Reply to SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "SAT/ACT single most predictive factor at Yale"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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
[/quote]

The UC colleges did a deep dive on the millions of students that have gone through their system and also found that standardized test scores were the single best predictor of college success.  It also didn’t vary by household income; a 1300 predicted just as well when it came from a student from an affluent family as it did from a student from a poorer family.  The push to eliminate standardized testing has nothing to do with their effectiveness in predicting college success.[/quote]

Link to that study? I only find studies finding the opposite - that GPA is best predictor. [/quote]

Come on. In all logic, you know that's crap. GPA is wildly inflated in most public schools (I know, my kids are in public!). Obviously GPA can't predict anything. [/quote]

Best study I’ve seen was the one the Iowa regents did when they went test optional, which showed that while ACT score is generally predictive, kids whose GPAs are low relative to their ACT scores (slackers) don’t do as well and those whose GPAs are much higher than their ACT would predict (grinders) do really well. [/quote]
But, we keep being told that grinders aren't what colleges want.[/quote]

There’s a lot of “colleges.” It’s totally plausible that Ivy Plus schools don’t want grinders but schools like Iowa and Iowa State love them. [/quote]

What's the opposite of a grinder? Serious question.[/quote]

Naturally curious, self-driven learner, focused on learning purely to expand the mind - without necessarily a “have to be the best/smartest” or grinder attitude…..

A kid who learns just to learn. A kid who does some thing not because it will get him or her bonus points in the admissions, process or class/school or a job search.[/quote]

My kid with bad grades. They just want to learn darn it![/quote]
yea, there is no way an elite college would want kids who "get bad grades but are naturally smart" because otherwise it would mess up their average GPA, unless of course, they just give out As like candy.

Or, actually, I know of an elite college that lets students drop their class if they are getting a bad grade right up to the week before finals. Can't do that at a public school. There's no hand holding and you just gotta deal with that bad grade. [/quote]

Yeah, the existential problem with your logic is that we've been conditioned to view an unweighted 3.7 as "bad grades" when, back in reality, the difference between an unweighted 3.7 and an unweighted 4.0 is often a matter of 1 - 3 points, a minor differential often related to a missing assignment(s).

The suggestion that a kid with a 3.7 and a 1600 is going to "mess up" the average GPA at a Top 20 school, but a kid with a 4.0 and a 1460 is going to maintain the average GPA is laughable, at best. There are so many factors that go into a 4.00 in this age of grade inflation, like pleading for extra credit, persistent social engineering of the student's relationships with teachers, and the pressure on teachers to demonstrate strong grades in their classroom.

Further upstream, it was suggested that so-called grinders “have to be the best/smartest”. Consider the silliness of that assertion. Where else in life do the best/smartest need to grind? The answer is nowhere. Grinding is for those who have to do extra. Hardly the domain of the best/smartest.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics