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.[b]

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.

This is so obviously written by someone who has spent very little time with the "disadvantaged" and isn't very plugged into the test prep that happens in public schools. If someone has the chops, picking up a study guide or going to the free Khan Academy prep lessons will do fine.

The real problem with performance on these tests for some groups is that they are behind in math, and that has nothing to do with prepping.

Wrong again.

I am not writing this to brag but to correct your misconceptions, I Have actually lived in several poor countries serving disadvantaged communities (in refugee camps, in remote communities, with orphans and impoverished children with LDs). Even here in the US, have spent a lot of time with many homeless families in transition out of homelessness.

I realize that the world is not fair but I do actually care a lot about reducing barriers to college entry for hard students. The stakes are high for people to eventually build stability, dignity and some measure of control over their lives.

Even with a college degree, it is hard for many young people, to build the kind of lives we were able to build when I was young. Without a college degree, it is beyond hope for most.

Precisely because have spent a lot of time in disadvantaged communities, I know there are many talented young people out there who face great odds to change their life trajectories.

I also support complete reform of student loan industry as it is currently a disgrace that so many students, especially black students, end up with life long college debt for degrees they don’t even finish at third rate universities. I also agree that many students need much better college preparation. We need to find ways to do that without placing so much stress and costs on students.

I stand by my position that GPA is the single most predictive factor in college success. However, I completely agree that much much more needs to be done to create fewer obstacles for College entry and graduation among students from disadvantaged communities.

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.[b]

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.

This is so obviously written by someone who has spent very little time with the "disadvantaged" and isn't very plugged into the test prep that happens in public schools. If someone has the chops, picking up a study guide or going to the free Khan Academy prep lessons will do fine.

The real problem with performance on these tests for some groups is that they are behind in math, and that has nothing to do with prepping.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

I don’t disagree with your primary point but as to the subject of this thread, Dartmouth and Yale both found that this test actually does best predict the likelihood of success in college as defined by academics. Further, they seem to being saying that submitting test scores, for their institutions who review in context, is better for students from underresourced backgrounds.

Right, because the SAT was written by people trying to find the right people for Yale and Dartmouth. It is geared quite specifically to identify elite people from certain cultures. Again, it doesn't have to do with today's privileged or underprivileged, necessarily. The point is, it has nothing to do with prep or education. It is written very specifically for one type of intelligence to gain entry to elite schools who teach to that type of brain. Those schools teach very narrowly.

What are you talking about?

And what is your familiarity with the substance of current testing?

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.[b]

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.

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.[b]

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.

To me, “very high scores” are at least 1550, at least 35, and 5.

A 1450 on the SAT is 99th percentile.

we're lower middle class and my kids both just used the free Khan Academy program, got 1500+ and we're done.

I think the money thing is overstated. You can tell me some kids don't have Internet access at home, but I think that's reaching.

Normally of course GPA would be a much stronger predictor of academic preparedness. But beginning some years ago, and really accelerating during Covid, grade inflation became rampant. Do you know how many 4.0 students there are at Whitman or Churchill? It's a lot. So GPA by itself is no longer a great measurement of anything.

The SAT/ACT isn't perfect. The people that study or do a formal test prep do better than kids taking it cold. But that's more a parental failure - not being aware of online and other resources. And at competitive schools, those 100-200 points matter. So kids with better informed parents have an advantage over kids with low information parents. Same as always. But studying for the test and mastering the material is demonstrative of a good, disciplined student. So it does matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

The test is one of many data points to evaluate college readiness. Why discard a valid data point? It may or may not be a better predictor of college success than grades. Different studies point to one or the other. Why not include both and call it a day. No one is saying SATs should be THE determiner for admittance. Just one data point that can be used to help paint a complete picture of the candidate. And the only metric that is identical across different schools and states.

Why not let colleges do what think works for them?

Because the SAT is a test of privilege. Why not just let schools say that what works for them is accepting only kids from private schools with tuition over $45,000 a year?

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.[b]

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.

You think 1400 is very high, but 3.7 isn’t … you’re not credible.

Excuse me? I never commented on what I meant by very high but by very high, I was referring to close to perfect SAT and GPA (except for a B+ in one art class in grade 9).

The high GPA was far more difficult to achieve than the high test score given the heavy workload for many APs, honors classes and even college level classes. That is far from uncommon these days. I am aware that we could provide good test prep whereas many parents cannot afford that. I don’t want talented students from less advantaged backgrounds being excluded entry to top colleges because they can’t afford good test prep and taking test multiple times.

I like the test optional trend but can imagine that bridging programs are probably needed for many students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

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.[b]

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.

To me, “very high scores” are at least 1550, at least 35, and 5.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one reason the PSAT awards are so valuable. If you get “commended” and/or NRSTRA/NAARA/NHRA/etc. you can report the award, reassuring the school that you’re over the bar, while still keeping your actual SAT score out of their CDS data.

Why wouldn't they want your high SAT/ACT score in their CDS data?

This is if you have a 1400, so you’re “commended,” but the school has a 25th percentile score of 1490 and, like NEU, is telling people not to submit below that line.

PSAT is out of 1520, so the 1400 scorer with even minimal additional prep. would like see a score in the 1450 to 1520 range anyway on the 1600 point SAT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has been said. So many people believe that standardized tests benefit the advantaged because they can pay for prep and generally have better educations. What they fail to overlook is that these tests, despite revisions, were created by privileged classes, who devised tests based on their own cultural upbringing, perceptions, understandings, etc. It is not an intelligence test (even those were largely developed by white, educated elite, so you have to question). Don't forget, the majority of the original SAT takers went to Yale and the rest to other elite colleges. It is an elitist test that does not best predict the likelihood of success in college or in life.

The test is one of many data points to evaluate college readiness. Why discard a valid data point? It may or may not be a better predictor of college success than grades. Different studies point to one or the other. Why not include both and call it a day. No one is saying SATs should be THE determiner for admittance. Just one data point that can be used to help paint a complete picture of the candidate. And the only metric that is identical across different schools and states.

Why not let colleges do what think works for them?

“What works for colleges” is often admitting under qualified students to quantitative majors, cashing the tuition checks, and then nudging the students into humanities majors. The graduation rate stays high, the school stays solvent—it’s only the student whose dreams are dashed and the family that loses money.

I’m not saying the schools should be forced to look at SAT scores. I’m saying I’ll make my own determination about what kind of school I’m willing to pay for in part on the basis of my child’s test scores.

Good for you I guess.

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.[b]

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.

You think 1400 is very high, but 3.7 isn’t … you’re not credible.

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.[b]

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

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

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

https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/sat-act-study-report.pdf

Which studies did you find that claimed GPA was the better predictor?