Reply to The Misguided War on the SAT

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "The Misguided War on the SAT"

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]DP here. This is a good article.
For those of you commenting without reading the article, I highly recommend you read it first. The reporter mentions multiple recent studies that all show the same thing - test scores are more predictive of future college success than high school grades. 
Most college admissions officials agree that test scores should be used as one factor towards admissions but they are scared of political backlash if they bring test scores back. [/quote]

Yes, gpa is generally more predictive than test scores alone but not as predictive as gpa plus test scores.  Further, gpa has become less and less predictive as grades have become inflated.   Source: UC system and Purdue research.[/quote]

My annoyance is that my DD studied hard and did really well on the SAT - similar to her sisters that got into top 20 schools. But, we went TO b/c the scores that are now reported are much higher as no one is reporting. We agonized over this decision. She lost a valuable side to her application.  And, I think every year scores will continue to go up as those on the 25-50% will no longer report.  Just a horrible decision.  [/quote]
Hard to guess why one wouldn't submit a strong score, even if it's on the low end for the school. Sorry to be critical of this decision-making, but personally, I think that's a mistake. Submit and then let the chips fall, rather than let the college assume the score was worse.[/quote]
Because the average scores are so high now that you need a near perfect score to submit.

Of course we cannot know for sure, but TO colleges say they do not assume the scores were worse if not submitted.   Thats what makes TO so wrong to me, it’s a guessing game now.  A game that most SES and URM will not know how to play and this TO ends up hurting them rather than helping.  [/quote]
I agree that the PP probably received advice not to submit; I'm just saying I think that was bad advice. And I agree completely that URMs and low SES get hurt by test optional for the same reason - bad advice not to take tests and submit the scores.

While most TO colleges may say they do not assume scores were worse if not submitted, it is a logical assumption. It's hard to see how they don't make such an assumption here in 2024.[/quote]

It is often said "don't submit if your score is under the 50th percentile".

If you don't submit, then the college could assume either (a) you were between 25th and 50th percentile, which means you are perfectly capable of succeeding at the school, or (b) you were below the 25th percentile, and thus significantly less likely to succeed at the school.

The AO could use other factors in your application in order to guess whether you were a or b. Strong gpa with a rigorous curriculum, that's probably (a). And in that case, they'd lean towards admitting you without knowing the exact SAT score. Weak gpa and non-rigorous curriculum, that's probably (b), and they'd lean towards rejecting you without knowing the exact SAT score. Therefore, knowing the exact SAT score probably doesn't matter all that much.

And we know that some colleges don't believe the SAT score is suggestive of ability to succeed at their college. Why would they even bother making any assumptions about you if you didn't submit a score? It doesn't matter to them.[/quote]

Being below 25%ile for a highly selective school doesn't mean "unable to succeed". They aren't flunking a quarter of their students. Schools have a wide range of easier and harder classes. Top prepared students enter taking 300 level classes in their first year, and least prepared students start at 100 level classes.[/quote]

I said "significantly less likely to succeed" not "unable to succeed". And colleges think that is true, or they wouldn't reject the majority of applicants at 25% or below. Ought to be obvious that kids in that cohort are [b]more likely to drop out or flunk out [/b]than kids in the higher cohorts, and also that many of the kids in the under 25% cohort are "special cases" like legacies and athletes. [/quote]

With the understanding that the protest over TO from DCUM posters is really over the T25 level schools,  graduation rates are pretty high. Students admitted seldom "flunk out." And some arguing that TOs may graduate with a 3.1 vs a 3.2 non TO is silly.

The SAT might "predict" the freshman year of college, but it takes 4 years to graduate. [/quote]

Virtually no one flunks out of these schools, it’s basically impossible to fail out of an Ivy unless you just don’t show up for class ever.

People leave because of finances or because they chose poorly and want something else.

Is it because everyone at these schools are geniuses or is it because the classes aren’t actually that hard and there’s grade inflation?

[/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