<p>Does Brown care less about SATs than other Ivys?</p>
<p>That's what everybody says. Whether it's true or not, who knows. However, people mean it in the sense that they're more likely to not judge the difference between a 1400 and 1500 that heavily, as opposed to randomly accepting someone with an 1100.</p>
<p>It used to. Not any more.</p>
<p>any other opinions?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the university administration is moving in a direction in conflict with its' academic philosophy in this case. I would, however, say that it probably places relatively less emphasis on SATs than others.</p>
<p>high SAT scores are against our academic philosophy?</p>
<p>The issue is the priority weighting given to an SAT score in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is a very poor predictor of actual college performance. Other, more accurate criteria, therefore, should be given more consideration.</p>
<p>show me evidence, dood</p>
<p>Sure Thing, How's your Summer treating you anyway?</p>
<p>From Fairtest.org</p>
<p>A study of 10,000 students at 11 selective public and private institutions of higher education found that a 100-point increase in SAT combined scores, holding race, gender, and field of study constant, led to a one-tenth of a grade point gain for college GPA (Vars, F. & Bowen, W. in The Black-White Test Score Gap, 1998). This offered about the same predictive value as looking at whether an applicant's father had a graduate degree or her mother had completed college.</p>
<p>After a three-year validity study analyzing the power of the SAT I, SAT II, and high school grades to predict success at the state's eight public universities, University of California (UC) President Richard Atkinson presented a proposal in February 2001 to drop the SAT I requirement for UC applicants. The results from the UC validity study, which tracked 80,000 students from 1996-1999, highlighted the weak predictive power of the SAT I, with the test accounting for only 12.8% of the variation in FGPA. SAT II's and HSGPA explained 15.3% and 14.5% of the variation, respectively. After taking SAT II and HSGPA into account, SAT I scores improved the prediction rate by a negligible 0.1% (from 21.0% to 21.1%), making it a virtually worthless additional piece of information. Furthermore, SAT I scores proved to be more susceptible to the influence of the socioeconomic status of an applicant than either the SAT II or HSGPA.</p>
<p>In addition, Bates, Bowdoin and this year Holy Cross and Drew have joined the ranks of SAT-Optional schools</p>
<p>So when these schools focus on the SAT, They really are missing the point imho</p>
<p>If SAT Subject tests and high school GPA aren't altogether significantly better at predicting college success, why should they be used instead? And if colleges don't use any of those three, what can they use? I understand that you have (limited--one study) evidence to back your claims, but I don't see a pragmatic alternative.</p>
<p>I think HS GPA, course selection, and class rank should be used along with SAT II scores and AP scores</p>
<p>Well, we live in an imperfect world and need to do the best we can within the confines of it. I never laid claim to perfection I made a claim towards a more perfect system. SAT Subject tests and GPA I would say measure what they claim too far better than does the SAT I as the tests are far more concete. You're very pugnacious Iwasatypo which brings a slight smile to my face because I assume you care. Just because I cite one study does not mean that it is the only study to be had. Personally, I think SAT Subject Tests fall short of the mark too but for now I don't think they do the same amount of harm as the SAT I.</p>
<p>Twinkle, Are you my buddy from a couple moons ago? If so, how are you?</p>
<p>I wasn't trying to challenge the validity of your evidence. Let's assume the study is perfect, because it obviously has a large enough sample size to be close.</p>
<p>Anyway, in the study you cited, the coefficients of determination for the SAT Subject tests and high school GPA were really not significantly higher than the coefficient of determination for the SAT Reasoning test. I sympathize with your point, but I'm asking for a reason why the alternatives are better, because from those numbers (.128 versus .153 and .145), the alternatives you posited don't seem to be any more desirable.</p>
<p>GPA's can easily be *<strong><em>ed around with by biased teachers or *</em></strong> like that</p>
<p>basically, if you can't break a 600 on the math section, you're a retard</p>
<p>SAT I, SAT II, and GPA are closely related. So if you ignore SAT I altogether, but assemble a class based on SAT II and GPA, you will end up with a class that has high SAT I.</p>
<p>Fan, What would you consider high? </p>
<p>I think the system we have does a disservice to applicants and administrators alike and the first step to improvement is moving beyond the SAT. </p>
<p>I certainly understand that a high GPA corresponds to a good SAT score but I think research shows that income corresponds far better to the SAT than anything else. </p>
<p>SAT II's are far more concrete than the writing portion of the SAT I or the often debatable answers on the Verbal section too. </p>
<p>Thanks for chiming in</p>
<p>Correlation between income and SAT I is around 0.38.
Correlation between income and SAT II (writing and math) is around 0.35
Correlations between SAT I verbal and SAT II writing (.79) and literature (.83) are much higher.
Correlation between SAT I math and SAT II M1C (.84) and Math 2C (.77) are also much higher.
Correlation between SAT I M and V combined and SATII writing and math 1c is .87.</p>
<p>Combining SAT I plus high school GPA or SAT II (2 or three tests) plus high school GPA produce nearly identical results for predicting college GPA.</p>
<p>Junking the SAT I and replacing it with the SAT II would have very little effect on who gets admitted to places like Brown. To do well at such a college, you need an excellent high school education. Without that, you will do poorly on the SAT I, on the SAT II, and poorly when confronted with well-educated classmates. The real income problem is that poor people have far poorer educational opportunities. This is not the fault of a standardized test, but it is easier to blame the test than the inequality in society, or at least much less threatening to those with wealth and power.</p>
<p>Thank you for providing those statistics depressing as they might be. </p>
<p>So, what would you recommend doing? I have no problem with an assesment being done but the test doesn't seem to account for the flexible intelligence needed in and beyond college -- creative thinking, improvisation etc. I know you could say that such qualities are expressed elsewhere in the package but this approach seems so....limited. </p>
<p>What would you do?</p>
<p>Yes, it is depressing. Even worse, the advantages of growing up upper middle class or wealthy persist throughout life, even after controlling for education received. </p>
<p>What to do about it? Well, two questions 1. what can COLLEGES do, given the educational disadvantages of being poor, and 2. what can SOCIETY do?</p>
<p>Colleges can do pretty much what places like Brown do now- use the set of academic predictors like GPA, SAT I, SAT II, and AP scores as one element of the admissions decision. This tells the institution whether the student can benefit from the education offered at an elite college. These factors, along with other academic indicators like published writing, science contest results and similar accomplishments also help identify those who are at the top of academic potential, and more likely to make their mark on the world in narrowly intellectual pursuits (college professors, for example). Take some of these people, but assemble the rest of the class from the group of intellectually capable, and academically prepared, students who have other desirable characteristics. These are quite broadly based and include musical, artistic, and athletic accomplisments, leadership potential, public service aspirations... In this process, give some extra credit to those who have made it into the qualified group in spite of low income backgrounds and limited educational opportunities. Couple this with the financial aid that make it possible for these students to attend.</p>
<p>An individual college, like Brown, can decide how many academic stars it wants, and tailor its admissions accordingly. This becomes an important decision for the education it offers. If the college wants to have a limited range of academic rigor, then it has to bring in students who fit that range. The flagship state universities admit students, and have courses for them, who would drown at a place like Brown. The top students at the elite publics are indistinguishable from the top students at the Ivies. So the state schools offer education to a wider range of students. This is their mission, but it is expensive, and compromises are made in class size. Brown seeks to offer smaller classes and a fairly rigorous education for everyone. So it has to limit the number of low academic people it accepts, and try to ensure that all of them will be able to thrive in the Brown environment. I have not seen the evidence, but you seem to be suggesting that Brown is moving toward a narrower range of academic preparation, with higher hs gpa and test scores. I do not see this as inherently good or bad, just a location along a spectrum.</p>
<p>Society can devote far more resources to K-12 education, not just traditional academic offerings, but the enrichment that is standard in upper middle class families. Right now, the poor education provided to those who cannot either move to an expensive neighborhood or pay for private school is shameful in a wealthy country. It is also a threat to our future. Think about the difference in academic performance we see in K-12 in the US vs many other poorer countries. There is no excuse for it. But that is another rant.</p>
<p>Of course you can't forget the "it's cool to not care about school" attitude that's so pervasive in American society. A large part of the problem in many cases is simply the students, not the schools, although inner-city schools and such are of course in terrible condition.</p>