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]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]

We aren’t missing the point, we just don’t agree with it.  [/quote]

What is there to disagree with here? You have data showing test optional students flunking out? Or you think a 3.3 is failing? Which part do you not agree with? If it's the second pointm you have serious problems. [/quote]

They don’t flunk out kids at the top schools.   I was a TA at UVA; kids that turned in substandard work and didn’t try very hard would generally get a B or B-; the absolute dregs would get a C or C+.  I imagine it’s much worse at top schools.[/quote]

UVA used to be known for serifs grade inflation it was hard to find anyone under a 3.8.[/quote]

Grade inflation is almost everywhere in college. My kid went to a SLAC where fewer than 20 kids out of 500  graduated summa cum laude (3.8 and above) about 15 years ago. This past year 87 did. A further 57 graduated magna cum laude (3.65) compared to about 20 15 years ago. About half the class had 3.50 and above.[/quote]

[b]Maybe the kids are just smarter and worked harder now.[/b]

15 years is a long time, why do you assume everything held equal over that time period?[/quote]

Yeah....right.[/quote]

Lake Wobegon effect.[/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