SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Then Ivies and MIT can require tests and all other schools can be TO. Problem solved!

[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.

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).

I'm in FX County and we have tons of libraries and the computers are always full on weekdays and after school. The people look older than HS. Good luck finding a computer to use. They tend to be free during school hours but then kids would miss class for SAT prep. Doesn't seem prudent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Then Ivies and MIT can require tests and all other schools can be TO. Problem solved!

No problem to solve here. If that’s what yale and Dartmouth think then they can change their policy. The fact that they haven’t is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT also found out that tests were valuable predictors of success. That’s why their test optional experiment ended a couple of years ago.

MIT DECIDED[u][i] that tests were valuable predictors of success. That’s why their test optional experiment ended a couple of years ago.

Fixed it for you!

Read MIT's announcement on the change to make SATs/ACTs mandatory again. They found a strong correlation between scores and success. Same as the huge University of California study.

You completely misstate the findings of the UC study. Gaslighting people isn’t helpful.

The UC study strongly recommended retaining the SAT as a very good predictor for student success. That recommendation was ignored. MIT also clearly explained their rationale. Not sure what the gaslighting comment refers to? I guess the truth hurts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

THIS!

This x1000. The root causes of the inequities need to be addressed- expecting a kid who only went through algebra 2 to be able to compete freshman year with those who went through calc bc is not realistic. Address gaps with public school education, provide resources for kids from unstable families ( ie more boys and girls club type environments) and we will not see as many gaps as we do today that we are expecting colleges to fix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average SAT score is 1028. The average ACT score is 19.

Test scores are extremely predictive of college success. That's why there are a ton of scholarships available for high scores. You want a free ride to Alabama? 32-36 will do it. But test optional is not going away. Colleges love the extra applications. But don't think for a minute that your kid in Bethesda or Arlington can get away with not submitting test scores, unless they have some kind of hook.

For the elite schools, your white kid from the burbs is not getting in without a 1500+ or 34. Plus the 4.0. And what makes things annoying is that TO has bumped up average test scores to the stratosphere. It's tough out there.

Not true.
White kid. 33.
In at Cornell last year.

Agriculture? Architecture? Business? Hospitality?

Business

Geographic diversity? Rural/small town/under represented state?

Please give me some way to dismiss your kid as somehow less deserving of this. Please?

Yup. Actually thought they were going to 'play' the legacy or athlete cards first.

Well, the deans of admission basically said they look at test scores in context of your school/resources. And if yours is below the median test score for this school but is actually way higher than the average for your under resourced/rural/small town/North Dakota HS, that test score is as or more impressive than a 1550 / 34+ from an UMC suburban kid. So the kid that got into Cornell with a 33 may not be from an average or overrepresented geographic area, UMC etc. may have some hook / institutional priority but then again 33 is very close to their middle 50% so who knows. 33 ACT is a very good score and definitely doesn’t put you out of consideration for ivies. I know of a girl who got into Stanford through questbridge with a 29 ACT.

And then she required special summer program to start, and special handholding throughout to survive. What a sad joke.

So what, if she survived.

I am her. I grew up poor and white. I had a good GPA for my under resourced school. MY SAT was awful. I got into a school that required me to start in the summer and take remedial classes. I had to use tutors and academic resource center to graduate. It took me 5 years and not 4. I graduated magna cum laude with a B.S. in EE and a minor in math. I was a successful engineer who worked with people who went to MIT. I then left engineering and went to law school. I got into a prestigious T10 law school. I am now a partner at a law firm and well respected by my peers and clients. I practice patent law and counsel the best and brightest with top engineering degrees. Who cares how I got there. I got there. I make more money than I could have dreamed doing what I love.

Many care how you got there - you got there by putting in the hard work, not by being handed anything on a silver platter. Congrats - happy you found something you love doing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Then Ivies and MIT can require tests and all other schools can be TO. Problem solved!

No problem to solve here. If that’s what yale and Dartmouth think then they can change their policy. The fact that they haven’t is interesting.

+1

Thread is just OP's opinion and "prediction."

2 Ivy League schools will shape their class the way they want with single digit acceptance rates. The SAT won't be a definitive factor. It never was and even less so nowadays.

[Anonymous]

Even as test scores have plunged, the average high school grade point average has risen significantly, from 3.17 in 2010 to 3.39 in 2021—with the greatest inflation occurring between 2018 and 2021, according to a 2022 study from the ACT. That has made admissions offices less confident in the once-reliable metric of academic preparedness.

“We’re not as trusting, frankly, of GPA these days,” Latting said. “Students are trying their hardest … but grades are definitely inflated and not as connected to true class performance as they used to be.”

Yet they remain one of the few measures available to admissions officers; the vast majority of colleges that still required standardized tests in 2019 went test-optional during the pandemic. Standardized score submissions are way down at most institutions, leading to worries that assessing college readiness will be more difficult than ever this year.

Mark Schneider, director of the Institute of Education Sciences, an independent federal research center, describes a “perfect storm” of issues arising from the pandemic that complicates the task of identifying college-ready students.

“The academic and social skills of students applying to college have declined, that we know. We also don’t have standardized tests anymore really, and inflation makes grades pretty useless as a screening tool, too,” he said. “To use the technical term, it’s a mess.”

Latting said Emory’s admissions office has retooled its rankings system for applicants, formally incorporating nontraditional measures such as creative output and educational opportunity for the first time this year. They’re also weighing “external assessment” more heavily than GPA, with a particular focus on AP scores.

And with fewer applicants choosing to submit standardized test scores, colleges are experimenting with ways to ensure they aren’t relying solely on GPA as a measure of aptitude.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2023/10/23/assessing-college-readiness-pandemic-generation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Where are the peer-reviewed studies?

Google it?

The UC schools also discovered the same thing precovid. They wanted the results to say that testing was not a significant predictor of success (so they could do away with it - makes social engineering of the class easier) but the results came in showing testing was a good predictor of academic performance. Nevertheless, covid gave the UC system the opportunity to get rid of tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

I'm in FX County and we have tons of libraries and the computers are always full on weekdays and after school. The people look older than HS. Good luck finding a computer to use. They tend to be free during school hours but then kids would miss class for SAT prep. Doesn't seem prudent.

Lame excuse. FCPS issues free laptops to all students. Try to find the next excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

I'm in FX County and we have tons of libraries and the computers are always full on weekdays and after school. The people look older than HS. Good luck finding a computer to use. They tend to be free during school hours but then kids would miss class for SAT prep. Doesn't seem prudent.

Lame excuse. FCPS issues free laptops to all students. Try to find the next excuse.

And I remember seeing a local Panera Bread full of kids using their Wi-Fi when the pandemic first hit. Not everyone has good internet at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

I'm in FX County and we have tons of libraries and the computers are always full on weekdays and after school. The people look older than HS. Good luck finding a computer to use. They tend to be free during school hours but then kids would miss class for SAT prep. Doesn't seem prudent.

Lame excuse. FCPS issues free laptops to all students. Try to find the next excuse.

And I remember seeing a local Panera Bread full of kids using their Wi-Fi when the pandemic first hit. Not everyone has good internet at home.

take your laptop to the libraries then. but you can always come up with a lame excuse. so whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT also found out that tests were valuable predictors of success. That’s why their test optional experiment ended a couple of years ago.

MIT DECIDED[u][i] that tests were valuable predictors of success. That’s why their test optional experiment ended a couple of years ago.

Fixed it for you!

Read MIT's announcement on the change to make SATs/ACTs mandatory again. They found a strong correlation between scores and success. Same as the huge University of California study.

You completely misstate the findings of the UC study. Gaslighting people isn’t helpful.

The UC study strongly recommended retaining the SAT as a very good predictor for student success. That recommendation was ignored. MIT also clearly explained their rationale. Not sure what the gaslighting comment refers to? I guess the truth hurts.

Yes but did not say it was a strong correlation. It said it aided HSGPA and was slightly better than HSGPA in determining first year GPA but not retention rates or graduating GPA. It also said they were moderate predictors of GPA and weak predictors of retention and graduation.

Moreover the report did not touch upon using a minimum SAT score for admissions. The entire report assumed that UC would continue to renorm scores depending on socio economic background. The report also found that family income and parents educational status continued to be the strongest predictors of SAT scores. The report believed the utility of having SAT scores was to provide extra assistance to those who need it and not to deny them admissions.

So to hold up the UC report as a data point for using minimum SAT scores in admissions is completely disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

I'm in FX County and we have tons of libraries and the computers are always full on weekdays and after school. The people look older than HS. Good luck finding a computer to use. They tend to be free during school hours but then kids would miss class for SAT prep. Doesn't seem prudent.

Lame excuse. FCPS issues free laptops to all students. Try to find the next excuse.

You still need wifi. Are you 12?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT also found out that tests were valuable predictors of success. That’s why their test optional experiment ended a couple of years ago.

MIT DECIDED[u][i] that tests were valuable predictors of success. That’s why their test optional experiment ended a couple of years ago.

Fixed it for you!

Read MIT's announcement on the change to make SATs/ACTs mandatory again. They found a strong correlation between scores and success. Same as the huge University of California study.

You completely misstate the findings of the UC study. Gaslighting people isn’t helpful.

The UC study strongly recommended retaining the SAT as a very good predictor for student success. That recommendation was ignored. MIT also clearly explained their rationale. Not sure what the gaslighting comment refers to? I guess the truth hurts.

IT did recommend that. It was not what the Regents wanted to hear. They went TO anyhow. This has been much discussed in The Chronicle of HIgher Education