Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

But not as applied to these two highly competitive schools. It’s a different applicant body. I’m guessing effort is a bigger factor at less competitive school where most applicants don’t have straight As.

Yes, and also the applicants who don't have perfect GPAs who get into Yale etc have the most rigorous classes taken in HS, so that isn't the same as someone with a 4.0 from a high school that didn't even offer those classes but that applicant might not have gotten great grades in all the AP classes had they taken them. I can say from having family with kids in other areas if the country, not all schools are as challenging as the schools in the DMV area, whether W publics or competitive privates, and the test scores would show far more about ability than comparing gpas from various areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

I am middle class, too and can't afford that, but it does make a difference for many students. The wealthier have an edge. I also taught test prep, and the SAT is not straightforward.

Agreed! Test prep gives the wealthier a huge advantage. I'll admit it---my own kid went up almost 170 points with a baseline test and 4 hours of 1-1 tutoring (and about 1 hour of review at home). They were not learning the material, but rather identifying tricks to get their score to "my kid's true baseline". All it took was 4 hours and the one test. Everything after that was at the same score. But I'm certain it would have taken my own smart kid much more than 4 hours to figure out those tricks just from Khan academy practice.

But I recognize our privilege and acknowledge most do not have access to it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Rank order these students (based on your belief that GPA is 5x more relevant than standardized testing, or otherwise).

A. 4.00 u/w GPA (5 APs) + 1400 / 32
B. 4.00 u/w GPA (8 APs) + T/O
C. 3.85 u/w GPA (10 APs) + 1500 / 34
D. 3.85 u/w GPA (12 APs) + T/O
E. 3.70 u/w GPA (15 APs) + 1600 / 36

For me, it’s C, E, A, D, B. I could also go with E, C, A, D, B.

Curious to see how you rank them.

Irrelevant. None of these students have a shot at Dartmouth or Yale without a hook

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Rank order these students (based on your belief that GPA is 5x more relevant than standardized testing, or otherwise).

A. 4.00 u/w GPA (5 APs) + 1400 / 32
B. 4.00 u/w GPA (8 APs) + T/O
C. 3.85 u/w GPA (10 APs) + 1500 / 34
D. 3.85 u/w GPA (12 APs) + T/O
E. 3.70 u/w GPA (15 APs) + 1600 / 36

For me, it’s C, E, A, D, B. I could also go with E, C, A, D, B.

Curious to see how you rank them.

DP: I would not rank these students based on that data. Clearly, there all in pool and over the academic achievement hump. My decision about who to select would be based on other factors. They are all well positioned to achieve great things academically. If I could only choose one of them, I would need more information.

+1 Test scores/course rigor/GPA all have to meet a threshold. Fine distinctions among them like these are kind of pointless. After they meet a threshold then it becomes more about awards, achievements, and the class you are trying to build.

But that was the point of the exercise. The original argument was that a high unweighted GPA (i.e., 4.00) was so much more relevant than a high test score (i.e., 1550+ / 35+), that a kid with a 4.00 and 1400 / 33 was typically viewed as a better candidate for admission than another kid with a 3.75 and 1600 / 36.

But everyone seems scared to actually sign their name on the absurdity of that argument by simply rank ordering the five hypothetical candidates that way (prioritizing GPA).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

You can do 1-1 format for less than $1K. Pay $100/hr for services required. My kid was done in 4 hours but they did 10 hours total. Score had gone up 170 points after first baseline and 4 hours of tutoring. So the extra 6 hours did not help any.

Thats the privilege kids have who can afford it. Less time, less money, more time to focus on other more important things vs self study or a group course for 15 weeks

What you are saying about one on one tutoring makes sense and sounds good, but where does one find a GOOD tutor. If you get a tutor and they turn out to be crap, What to do? I guess what I’m asking is how do You find a great one on one tutor. Any suggestions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Rank order these students (based on your belief that GPA is 5x more relevant than standardized testing, or otherwise).

A. 4.00 u/w GPA (5 APs) + 1400 / 32
B. 4.00 u/w GPA (8 APs) + T/O
C. 3.85 u/w GPA (10 APs) + 1500 / 34
D. 3.85 u/w GPA (12 APs) + T/O
E. 3.70 u/w GPA (15 APs) + 1600 / 36

For me, it’s C, E, A, D, B. I could also go with E, C, A, D, B.

Curious to see how you rank them.

DP: I would not rank these students based on that data. Clearly, there all in pool and over the academic achievement hump. My decision about who to select would be based on other factors. They are all well positioned to achieve great things academically. If I could only choose one of them, I would need more information.

+1 Test scores/course rigor/GPA all have to meet a threshold. Fine distinctions among them like these are kind of pointless. After they meet a threshold then it becomes more about awards, achievements, and the class you are trying to build.

I FINALLY listened to the podcast. Thank you for posting. Really enjoyed it…with the exception of the AO from Clark University who I found unlistenable with her horrible vocal fry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Rank order these students (based on your belief that GPA is 5x more relevant than standardized testing, or otherwise).

A. 4.00 u/w GPA (5 APs) + 1400 / 32
B. 4.00 u/w GPA (8 APs) + T/O
C. 3.85 u/w GPA (10 APs) + 1500 / 34
D. 3.85 u/w GPA (12 APs) + T/O
E. 3.70 u/w GPA (15 APs) + 1600 / 36

For me, it’s C, E, A, D, B. I could also go with E, C, A, D, B.

Curious to see how you rank them.

DP: I would not rank these students based on that data. Clearly, there all in pool and over the academic achievement hump. My decision about who to select would be based on other factors. They are all well positioned to achieve great things academically. If I could only choose one of them, I would need more information.

What if the ECs, letters of rec., and essays are similar enough that those GPA and test scores are the only differentiators?

That won't happen. The ECs/letters of rec/essays are what will distinguish between applicants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Rank order these students (based on your belief that GPA is 5x more relevant than standardized testing, or otherwise).

A. 4.00 u/w GPA (5 APs) + 1400 / 32
B. 4.00 u/w GPA (8 APs) + T/O
C. 3.85 u/w GPA (10 APs) + 1500 / 34
D. 3.85 u/w GPA (12 APs) + T/O
E. 3.70 u/w GPA (15 APs) + 1600 / 36

For me, it’s C, E, A, D, B. I could also go with E, C, A, D, B.

Curious to see how you rank them.

DP: I would not rank these students based on that data. Clearly, there all in pool and over the academic achievement hump. My decision about who to select would be based on other factors. They are all well positioned to achieve great things academically. If I could only choose one of them, I would need more information.

What if the ECs, letters of rec., and essays are similar enough that those GPA and test scores are the only differentiators?

Then it’s random. You keep hoping this is some race to the top so you can have some control over or predictability in the process. It just isn’t that. Different people read the same application and come to different conclusions - that’s life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Rank order these students (based on your belief that GPA is 5x more relevant than standardized testing, or otherwise).

A. 4.00 u/w GPA (5 APs) + 1400 / 32
B. 4.00 u/w GPA (8 APs) + T/O
C. 3.85 u/w GPA (10 APs) + 1500 / 34
D. 3.85 u/w GPA (12 APs) + T/O
E. 3.70 u/w GPA (15 APs) + 1600 / 36

For me, it’s C, E, A, D, B. I could also go with E, C, A, D, B.

Curious to see how you rank them.

DP: I would not rank these students based on that data. Clearly, there all in pool and over the academic achievement hump. My decision about who to select would be based on other factors. They are all well positioned to achieve great things academically. If I could only choose one of them, I would need more information.

What if the ECs, letters of rec., and essays are similar enough that those GPA and test scores are the only differentiators?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence says high school performance is the strongest indicator.

Agree - very credible research suggests GPA is x5 times more important than test scores in predicting future college success.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/01/29/its-gpas-not-standardized-tests-that-predict-college-success/?sh=4bcafc9932bd



https://weilcollegeadvising.com/what-actually-predicts-college-success/#:~:text=In%20nearly%20all%20the%20research,a%20student's%20high%20school%20GPA.

Rank order these students (based on your belief that GPA is 5x more relevant than standardized testing, or otherwise).

A. 4.00 u/w GPA (5 APs) + 1400 / 32
B. 4.00 u/w GPA (8 APs) + T/O
C. 3.85 u/w GPA (10 APs) + 1500 / 34
D. 3.85 u/w GPA (12 APs) + T/O
E. 3.70 u/w GPA (15 APs) + 1600 / 36

For me, it’s C, E, A, D, B. I could also go with E, C, A, D, B.

Curious to see how you rank them.

DP: I would not rank these students based on that data. Clearly, there all in pool and over the academic achievement hump. My decision about who to select would be based on other factors. They are all well positioned to achieve great things academically. If I could only choose one of them, I would need more information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

You can do 1-1 format for less than $1K. Pay $100/hr for services required. My kid was done in 4 hours but they did 10 hours total. Score had gone up 170 points after first baseline and 4 hours of tutoring. So the extra 6 hours did not help any.

Thats the privilege kids have who can afford it. Less time, less money, more time to focus on other more important things vs self study or a group course for 15 weeks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Lower middle classs parent again -- the practice tests you can take on college board are old SAT tests (mostly, a couple are tests that weren't used, but you can see on reddit which were used). The Khan program is adaptive, so you you link your practice test/college board and Khan and the student gets practice questions in an area they need to work on. And if you're still confused, there are a few YouTube videos that run through it all.

Sure, a 5k one-on-one format is better, but that's true with [b]everything from AP exams to college counseling to athletic coaches. I found the SAT to be the area where self-studying had a lot more options than other areas. A reason these semi-shady college counseling TikTok accounts are so popular now is because there's a big black hole of information about summer programs (talk about inequitable), etc and not super resourced kids know there's a lot they don't know. And it's off to reddit or TikTok. The SAT was straightforward in comparison. A half hour of Khan a night and my kids did great.

I am middle class, too and can't afford that, but it does make a difference for many students. The wealthier have an edge. I also taught test prep, and the SAT is not straightforward.

I agree.

Plus many disadvantaged communities don’t have supermarkets let alone public libraries. Many students have parents working 2-4 jobs and still need food stamps/ food pantries to feed their families so they are not focussed on helping their DC with finding free SAT help.

Not saying SAT/ ACT should go away but test optional helps reduce barriers to entry for some hard working bright students.

Obviously this is only one small reform of many that is needed in higher education. However, this thread relates to SAT/ACT being single most predictive factor for college admission and graduation. I don’t agree that it is - high GPA for rigorous course load is - and the playing field for doing well in SAT/ ACT not even.

Good for colleges such as the UC system that recognize this, and have been leading the way in helping more first gen, low socio economic and other disadvantaged students get their foot in the college door.

No - “However, this thread relates to SAT/ACT being single most predictive factor for college admission and graduation. I don’t agree that it is - high GPA for rigorous course load is - and the playing field for doing well in SAT/ ACT not even.”

First, this discussion is about it being most predictive for Yale and Dartmouth. This isn’t being expanded beyond that echelon. You can’t just say that Yale’s study is wrong for Yale. You don’t know better than they do.

Second, I suspect the playing field may be even more uneven for high gpa with a rigorous course load. A stable family situation, including economically, can play a huge role in a students success. Even if a kid is able to ace their classes, rigor may be the most inequitable. Half of US high schools don’t offer any calculus at all. For Yale and Dartmouth, they want test scores from kids from underresourced backgrounds to see if, despite a lack of the rigorous coursework you would find available at an affluent suburban high school, the kid can manage the coursework at Ivy. That can be difficult for even very bright kids. And no one wins if they can’t handle the work. This isn’t about providing opportunities for kids to get into any college. This is the elite of the elite. And these top schools need kids who are prepared. They struggle to find kids with underresourced backgrounds who are. That’s not an equity problem that can just be solved by Ivy admissions. As a country we need to address those gross inequities at a much, much earlier stage.

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.

But 1-1 tutoring will get you to the final result much faster. My kid did it with one baseline test and 4 hours of "tutoring". All future practice tests and actual SAT (2) were within 10-20 points, and that was 170 points higher than the "baseline". Sure my kid could have gotten there with Khan academy, but I can assure you that would have taken much more than 4-5hours of work.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Best test prep is a great one-on-one tutor. You take a practice baseline test. Then spend 4-5 hours 1-1 with tutor to address the specific areas to correct/test tricks. Then retake and wash/rinse/repeat. A good tutor will get your kid to their "SAT Range" within 4-6 hours of test prep. Much easier and quicker than doing Khan academy yourself. Worked for my kid, but I'm capable of recognizing the privilege that comes with being able to do that. $100/hour for the tutor. Nothing works faster than 1-1 format, as it addresses your kid's specific faults/errors and focuses on what they individually need to do