assessing college readiness.

Research Finds that High School GPAs Are Stronger Predictors of College Graduation than ACT Scores

Research Finds that High School GPAs Are Stronger Predictors
of College Graduation than ACT Scores
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 28, 2020—

Students’ high school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new study published today in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.

The authors of the new study, Elaine M. Allensworth and Kallie Clark, both of the University of Chicago, also found that the predictive power of GPAs is consistent across high schools. The relationship between ACT scores and college graduation depends on which high school a student attends; at many high schools there is no connection between students’ ACT scores and eventual college graduation.

“It was surprising not only to see that there was no relationship between ACT scores and college graduation at some high schools, but also to see that at many high schools the relationship was negative among students with the highest test scores,” said Allensworth, who is the director of the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.

https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/High-School-GPAs-and-ACT-Scores-as-Predictors-of-College-Completion-Examining-Assumptions-about-Consistency-across-High-Schools

Our older DC blew test scores out of the park and they had very strong GPA in rigorous course load. The latter was way more important.

I am fine with test optional. I think high test scores is way easier to obtain than earning high GPAs for difficult classes over four years. It also helps students from less advantaged backgrounds.

Dartmouth and Yale seem to be saying that TO does NOT help those from less advantaged backgrounds because they are going TO when below 25th percentile, even though their still strong score in context would actually better help support their admission.

I don’t understand how a score that is <25% could be considered strong?

Also students from disadvantaged families (first gen/ non English speaking immigrant/
Below poverty line etc.) don’t have money to obtain tutoring prep and keep retaking tests.

However that discrepancy is less pronounced for GPAs although even that plays in for the number of AP
Exams the students can afford to take.


A high GPA is a better indicator for students having the grit to stay the course and graduate. Getting in is not the only goals but ability to graduate.

For top schools you need both.

For many schools not in the top 20 or 25, TO is here forever…
For the tippy top schools, look at the Reddit forum - r/collegeresults - to see how the TO candidates did last year at top schools…

Lots of data out there.

The title of thread is single most predictive factor - plenty of data suggests the single most predictive factor in college success is GPA -

How is college success defined?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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


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



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

Where is the credible research there? A Forbes puff piece with no link to an actual report or data or an opinion price from “weilcollegeadvising.com”?

Contrast this to the UC regents report (very carefully researched, using millions of student records) and all of the research coming from Kuncel and Sackett from UMN using data from millions of students across many schools.

The reality is the people saying that standardized test scores should be considered are the moderate/compromise position. If people were arguing that only test scores should count and we should ignore HS GPA despite ample evidence that it predicts college success people would think you were insane; that’s essentially the same position the “eliminate standardized testing” people are taking. Most rational people know that standardized testing isn’t the whole picture, but can add a very valuable data point in assessing college readiness.

Research Finds that High School GPAs Are Stronger Predictors of College Graduation than ACT Scores

Research Finds that High School GPAs Are Stronger Predictors
of College Graduation than ACT Scores
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 28, 2020—

Students’ high school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new study published today in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.

The authors of the new study, Elaine M. Allensworth and Kallie Clark, both of the University of Chicago, also found that the predictive power of GPAs is consistent across high schools. The relationship between ACT scores and college graduation depends on which high school a student attends; at many high schools there is no connection between students’ ACT scores and eventual college graduation.

“It was surprising not only to see that there was no relationship between ACT scores and college graduation at some high schools, but also to see that at many high schools the relationship was negative among students with the highest test scores,” said Allensworth, who is the director of the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.

https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/High-School-GPAs-and-ACT-Scores-as-Predictors-of-College-Completion-Examining-Assumptions-about-Consistency-across-High-Schools

Our older DC blew test scores out of the park and they had very strong GPA in rigorous course load. The latter was way more important.

I am fine with test optional. I think high test scores is way easier to obtain than earning high GPAs for difficult classes over four years. It also helps students from less advantaged backgrounds.

Dartmouth and Yale seem to be saying that TO does NOT help those from less advantaged backgrounds because they are going TO when below 25th percentile, even though their still strong score in context would actually better help support their admission.

I don’t understand how a score that is <25% could be considered strong?

Also students from disadvantaged families (first gen/ non English speaking immigrant/
Below poverty line etc.) don’t have money to obtain tutoring prep and keep retaking tests.

However that discrepancy is less pronounced for GPAs although even that plays in for the number of AP
Exams the students can afford to take.


A high GPA is a better indicator for students having the grit to stay the course and graduate. Getting in is not the only goals but ability to graduate.

For top schools you need both.

For many schools not in the top 20 or 25, TO is here forever…
For the tippy top schools, look at the Reddit forum - r/collegeresults - to see how the TO candidates did last year at top schools…

Lots of data out there.

The title of thread is single most predictive factor - plenty of data suggests the single most predictive factor in college success is GPA -

How is college success defined?

Graduating with a decent GPA - hopefully placing them on a road to a job that pays the bills …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best SAT prep resources (past exams) are free. The good prep books (college panda, Erica meltzer, orange book, studylark) are relatively cheap, and free if your resort to piracy. Lastly, KhanAcademy has a great question database

No they're not. Better than what was previously available for free? Yes. Best? Nope. I taught test prep. Not all materials (even practice tests) are equal. There are better materials and formats (class and tutoring are more effective than self study). But, the Khan stuff is a good start. For a disciplined kid, I would also buy Kallis (good explanations and practice tests) and Princeton Review (some good strategy, research and practice tests). But, some kids will really benefit from a class or one-on-one format.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

Bravo to your DC - that is good news they did well in SAT using Khan academy. Agree about TikTok .

However, FYI many disadvantaged students don’t even have the luxury of internet access.

An average of 12.22% of households across the 50 states don't have internet access. Many because they can't afford it or because there are no providers in their area.

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best SAT prep resources (past exams) are free. The good prep books (college panda, Erica meltzer, orange book, studylark) are relatively cheap, and free if your resort to piracy. Lastly, KhanAcademy has a great question database

No they're not. Better than what was previously available for free? Yes. Best? Nope. I taught test prep. Not all materials (even practice tests) are equal. There are better materials and formats (class and tutoring are more effective than self study). But, the Khan stuff is a good start. For a disciplined kid, I would also buy Kallis (good explanations and practice tests) and Princeton Review (some good strategy, research and practice tests). But, some kids will really benefit from a class or one-on-one format.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

Bravo to your DC - that is good news they did well in SAT using Khan academy. Agree about TikTok .

However, FYI many disadvantaged students don’t even have the luxury of internet access.

An average of 12.22% of households across the 50 states don't have internet access. Many because they can't afford it or because there are no providers in their area.

Different poster but there is always internet available in public libraries. Here in DC you can walk into any public library and there is a bank of 25-100 computers (depending on the size of the branch) with unlimited internet access. I grew up in the middle-of-nowhere in PA (town of 2000 people) and that town's library has unlimited computer access. I was there with my mom last week.

Sure, there is likely a very small percentage of American high schoolers who have no access to a library, a bike or car to get there, etc. but you are talking about a very small number. There are a ton of kids who could be doing khan Academy for free who don't. My kid did the entire program this summer (ironically, much of it at a public library while living in a beach town with her grandparents).

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best SAT prep resources (past exams) are free. The good prep books (college panda, Erica meltzer, orange book, studylark) are relatively cheap, and free if your resort to piracy. Lastly, KhanAcademy has a great question database

No they're not. Better than what was previously available for free? Yes. Best? Nope. I taught test prep. Not all materials (even practice tests) are equal. There are better materials and formats (class and tutoring are more effective than self study). But, the Khan stuff is a good start. For a disciplined kid, I would also buy Kallis (good explanations and practice tests) and Princeton Review (some good strategy, research and practice tests). But, some kids will really benefit from a class or one-on-one format.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

Bravo to your DC - that is good news they did well in SAT using Khan academy. Agree about TikTok .

However, FYI many disadvantaged students don’t even have the luxury of internet access.

An average of 12.22% of households across the 50 states don't have internet access. Many because they can't afford it or because there are no providers in their area.

Yep, which is why my own kids did it on their phones. I live in NYC where 1 in 9 kids are homeless. (this is stat is a little overstated, because it usually means they're living w extended family not on the street, but .. it's not great). My kids went to title 1 schools. We know plenty of kids in shelter, which has wifi but it's not great. We were all giving cell enabled iPads during covid, which are kinda helpful. We have internet at home, but it's not great and it's slow (speeds under 100 mbps up and down, sometimes it's around 20). But phones work and most of the kids in HS have phones. In fact, this is what enables a lot of people to skip the expense of broadband at home. Libraries and schools have better wifi (usually).

I realize it's harder in rural areas, but I think this entire line of argument is a red herring. I can talk about the inequity in our schools system, the waste, the lack of art and music, the drugs in the schools (there were overdoses in middle school - literally in class), the insane system of even getting into MS and HS here, the lack of school-based athletics, the zero college counseling. But the SAT? A phone and a book from the library leveled the playing field for us. The other institutionalized systems of inequality were not so easily overcome.

Colleges admissions is based on college tours (not happening), essays (this is really a black hole for us, no help but felt a lot better than the kids who didn't even speak English til they got here in 6th grade and their parents speak no English), list building (really a black hole), the GPA (4 math teachers one year, a random C on the report card nobody could track down and nobody would fix for us) .. and the big one: the price. This part is totally insane. The NPC is a big help and a lot of people don't realize it hasn't even been around for that long (wasn't for my oldest), but it's still very hard to manage this when you have no money and the price tag is enormous. I don't think white MC families would put up with a programs like Questbridge and Posse if it was their kids. It's so involved and frankly at times bizarre.

Anyway, the SAT was fine in comparison. We understood it. The Brooklyn public library is great with prep books and internet. I just don't think rural and poor urban kids have an equitable chance at any of it. But testing was the least of it. those college panda books were great and you can get those anywhere.

I think TO helps the kids who go to suburban or private schools with a ton of grade inflation so they go TO with that 1300, their mom "edits" the essay, they spend 5k on summer programs and another 15k on hockey over the years and they land at Dartmouth. But sure, let's keep it bcs of the poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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


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



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

Where is the credible research there? A Forbes puff piece with no link to an actual report or data or an opinion price from “weilcollegeadvising.com”?

Contrast this to the UC regents report (very carefully researched, using millions of student records) and all of the research coming from Kuncel and Sackett from UMN using data from millions of students across many schools.

The reality is the people saying that standardized test scores should be considered are the moderate/compromise position. If people were arguing that only test scores should count and we should ignore HS GPA despite ample evidence that it predicts college success people would think you were insane; that’s essentially the same position the “eliminate standardized testing” people are taking. Most rational people know that standardized testing isn’t the whole picture, but can add a very valuable data point in assessing college readiness.

Research Finds that High School GPAs Are Stronger Predictors of College Graduation than ACT Scores

Research Finds that High School GPAs Are Stronger Predictors
of College Graduation than ACT Scores
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 28, 2020—

Students’ high school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation, according to a new study published today in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.

The authors of the new study, Elaine M. Allensworth and Kallie Clark, both of the University of Chicago, also found that the predictive power of GPAs is consistent across high schools. The relationship between ACT scores and college graduation depends on which high school a student attends; at many high schools there is no connection between students’ ACT scores and eventual college graduation.

“It was surprising not only to see that there was no relationship between ACT scores and college graduation at some high schools, but also to see that at many high schools the relationship was negative among students with the highest test scores,” said Allensworth, who is the director of the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.

https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/High-School-GPAs-and-ACT-Scores-as-Predictors-of-College-Completion-Examining-Assumptions-about-Consistency-across-High-Schools

Our older DC blew test scores out of the park and they had very strong GPA in rigorous course load. The latter was way more important.

I am fine with test optional. I think high test scores is way easier to obtain than earning high GPAs for difficult classes over four years. It also helps students from less advantaged backgrounds.

Dartmouth and Yale seem to be saying that TO does NOT help those from less advantaged backgrounds because they are going TO when below 25th percentile, even though their still strong score in context would actually better help support their admission.

I don’t understand how a score that is <25% could be considered strong?

Also students from disadvantaged families (first gen/ non English speaking immigrant/
Below poverty line etc.) don’t have money to obtain tutoring prep and keep retaking tests.

However that discrepancy is less pronounced for GPAs although even that plays in for the number of AP
Exams the students can afford to take.


A high GPA is a better indicator for students having the grit to stay the course and graduate. Getting in is not the only goals but ability to graduate.

For top schools you need both.

For many schools not in the top 20 or 25, TO is here forever…
For the tippy top schools, look at the Reddit forum - r/collegeresults - to see how the TO candidates did last year at top schools…

Lots of data out there.

The title of thread is single most predictive factor - plenty of data suggests the single most predictive factor in college success is GPA -

How is college success defined?

Graduating with a decent GPA - hopefully placing them on a road to a job that pays the bills …

That’s not success. Plenty English majors don’t get well paying jobs.

It’s being able to get a job and exceed the kind of life your parents had (or if already UC, continue that life)

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best SAT prep resources (past exams) are free. The good prep books (college panda, Erica meltzer, orange book, studylark) are relatively cheap, and free if your resort to piracy. Lastly, KhanAcademy has a great question database

No they're not. Better than what was previously available for free? Yes. Best? Nope. I taught test prep. Not all materials (even practice tests) are equal. There are better materials and formats (class and tutoring are more effective than self study). But, the Khan stuff is a good start. For a disciplined kid, I would also buy Kallis (good explanations and practice tests) and Princeton Review (some good strategy, research and practice tests). But, some kids will really benefit from a class or one-on-one format.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

Bravo to your DC - that is good news they did well in SAT using Khan academy. Agree about TikTok .

However, FYI many disadvantaged students don’t even have the luxury of internet access.

An average of 12.22% of households across the 50 states don't have internet access. Many because they can't afford it or because there are no providers in their area.

Those kids have much bigger and more pressing needs than getting SAT test prep adequate for Yale.

[Anonymous]

My son attends a public high school in Baltimore City. He and his friends pretty much all used Khan Academy with success. Kids in Baltimore City without internet access get a hot spot for free. There are also live SAT courses offered for free to those students at least twice per year. Effective resources are available, no matter your economic status. Yes, many homes in Baltimore City may be lacking the parental involvement to push the kids to study, but resources are definitely available here and in other lower income areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son attends a public high school in Baltimore City. He and his friends pretty much all used Khan Academy with success. Kids in Baltimore City without internet access get a hot spot for free. There are also live SAT courses offered for free to those students at least twice per year. Effective resources are available, no matter your economic status. Yes, many homes in Baltimore City may be lacking the parental involvement to push the kids to study, but resources are definitely available here and in other lower income areas.

My kid's scores went down with lots of Khan Academy prep. I'm not sure they are effective resources. He was very motivated, worked hard and it was depressing for him.

[Anonymous]

Actual College Board practice tests and released QAS (see reddit) are the best practice material there is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best SAT prep resources (past exams) are free. The good prep books (college panda, Erica meltzer, orange book, studylark) are relatively cheap, and free if your resort to piracy. Lastly, KhanAcademy has a great question database

No they're not. Better than what was previously available for free? Yes. Best? Nope. I taught test prep. Not all materials (even practice tests) are equal. There are better materials and formats (class and tutoring are more effective than self study). But, the Khan stuff is a good start. For a disciplined kid, I would also buy Kallis (good explanations and practice tests) and Princeton Review (some good strategy, research and practice tests). But, some kids will really benefit from a class or one-on-one format.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

I am middle class, too and can't afford that, but it does make a difference for many students. The wealthier have an edge. I also taught test prep, and the SAT is not straightforward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we're lower middle class and my kids both just used the free Khan Academy program, got 1500+ and we're done.

I think the money thing is overstated. You can tell me some kids don't have Internet access at home, but I think that's reaching.

Sure that’s why all the rich folks are using Khan academy only

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best SAT prep resources (past exams) are free. The good prep books (college panda, Erica meltzer, orange book, studylark) are relatively cheap, and free if your resort to piracy. Lastly, KhanAcademy has a great question database

No they're not. Better than what was previously available for free? Yes. Best? Nope. I taught test prep. Not all materials (even practice tests) are equal. There are better materials and formats (class and tutoring are more effective than self study). But, the Khan stuff is a good start. For a disciplined kid, I would also buy Kallis (good explanations and practice tests) and Princeton Review (some good strategy, research and practice tests). But, some kids will really benefit from a class or one-on-one format.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

I am middle class, too and can't afford that, but it does make a difference for many students. The wealthier have an edge. I also taught test prep, and the SAT is not straightforward.

I agree.

Plus many disadvantaged communities don’t have supermarkets let alone public libraries. Many students have parents working 2-4 jobs and still need food stamps/ food pantries to feed their families so they are not focussed on helping their DC with finding free SAT help.

Not saying SAT/ ACT should go away but test optional helps reduce barriers to entry for some hard working bright students.

Obviously this is only one small reform of many that is needed in higher education. However, this thread relates to SAT/ACT being single most predictive factor for college admission and graduation. I don’t agree that it is - high GPA for rigorous course load is - and the playing field for doing well in SAT/ ACT not even.

Good for colleges such as the UC system that recognize this, and have been leading the way in helping more first gen, low socio economic and other disadvantaged students get their foot in the college door.

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best SAT prep resources (past exams) are free. The good prep books (college panda, Erica meltzer, orange book, studylark) are relatively cheap, and free if your resort to piracy. Lastly, KhanAcademy has a great question database

No they're not. Better than what was previously available for free? Yes. Best? Nope. I taught test prep. Not all materials (even practice tests) are equal. There are better materials and formats (class and tutoring are more effective than self study). But, the Khan stuff is a good start. For a disciplined kid, I would also buy Kallis (good explanations and practice tests) and Princeton Review (some good strategy, research and practice tests). But, some kids will really benefit from a class or one-on-one format.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

Bravo to your DC - that is good news they did well in SAT using Khan academy. Agree about TikTok .

However, FYI many disadvantaged students don’t even have the luxury of internet access.

An average of 12.22% of households across the 50 states don't have internet access. Many because they can't afford it or because there are no providers in their area.

Yep, which is why my own kids did it on their phones. I live in NYC where 1 in 9 kids are homeless. (this is stat is a little overstated, because it usually means they're living w extended family not on the street, but .. it's not great). My kids went to title 1 schools. We know plenty of kids in shelter, which has wifi but it's not great. We were all giving cell enabled iPads during covid, which are kinda helpful. We have internet at home, but it's not great and it's slow (speeds under 100 mbps up and down, sometimes it's around 20). But phones work and most of the kids in HS have phones. In fact, this is what enables a lot of people to skip the expense of broadband at home. Libraries and schools have better wifi (usually).

I realize it's harder in rural areas, but I think this entire line of argument is a red herring. I can talk about the inequity in our schools system, the waste, the lack of art and music, the drugs in the schools (there were overdoses in middle school - literally in class), the insane system of even getting into MS and HS here, the lack of school-based athletics, the zero college counseling. But the SAT? A phone and a book from the library leveled the playing field for us. The other institutionalized systems of inequality were not so easily overcome.

Colleges admissions is based on college tours (not happening), essays (this is really a black hole for us, no help but felt a lot better than the kids who didn't even speak English til they got here in 6th grade and their parents speak no English), list building (really a black hole), the GPA (4 math teachers one year, a random C on the report card nobody could track down and nobody would fix for us) .. and the big one: the price. This part is totally insane. The NPC is a big help and a lot of people don't realize it hasn't even been around for that long (wasn't for my oldest), but it's still very hard to manage this when you have no money and the price tag is enormous. I don't think white MC families would put up with a programs like Questbridge and Posse if it was their kids. It's so involved and frankly at times bizarre.

Anyway, the SAT was fine in comparison. We understood it. The Brooklyn public library is great with prep books and internet. I just don't think rural and poor urban kids have an equitable chance at any of it. But testing was the least of it. those college panda books were great and you can get those anywhere.

I think TO helps the kids who go to suburban or private schools with a ton of grade inflation so they go TO with that 1300, their mom "edits" the essay, they spend 5k on summer programs and another 15k on hockey over the years and they land at Dartmouth. But sure, let's keep it bcs of the poors.

Great post.