Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.
No - “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.”
First, this discussion is about it being most predictive for Yale and Dartmouth. This isn’t being expanded beyond that echelon. You can’t just say that Yale’s study is wrong for Yale. You don’t know better than they do.
Second, I suspect the playing field may be even more uneven for high gpa with a rigorous course load. A stable family situation, including economically, can play a huge role in a students success. Even if a kid is able to ace their classes, rigor may be the most inequitable. Half of US high schools don’t offer any calculus at all. For Yale and Dartmouth, they want test scores from kids from underresourced backgrounds to see if, despite a lack of the rigorous coursework you would find available at an affluent suburban high school, the kid can manage the coursework at Ivy. That can be difficult for even very bright kids. And no one wins if they can’t handle the work. This isn’t about providing opportunities for kids to get into any college. This is the elite of the elite. And these top schools need kids who are prepared. They struggle to find kids with underresourced backgrounds who are. That’s not an equity problem that can just be solved by Ivy admissions. As a country we need to address those gross inequities at a much, much earlier stage.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}