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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I haven't read the whole thread, or even the article, so apologize if this has been covered. I did read the summary in today's NYT email, which included a graph showing how much more "successful" those how submitted high scores are than those who are "missing scores." Am I the only one who thinks that a kid who got straight As at a low-performing high school then goes on to an MIT, Brown, or other top college based on those grades and no test scores, then gets somewhere between a 3.2 and 3.5 is still really successful? The whole premise is that success is 3.6 or higher and the rest are failures. How can we not all see what our society is becoming? Those first-gen, 3.3 kids at Brown are going to go on to do great things. But the Charlie Deacons and Christina Paxsons of the world think anything less than a 3.6 is not success? These TO kids are not failing out. They're doing just fine and getting incredible opportunities, which they earned![/quote]
I think you mis-read the intent of the graphs. It's not that 3.6+ GPAs are signs of success, but rather that test scores are highly correlative with college academic performance. High school GPAs, on the other hand, are not. The former shows a pretty clear incline - higher SAT = higher college GPA, but high school GPAs (ranging from 3.2 - 4.0) correlate to a nearly flat line with regard to college GPA, i.e., a higher high school GPA does not indicate better academic performance in college. [/quote]

This is not to say, by the way, that Leonhardt's use of statistics is correct. He is clearly manipulating the data, or at least not giving the full story, in his piece. The best indicator of college success, according to statisticians who do a deep dive into the data, appears to be whether a student attended an elite high school - this opens up a whole other can of worms....[/quote]

I appreciate your wise feedback on this. I don't think I misread the intent. I understand, it's correlative. But so what? Students with high GPAs and no test scores are still doing just fine, so what does it matter that those who submit high test scores do a little better in top colleges than those who don't? It doesn't matter. Life is not lived on a sliding scale, with the best, most successful, happiest people who make the world a better place scoring the highest and getting the highest GPAs while the rest of the losers mean nothing. That's what I take issue with. A few select people are born with incredible intellect and can score high and do well in college easily. Others were not born with that privilege and have to work harder. They more score a little lower, but if they work hard, contribute to society, and do well, why shouldn't they have oppportunities, just because of one stupid test, which was written a long time ago by people who created it around one certain type of learning?[/quote]
PP here. I think that the concern is the threshold at which a student cannot graduate. I agree fully that GPA does not really matter, but the ability to graduate from the college into which one matriculates as a freshman is important. Adjacent to that concern is the students who transfer out to a college with less academic rigor.[/quote]

Right. And the data doesn't show that effect--people flunking out. The data shows a difference between 3.3 and 3.6. Who cares? That is irrelevant. Everybody is missing the point.[/quote]

How is that irrelevant, it shows that SAT is a better predictor of a students academic aptitude than HS GPAs. As such, the SAT should be used as a data point when it comes to admissions (for better or worse).

If we focus on the top schools (say even top 50), they have limited seats and can't admit everyone. Therefore, the SAT helps ensure that the most capable students are getting in to the best schools, while the less capable ones are not. If seats were unlimited, sure you may have a point, but seats are limited.

Lastly, and this is more of an aside, a 3.3 college GPA (outside of engineering and a few other very difficult majors), is nothing amazing. Frankly it's very low. [/quote]

My kid with 1550 SAT and well below average grades from a rigorous private school currently has a 2.6 at a top 20 university. And I still think he's doing fine. He has a learning disability and works his butt off to stay afloat, despite being incredibly bright.[b] I mean, he must be bright right? He got that high test score. [/b][/quote]

Not sure if sarcasm was implied there but:

1. The SAT is not an intelligence test. 
2. Pretty sure a kid with a "learning disability" got extra time to take any standardized test. You'd be surprised how prevalent this is. Sshhhh.[/quote]

I wouldn't call it sarcasm so much as facetiousness. Everybody here argues that the SAT score is what measures students' ability to do well and yes, many inply that translates to how "smart" they are. My son is objectively intelligent, so maybe they're right, but sure as heck didn't predict how badly he would do in college. His grades did, though.[/quote]

That is why grades are a better indicator of success.  It’s over 4 years and shows grit, determination and ability to figure shit out and get it done.

[b]Who do you want working for you (assume not have similar rigor schedules)[/b]
A) 1550 and 3.0 uw gpa 
Or 
B) 1350 and 3.9uw gpa

I want the one with higher gpa.  Because they are the one most likely to give 110% at the job. [/quote]

Depends on the job.  
If I'm in charge of hiring brain surgeons at a hospital, I want the one that gets the right answer the FIRST time, in the shortest amount of time.   I don't want the person that eventually got the right answer, after being given "extra time" and 15 chances to "try again." [/quote]

[b]So you think that medicine works by getting the answer right immediately the first time, every time?
[/b]
Have I got big news for you. Well actually your future doctors have big news for you right after this next round of tests.[/quote]
Yes, I think brain surgery does work like that.    Do you think brain surgeons get a few  "do overs" when they accidentally slice through a part of the brain they weren't supposed to?[/quote]

That’s mechanical skill. Either their hand is steady or it isn’t.

Brain surgeries are planned and plotted well in advance. Nobody wings it, there is a process to follow with lots of imaging and testing ahead of time. There may even be an exploratory round to see what’s happening inside before taking action.

Nobody’s performing irreparable brain surgeries as an 18 year old, not even Doogie Howser who is fictional. The comparison to HIGH SCHOOL GRADES is lunacy.

[/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