Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

And yet, Harvard (Yale, Dartmouth and others) say it's currently the best predictor of a student's academic success in college.

Best predictor doesn't necessarily mean great predictor (and it's not even clear that it's the best predictor - Caltech itself said that AP scores are better). The r-squared for the correlation in the Dartmouth study was .22. Yes, it is better than GPA, which suffers even more from compression at the top. My specific claim is that requiring the SAT will not move the needle much on professor complaints about students' reading and writing skills and that the presence or absence of those complaints should therefore not be the metric by which we evaluate policies around submitting test scores. Again, I support the use of test scores. Requiring them, however, will not fix the problems with our education system, and no one should expect them to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

And yet, Harvard (Yale, Dartmouth and others) say it's currently the best predictor of a student's academic success in college.

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.

That's why Caltech looks at individual sections, not the composite. That's an important point overlooked by many including you.
They don't let kids with 800 math 730 verbal to be a bucket A kid. That will be a bucket A + bucket C.

SAT is an aptitude test. Prepping helps for sure but there is a limit, especially for reaching bucket A. The majority of kids being prepped and taking the test multiple times still would not reach bucket A in both categories.

You may argue that SAT is not hard enough and you wish it's harder. That's another topic, and college board has revamped the test multiple times in history so it's not unlikely they will do it again (as seen in August test).

The reality is not that many can achieve double bucket A at present, and it's a holistic review process so score isn't the only thing they look at.

The OP asked why professors are still complaining about students' lack of preparation at test-required colleges. My point is that many students who have weaknesses in the higher-level reading and writing skills the professors care about are nonetheless capable of getting a 1500+ on the SAT. I am actually in support of reinstating standardized testing in admissions. I am pushing back against the OP's apparent belief that if tests aren't perfect, they are useless. But it does no good for test proponents to overstate their value.

I don't think any one is overstating their value. The value is its tight correlation with academic success. Exactly that. No one is making statements not backed up by evidence.

Evidence after evidence shows that "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years". Bucket A performs better than bucket B, and bucket B performs better than bucket C.

You are quoting a statement about Caltech, which is not typical even among elite institutions. The statement you quote says that there is a persistent correlation but does not quantify that correlation, so we have no idea how "tight" it is. In any event, I think colleges should require tests and am completely unsurprised that students who cannot score above the 98th percentile (which 780 is for math) with potentially multiple attempts on a test of fairly basic math skills will struggle at Caltech. This has nothing to do with whether the average Dartmouth student can write a competent research paper without ChatGPT, something that I can pretty confidently predict will not be much affected by a return to test-required.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.

That's why Caltech looks at individual sections, not the composite. That's an important point overlooked by many including you.
They don't let kids with 800 math 730 verbal to be a bucket A kid. That will be a bucket A + bucket C.

SAT is an aptitude test. Prepping helps for sure but there is a limit, especially for reaching bucket A. The majority of kids being prepped and taking the test multiple times still would not reach bucket A in both categories.

You may argue that SAT is not hard enough and you wish it's harder. That's another topic, and college board has revamped the test multiple times in history so it's not unlikely they will do it again (as seen in August test).

The reality is not that many can achieve double bucket A at present, and it's a holistic review process so score isn't the only thing they look at.

The OP asked why professors are still complaining about students' lack of preparation at test-required colleges. My point is that many students who have weaknesses in the higher-level reading and writing skills the professors care about are nonetheless capable of getting a 1500+ on the SAT. I am actually in support of reinstating standardized testing in admissions. I am pushing back against the OP's apparent belief that if tests aren't perfect, they are useless. But it does no good for test proponents to overstate their value.

I don't think any one is overstating their value. The value is its tight correlation with academic success. Exactly that. No one is making statements not backed up by evidence.

Evidence after evidence shows that "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years". Bucket A performs better than bucket B, and bucket B performs better than bucket C.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.

I agree about the test. The test should be made much harder to really allow separation at the upper end, and you should get two tries.

Even CalTech doesn’t see the need to distinguish between a 780 math and an 800 math. So I don’t see how there can possibly be any demand for a test that allows even more separation at the upper end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.

That's why Caltech looks at individual sections, not the composite. That's an important point overlooked by many including you.
They don't let kids with 800 math 730 verbal to be a bucket A kid. That will be a bucket A + bucket C.

SAT is an aptitude test. Prepping helps for sure but there is a limit, especially for reaching bucket A. The majority of kids being prepped and taking the test multiple times still would not reach bucket A in both categories.

You may argue that SAT is not hard enough and you wish it's harder. That's another topic, and college board has revamped the test multiple times in history so it's not unlikely they will do it again (as seen in August test).

The reality is not that many can achieve double bucket A at present, and it's a holistic review process so score isn't the only thing they look at.

The OP asked why professors are still complaining about students' lack of preparation at test-required colleges. My point is that many students who have weaknesses in the higher-level reading and writing skills the professors care about are nonetheless capable of getting a 1500+ on the SAT. I am actually in support of reinstating standardized testing in admissions. I am pushing back against the OP's apparent belief that if tests aren't perfect, they are useless. But it does no good for test proponents to overstate their value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since these institutions have rushed back to test required and asserted that low sat scores are to blame for lower student quality, where’s the data? Furthermore, where are their peers who are still test optionals getting their students? Since changing back, all I’ve seen are news articles complaining about the low student quality and that the kids can’t even read these days!

Because those news articles are complaining about low student quality in colleges that remain test optional. Columbia in particular.

The test required colleges now do not complain low student quality anymore. Show me any article that complains low student quality in test required colleges since that reinstated test requirement? None. There is none!

Huh? The crimson mentions habitually about the lower student quality. Did we all just forget the article on them needing REMEDIAL coursework.

Harvard's remedial math class began at a time when they reinstated test requirement only several months ago. The remedial math class is a remedy for the students from test optional era.

They created a course for students who will be pass intro math courses? That makes absolutely no sense.

They were fed up with years of lower student quality from the test optional era. So they decided to have a remedial math class. Obviously the decision was not made overnight at the last moment, it was decided at least a few month ago. Simultaneously, they also decided to reinstate test. You see both occurring at the same time. The two decisions may be made independently, for example, one by math department another by admission office. Both happened thanks to test optional students. Why don't we wait for four years to purge out the present test optional students, and see what happens? Be patient.

I want to point out that Harvard had remedial math a decade ago and it has nothing to do with test optional.

+1. Complaints about the decline in student quality also preceded test optional. It’s not about the test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.

That's why Caltech looks at individual sections, not the composite. That's an important point overlooked by many including you.
They don't let kids with 800 math 730 verbal to be a bucket A kid. That will be a bucket A + bucket C.

SAT is an aptitude test. Prepping helps for sure but there is a limit, especially for reaching bucket A. The majority of kids being prepped and taking the test multiple times still would not reach bucket A in both categories.

You may argue that SAT is not hard enough and you wish it's harder. That's another topic, and college board has revamped the test multiple times in history so it's not unlikely they will do it again (as seen in August test).

The reality is not that many can achieve double bucket A at present, and it's a holistic review process so score isn't the only thing they look at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.

That's why Caltech looks at individual sections, not the composite. That's an important point overlooked by many including you.
They don't let kids with 800 math 730 verbal to be a bucket A kid. That will be a bucket A + bucket C.

SAT is an aptitude test. Prepping helps for sure but there is a limit, especially for reaching bucket A. The majority of kids being prepped and taking the test multiple times still would not reach bucket A in both categories.

You may argue that SAT is not hard enough and you wish it's harder. That's another topic, and college board has revamped the test multiple times in history so it's not unlikely they will do it again (as seen in August test).

The reality is not that many can achieve double bucket A at present, and it's a holistic review process so score isn't the only thing they look at.

NP. Clarification, the SAT stopped being an aptitude test many years ago. It moved away from aptitude gradually over a number of rewrites. Anything measuring aptitude, like the old analogies section, College Board removed quite some time ago. The test is currently (supposedly) a test of academic skills. While inherent aptitude will impact academic skills, the test is not a direct measure. Every student will have their individual potential high score, based in part on aptitude and in part on how well their academic skills have been developed in school. That said, I do not think the current digital test is a high-quality product. Scoring is too inconsistent; perhaps that's a topic for another thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.

I agree about the test. The test should be made much harder to really allow separation at the upper end, and you should get two tries.

Even CalTech doesn’t see the need to distinguish between a 780 math and an 800 math. So I don’t see how there can possibly be any demand for a test that allows even more separation at the upper end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.

That's why Caltech looks at individual sections, not the composite. That's an important point overlooked by many including you.
They don't let kids with 800 math 730 verbal to be a bucket A kid. That will be a bucket A + bucket C.

SAT is an aptitude test. Prepping helps for sure but there is a limit, especially for reaching bucket A. The majority of kids being prepped and taking the test multiple times still would not reach bucket A in both categories.

You may argue that SAT is not hard enough and you wish it's harder. That's another topic, and college board has revamped the test multiple times in history so it's not unlikely they will do it again (as seen in August test).

The reality is not that many can achieve double bucket A at present, and it's a holistic review process so score isn't the only thing they look at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT is now a 2-hour, very preppable, superscorable test of math through Algebra 2, basic grammar/punctuation, and vocabulary in context. Median scores are declining because kids in the middle and below are learning less in high school. Scores at the top are rising because motivated kids with access to resources can easily master the content or just get lucky after taking it six times. It's a test mildly useful to validate high school grades, especially in math. It has little to do with whether kids can write or read and understand more than a paragraph or two at a time.

Caltech: "Test scores are predictive of success, even into students' sophomore and junior years"

Everyone is misunderstanding me. The SAT is better than nothing. Students without near-perfect math scores are going to struggle at Caltech. But requiring it isn't going to produce radical improvements in student quality, especially in reading and writing skills. We also don't have a lot of data about the digital SAT, which is a significantly different test. The trend toward taking the SAT three times at a minimum and often 5+ times is also, while not completely new, continuing to rise.