SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read and learn! But the Regents chose to ignore it. https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2020/02/13/uc-faculty-issue-a-powerful-data-driven-defense-of-standardized-testing-in-college-admissions/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It recommended keeping the scores because they could identify who needed assistance. The faculty assumed the practice of renorming scores to account for background would continue. You don’t know what they would have recommended if they were told renorming would end.

And it found that test scores provided marginally better information than HSPGA but even then it was not a strong correlation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read and learn! But the Regents chose to ignore it. https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2020/02/13/uc-faculty-issue-a-powerful-data-driven-defense-of-standardized-testing-in-college-admissions/

I read the actual report not a cherry picked summary. I suggest you do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read and learn! But the Regents chose to ignore it. https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2020/02/13/uc-faculty-issue-a-powerful-data-driven-defense-of-standardized-testing-in-college-admissions/

I read the actual report not a cherry picked summary. I suggest you do the same.

Dude, what are you even arguing about? People are saying SAT is an additional valid data point, same conclusion as UC and MIT. Not that it should replace grades or that there should be a minimum score (as you indicated earlier).

[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.

You still need wifi. Are you 12?

Then go to your local library. Enough victim cards already:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read and learn! But the Regents chose to ignore it. https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2020/02/13/uc-faculty-issue-a-powerful-data-driven-defense-of-standardized-testing-in-college-admissions/

I read the actual report not a cherry picked summary. I suggest you do the same.

When you are wrong you are supposed to leave the thread on the internet. pplerouth.com/blog/2020/06/16/how-ucs-board-of-regents-overturned-the-use-of-the-sat-and-act/#:~:text=In%20February%20of%20this%20year,UC's%20multi-factor%20admissions%20process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read and learn! But the Regents chose to ignore it. https://www.applerouth.com/blog/2020/02/13/uc-faculty-issue-a-powerful-data-driven-defense-of-standardized-testing-in-college-admissions/

I read the actual report not a cherry picked summary. I suggest you do the same.

When you are wrong you are supposed to leave the thread on the internet. pplerouth.com/blog/2020/06/16/how-ucs-board-of-regents-overturned-the-use-of-the-sat-and-act/#:~:text=In%20February%20of%20this%20year,UC's%20multi-factor%20admissions%20process.

Rules for the internet. How adorable.

You can cite this blog all you want but by their own standards, the report found, at best, a moderate correlation not a strong correlation.

The real point is that they issued this report in the context of how UC schools handle standardized tests scores (renorming) such that a 1450 SAT is not always viewed as better than a 1200. So to cite it as some basis for the Darwinistic admissions policies people crave on this forum is faulty. Most people with a fetish for test scores would not like how UC schools used them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for sharing, interesting. Requiring scores also helps keep out the upper echelon riff raft. Those privileged over-counseled blood suckers go TO because they don’t have the chops.

LOL. As if plenty of 1500+ scores aren’t the result of intensive, expensive test prep and multiple tries. Come on.

or extended time

Extended time applies to GPAs too, and an accommodation for a disability is not a thing to screech about.

[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.

Brava!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

Is there a more recent Yale and Dartmouth et al selectives with data from current freshman class? SATs required for most of the selective schools now.

[Anonymous]

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.

You must be joking. Parents routinely “buy their way into” high test scores for their children through test prep and super scoring. Kids who don’t need after school jobs have time to study for the test and take it multiple times.

[Anonymous]

SAT is useful and should be mandatory unless you obtain a waiver by applying for extenuating circumstances (economic or social hardship).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SAT is useful and should be mandatory unless you obtain a waiver by applying for extenuating circumstances (economic or social hardship).

Yale does not agree that the SAT should be mandatory. But lots of universities require the SAT or the ACT so you should be able to find one to suit your needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse

). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast


What surveys show the opposite? Even the UC study indicated that testing was the best predictor of academic and future life success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting podcast out this week by Dartmouth’s Dean of Admission. While interviewing Yale’s Dean of Admission, Yale shares that SAT/ACT is actually more predictive of academic success than transcript at Yale (despite general surveys nationally showing the reverse). Dartmouth has found same as Yale. These findings are institution-specific and could be limited to these sorts of hyper competitive places. Yale found the math score to be particularly predictive for persistence as a science major. Dartmouth had indicated the same. Clark Univ. said transcript is more predictive for them.

My impression is that Yale and Dartmouth really want scores, especially students coming from underresourced backgrounds, from which, as discussed in podcast, an ACT score of 30, while low for the college, would show ability in context. They are concerned these students aren’t submitting because score is below 25th percentile for college. My prediction is that at least Yale and Dartmouth return to test required or at least more strongly encouraged (Dartmouth has already put out test preferred statement).
Not surprisingly, it sounded like although the scores are very important as a threshold matter for determining if student can succeed academically, it sounded like they aren’t that important once that threshold is crossed. This makes sense as they have too many able applicants.
Discussion starts at minute 6:10 with Yale’s statement at 9:12.

Data Dive, Part 2
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/follow/admissions-beat-podcast

Is there a more recent Yale and Dartmouth et al selectives with data from current freshman class? SATs required for most of the selective schools now.

It would be better to have started a new thread rather than bump a very long two-year-old thread.