Quite a few issues with this article.
First off, a single anecdote for one student among millions of standardized test taking students is meaningless. No doubt the author could find a 1550+ SAT student who failed/dropped out after Freshman year (I can give names of a couple of my fraternity brothers…).
Implying that “ But the ACT and College Board, which owns the SAT, argue that a combination of grades and test scores is the best overall guide ” is in conflict with an analysis that considered only single data sets is disingenuous. In fact, it’s highly likely that two predictive indicators are more powerful predictors when used in combination.
The entire premise of the article “ Grades vs. SAT scores” implies there is some need to choose. As has been well discussed here, all of the data points in a college application - GPA, test scores, course rigor, extracurriculars, personal traits, essays, etc. - build on each other to form the best view of a student.
The article spends one sentence stating “ The most successful students had both high GPAs and high test scores.“ then multiple paragraphs trying to discount this fact.
In support of the thesis that “outcomes were not so different”, they state
“The first-year GPA was 2.78, a B-, for students with lower scores compared with 3.36, a B+, for those with the highest scores.”
Am I the only one that things that a 3.36 and a 2.78 aren’t “not so different”?
The entire article seems to have a point it wants to make then twists data to support that point. Even when it doesn’t.