College Applicants Sweat The SATs. Perhaps They Shouldn't

Parents Forum
21

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with this. Selective colleges will continue to use some kind of standard measurement in their selection process. Whatever you may think of the predictive value, they are a part of the equation, like it or not.</p>

22

<p>^ ^ ^
Yep. As we all know, for some of the more selective or very selective undergraduate schools, there are usually no admitted candidates with SAT subscores less than 500, and in some schools, virtually no admitted candidates with subscores less than 700. In the same conditions, the GPA will vary inversely with SAT range and selection ratio; so in practical terms, the SATs are a stronger indicator of probability of selection than GPA. And I think we all know this, since parents often tell students to try to score as high as possible on the SAT if the GPA got out of control for whatever reason. </p>

<p>And this is why college applicants SHOULD sweat the SATs/ACTs. Unless we’re playing the competitive inhibition game.</p>

23

<p><a href=“Study finds little difference in academic success of students who do and don't submit SAT or ACT”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat&lt;/a&gt; - same study, different article.</p>

24

<p>I bet the non-submitters have higher GPAs, or better ECs, or stronger essays, or some combination of above average submitted qualifications to compensate for missing scores. They would have been admitted regardless. So the TO policy isn’t improving their chances, it is only improving the school’s averages in the rankings game.</p>

25

<p>PBS Newshour story on the study:
<a href=“Study finds high SAT and ACT scores might not spell success at college | PBS NewsHour”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/study-finds-high-sat-act-scores-might-not-spell-success/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

26

<p>SAT performance is a proxy for socio-economic status. Big surprise: higher SES kids who have bee raised in a more conducive environment do indeed perform better academically and, accordingly, would have a greater likelihood of graduating. </p>

<p>When UT Austin went to an admission scheme based entirely on the top X% of class ranking, it went to a de facto GPA-based admission scheme. The result: a higher percentage of kids from poor communities (predominantly URM) admitted, but the graduation rate of these kids lag that of other groups.<br>
<a href=“http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability/UNIV_Complete_PDF.cfm?FICE=003658”>http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability/UNIV_Complete_PDF.cfm?FICE=003658&lt;/a&gt;
you can scroll down in the report to page 8: “Graduation and Persistence Rate: 6-Year” </p>

<p>If standardized test scores are eliminated in the midst of rampant high school grade inflation, then the emperor will be wearing no clothes.</p>

27

<p>

The large portion of admitted students with high SAT scores likely has more to do with the application pool than admissions policies. SAT scores have a notable correlation with other several other aspects of the application. Applicants to highly selective colleges with a 4.0 GPA, a challenging schedule involving several AP classes, great ECs, great LORs, … usually also have excellent test scores. For example, looking at the Parchment data for Stanford applicants with a 3.95+ GPA with 4+ APs, only 3% had a <2000 SAT. Those 3% had a 25% admit rate, while the overall group of 3.95+ 4AP+ had a 26% admit rate. Some of the Parchment 3% might have been lying or special cases with unique circumstances. Nevertheless, it makes the point that the applicants who have great everything except SATs make up a very small portion of the app pool to highly selective colleges, so they are expected to make up a very small portion of the admitted students, regardless of how SAT is weighted.</p>

28

<p>It’s not only that they are raised in a more conductive environment. It’s that they went to better schools where they were better prepared for college. Duh! In my very humble opinion, colleges owe low-SES students some support before and during freshman year.</p>

29

<p>I think it takes both the gpa and class rigor plus at a national test. I’m not a believer in more than 2 sittings for these standardized tests. A student should without extenuating circumstances should score at similar percentiles for GPA and test scores. I agree that eliminating national test scores opens the door for high schools to inflate GPAs. Really an 80% nationally ranking student probably isn’t the class val and if he/she is there is probably grade inflation going on or the rigor of the high school is questionable. </p>

30

<p>I know a high school senior who went 7/7 in admissions this year with no section above 500 and a couple of D’s on her transcript. I was surprised but I think it illustrates that a lot of schools are desperate for students. A couple of LACs in the top 60 range included there. Obviously not talking about elite schools but the vast majority of students can’t get into elite schools anyway.</p>

31

<p>The main value of standardized tests to college admissions people may not necessarily be the value in predicting whether the individual applicant will do at the given college, but in functioning as a measure of grade inflation and course rigor over widely varying high schools, and deterring high schools from going too far with grade inflation or watering down courses. I.e. the benefits may be more external and collective rather than individual.</p>

<p>In countries where high school grades are trusted as consistent-across-high-schools indicators of achievement, external standardized tests are not required. However, there may be standardization of final exams given in courses in the high schools.</p>