<p>
</p>
<p>The SAT Subject tests do a better job at predicting college performance and providing a standardized measure for what students learned in high school course work than the more commonly used SAT Reasoning test does.</p>
<p>It shouldn’t pass over a low GPA, because a low GPA (Unless it’s at a great school) means you are lazy, a slacker, not smart, etc. That’d be a terrible idea.</p>
<p>Subject Tests and AP tests still aren’t the best predictors, but they are superior to SAT reasoning.</p>
<p>Neither GPA nor SAT should be considered alone, because colleges are trying to compare students with no common background. Yes, they are familiar with a large percentage of high schools, but they can’t be familiar with every high school. They have to rely on GPA and class rank based on the school profile, which may or may not be particularly helpful. OK, the student took loads of AP classes, and the school offers loads, but what is the rigor of those classes? Who else is in those classes?</p>
<p>If the student goes to a well known HS, or course the adcoms will have a sense of where that GPA/rank places them relative to the other applicants. But if they’re not particularly familiar with a given school (kids from our local HS mostly stay in state, or the northeast; several of the colleges where she is applying have not seen an applicant from her school in the past decade), they have to rely on standardize test scores to be able to compare - either the individual student’s scores, or the high schools’s average scores as listed on their profile.</p>
<p>When a student from one of these “unknown” high schools applies with a mismatch of scores vs. GPA, in either direction, you can bet they’re going to look at the profile. That in itself is adding more weight to the SAT or ACT. If the school has a similar mistmatch - the school as a whole has low scores, it indicates the GPA may be inflated. If the school has high averages, it suggests the GPA may be deflated. It allows the college a shot at comparing the environment against the known environment of the kids at the well-known schools.</p>
<p>This in turn is perhaps why SAT optional doesn’t make as much difference as you might think. They know the student who doesn’t report the scores probably didn’t do well - or they would have reported the scores (unless they’re applying to 25 colleges and can’t afford the fees - that’s a whole other issue), but they still have the context of their schools’ average SAT/ACT scores, so they still come into play.</p>
<p>Rahul…sorry for deviating from your original subject… Are you a junior or a senior? but I am curious what makes you take 14 AP courses and stay up till 3.00 AM to maintain 4.0… to do 14 APs, I assume you would have to take them in diverse subjects and languages, right… and not just in your specific area of interest…what are you intending to convey to colleges? I don’t mean to be disrespectful of your choices. I am just curious.</p>
<p>I think CTScoutMom pretty much covered it. They are better looked at together, but GPA still does, and should, eclipse SAT (As evidenced by the fact that there are no GPA optional schools, that I know of, but there are SAT optional schools).</p>
<p>That’s not what she said at all and that doesn’t make any sense… GPA does NOT eclipse SAT…</p>
<p>“When a student from one of these “unknown” high schools applies with a mismatch of scores vs. GPA, in either direction, you can bet they’re going to look at the profile. That in itself is adding more weight to the SAT or ACT.”</p>
<p>Saying that something adds more weight to the SAT shows that GPA is more important to begin with.</p>
<p>I don’t get why you’re still arguing. I think that GPA is more important, as it’s a better predictor of success, and therefore should stay as it is; slightly more important than the SAT at most schools. You don’t think that the best predictor should be the most important. Neither of us is going to change each other’s minds.</p>
<p>First of all, crimson you do don’t definitively know that GPA is a better predictor of success. All I see as evidence are several links from random blogs that only present one side of the issue and don’t elaborate on how GPA is a better predictor. The SAT and GPA should be equal in importance, so everybody could stop bickering…</p>
<p>One of those “blogs” is an article from a College adcom, and one of them from the USNews reporting from College Board directly. I don’t think those are “random blogs.” I would consider those reputable sources. For the College Board to say that GPA is a better predictor, shows that it’s most likely true.</p>
<p>GPA, as a better predictor, and as an example of your average work over 4 years, should be more important. Can people just let it die? No one is going to convince anyone else</p>
<p>If GPA is really the better predictor, it’s still not as fair as the SAT.</p>
<p>And I think you’re the one whos keeping this argument going… If you really want to let it die then stop trying to convince others that GPA is a better predictor.</p>
<p>You just responded, and therefore kept it going. The SAT isn’t fair; numerous researchers have found that richer students get higher scores. <- Not fair</p>
<p>Are you dull? We don’t need “researchers” to figure out that richer students score higher on the SAT. Richer students also have higher GPAs and are more involved in and out of school, no suprise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not what I have read. I have heard it suggested that the best predictor of success at Harvard are AP tests, then SAT Subject Tests, then GPA, then SAT Reasoning.</p>
<p>Although, I agree that all of them combined are probably the best predictors of success. It is like if I had a choice of watching black & white or color or XD or XD with 3D movies. I’d pick the last one.</p>
<p>The(Supposedly)enlightened, I’d appreciate you not trying to belittle me. I’m not dull, but you obviously are extremely immature. The research all took into account that richer students generally do better due to parent’s education, schools, etc. Statisticians/researches aren’t idiots, they know how to eliminate outside influences.</p>
<p>Perazziman, I’d always heard GPA, AP, Subject, Reasoning, but either way, reasoning is still the lowest of the totem poll. All of them combined is obviously best, but they have to have a hierarchy. If two extremely similar students are the two last ones, and one has a higher GPA, while the other has a higher SAT, there must be a way to differentiate.</p>
<p>Mr. stained, can you please elaborate on my said “immaturity”? Did I disagree that richer students do better on the SAT? My point, which flew right over your head, was that richer students also do better in other areas of school. So you have no right to single SAT for being unfair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The study you yourself quote regarding UC, says SAT Subject Test is a better predictor than GPA. In addition, William R. Fitzsimmons, the longtime dean of admissions and financial aid at Harvard College says, </p>
<p>“We have found that the best predictors at Harvard are Advanced Placement tests and International Baccalaureate Exams, closely followed by the College Board subject tests. High school grades are next in predictive power, followed by the SAT and ACT. The writing tests of the SAT and ACT have predictive power similar to the subject tests.”</p>
<p>[Guidance</a> Office: Answers From Harvard’s Dean, Part 2 - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/harvarddean-part2/]Guidance”>Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 2 - The New York Times)</p>
<p>When it comes to the SAT look at the study in ucbalumnus’ post. It clearly suggests that one would be taking a terrible risk studying mathematics or physics with an SAT Math score below 600. Certainly, if there is a kid with a 4.0 GPA but SAT Math score of 550 then gpa will not be as good a predictor of success if for someone studying math or physics in college. However, I think we both agree that the best predictor is a combined approach.</p>
<p>You are being immature by saying I’m dull, by suggesting that your point flew right over my head, and even trying to be clever and calling me Mr. stained.</p>
<p>My point, which seemingly also flew right over your head, was that researches know how to eliminate the influence of the education in general, and target only the SAT and its surrounding factors. Its unfair because it’s easily increased by having money by buying expensive tutors, classes, and books, which, obviously, disadvantaged students don’t have access to.</p>
<p>Hmm, thanks for pointing that out Perazziman. I guess it makes sense that being dedicated enough to take, and pass, AP classes/SAT Subject test shows you will succeed in college. SAT is still the worst by most people’s standards though, and that’s what applies here.</p>
<p>So I’m immature for calling you dull? Because the last two things came after you calling me immature… and if you look at your own posts, aren’t you just as immature by calling my the(supposedly)enlightened and copying what I said?</p>
<p>Why would they eliminate the influence of the education and target only the SAT? How well you do in school is easily affected by expensive tutors, classes, and books, things that disadvantaged students can’t afford. How, then, is getting a good GPA different from scoring high on the SAT?</p>
<p>You’re immature for trying to attack me, because you can’t argue your own point. Your username is pretentious, you are pretentious, and you are trying, and failing to belittle me.</p>
<p>Because most people don’t get expensive tutors, classes on how to take classes, and extra books for their kids. They check the students’ prior academic ability and compare it to SAT so that they are looking at similarly skilled students.</p>