<p>That is not the case in our districts. Our high-achieving public school students/graduates perform just as well if not better with regard to test scores/GPA as our private school students - it's at such a high level to begin with - and families buy into these neighborhoods because of the public school systems. As I said before, there are still people who think that the "private schools" are better, but that's a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>exactly what I was trying to say, Marite. </p>
<p>When everyone gets at least a B, the SAT's should be a tool for seperating the "men from the boys". I think that the SAT is quite valuable at this slightly lower level.</p>
<p>It perhaps is not as important when you have a candidate with over a 4.0 taking all APs. Then you know you have a successful student, regardless.</p>
<p>But if I was an adcom at a 3rd tier LAC that is used as a safety school for all the local preps, I sure would like some more info than GPA, so that I pick the best kids from school x, not the ones with the best tutor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The admissions office told us that they had done a longtitudinal study on their students, comparing SAT scores and HS GPA's with final college GPA's. There was virtually NO correlation with the SAT scores, but a high correlation with HS GPA.
[/quote]
this sets off my doubting Thomas tendacies ... I don't doubt the result: I doubt the conclusion. Did they compare entering students with SATs running from 400 to 1600 and find no correlation to college performance ... or did they compare accepted students that were drawn from a relatively narrow band of SAT scores (say 1000-1300) and then conclude SAT scores were not predictive ... I guess it was closer to the later; which has huge pre-selection bias. This comment is no way is a pro or con argument in the overall argument ... just a comment on the possible validity of the previous study.</p>
<p>3togo--and I bet that the lower you went into the SAT ranges, the wider GPA fluctuations you would get.</p>
<p>At that point, I think the the SAT would be a much more useful predictor. </p>
<p>If we're talking about Harvard's freshman class, I think that the GPA/rigor/school profile may be just as good.</p>
<p>My points through this discussion have centered on a kid who is going to get 900-1100 SATs. That could get you anywhere from a 2.0 without assistance at an indifferent public, all the way to a 3.5 with a lot of help.</p>
<p>The SAT as well as AP tests can reveal a lot about whats behind a students GPA. At our school, the science and math APs tend to be harder grade-wise than the English and history courses. Most students pull As and Bs in the English and histories, but the averages on the AP tests are low (only 60% pass). On the flip side, the AP math and science students are pulling mostly Bs and Cs, and 100% make 5s on the tests. Say a college looks at two students from the same school, both with 4.0. One kid has a 1050 SAT and 2s and 3s on his AP tests; the other has a 1450 and all 4s and 5s on his APs. BTW, this example is real. Immediately the college has a better perspective than if they only had the GPA to go on.</p>
<p>doubleplay,
While I agree that the AP exam helps to validate a GPA, I do not agree that the SAT provides the same function. </p>
<p>I've seen situations <em>both</em> in prep schools <em>and</em> in publics, where students slide by with C's, but have Wow SAT's. Sure, that SAT may measure the potential of that student (for college), but the grades measured how well that student performed in the classroom, didn't they? An admissions committee has no evidence that such students will suddenly "get religion" & perform well in tough college classes. That's why it's so important to have every piece of info: high school profile, CONTENT of high school courses (provided by school or student), examples of high school work, AP exam results, SAT I and II results (with SAT I not considered with any more weight than the SAT II). My gripe is that this rarely happens UNLESS the student has already made the cut via a certain high SAT I score: at that point he or she "earns" consideration for a full look. And I will say again, that colleges speak out of both sides of their mouths in this regard.</p>
<p>epiphany--
Your example is why the reverse of the proposal will never happen. No one wants to look at SAT's only without grades. We all know slackers ( i know of one who had in the 1300s, old scale,and failed 12th grade english). The top colleges shouldn't touch them.</p>
<p>I just think that grades without sat's are also problematic, especially among the lower-achieving but college bound student.</p>
<p>Don't we all know someone (and I'll get away from whether this happens more in public vs private schools) whose entire school career has been massaged toward getting into a school that will probably be over his/her head? (and no, we're not talking about HYPS or top 50) These same kids, of course, have taken endless SAT preps, but there is a ceiling beyond which they won't be able to score.</p>
<p>jaybee,
On your 2nd paragraph, while I agree that grades without context are problematic, I do not agree that SAT I's are that appropriate context. </p>
<p>I agree with your last paragraph. I know someone who was outright rejected by a top U, then "reconsidered" when her h.s. coach saw to it, after her rejection, that she get recruited for same school. While her grades are good, her preparation has been nowhere near what the "average" admit to that U is. She is a non-URM athletic recruit without a challenging pre-college litmus test, and who was privately prepped to increase her SAT I scores, & she is now enrolled at that U. My own D will not do as well on the SAT I (due to documented issues) but has had, so far, a fab prep for the curriculum at that same U, in a very different level of h.s., where the average student is of superior ability to aforementioned student. Without SAT I prep, without a high score, my own D, & several from her h.s., are far better material for that U, but may not be considered if that numerical bar is not reached. It's stupid.</p>
<p>Epiphany</p>
<p>Earlier, you mentioned that your kid's private had grades that were scattered. Out of curiosity, and not an agenda, does anyone graduate from a high-end private with, say, a 2.3? What happens to them? (assuming comparable sat's of 1000 or so)</p>
<p>Yes, some do graduate with 2.3's, even 2.0's. In all such cases I know of, those students never belonged there. They may have belonged there economically, were let in as school legacies or some other reason, but were not equipped academically in some cases, motivated academically in other cases. In the cases of the underperformance, the students were not happy at the school, because it's an environment where the norm is to work very very hard & to have success by some definition -- as an outstanding "something" -- whether athletically, governmentally or some other leadership, artistically, or academically. As long as you have an achievement "niche," you'll do fine there, & the school recognizes (officially, & at end of year) many varieties of niches -- scholars & non-scholars. (Although I think good scholars are the happiest there, & the most recognized.)</p>
<p>So those above graduates take a gap year & travel, if parents are rich, then get into some college usually. Others (usually those with less money) go to a low-level 4-yr directly from graduation (such as a state school or a nonselective private).</p>
<p>You have to work really hard just to maintain a 3.0 at this school (in non-Honors & non-AP's); anyone not doing that is either not capable of meeting that standard or not interested in meeting it.</p>
<p>State schools should not all be categorized as "low-level". There are some top-ranking state schools, and many high-achieving students take advantage of the excellent education that they offer. There are also many "nonselective" private colleges that offer fine programs as well. It should be noted that many colleges/universities seem to be trying to work on upgrading their resourcesprograms, and eventually, some of these so-called "low-level" schools, will, in fact, probably end up at some point being brought up to a higher level.</p>
<p>nyumom,
That's why I used "low-level" as a modifier, not an equalizer. (Vs. high-level state school or mid-level state school.) Please read my post more carefully. And when I said nonselective privates, I was referring to those I know quite well. They've been nonselective for 30+ yrs. & if anything, are less selective now, if that's possible. Not referring to ones in the process of upgrading.</p>
<p>epiphany,
Thanks for the clarification - it's clear to me now.</p>
<p>Our daughter has found the opposite of what some are saying at the competitive university that she is at. She came from an above average public high school and finds that a lot of the students she has met from elite private schools were indeed coddled. As a matter of fact a lot of these students from so called elite schools are the ones that are complain the loudest about the lack of contact with professors. They seem incapable or unwilling to take the initiative to approach professors but expect the professors to approach them. By the way, this is at Harvard - the place that some students claim has unapproachable professors - which is also total nonsense.</p>
<p>Justin Pope's article in Newsday, suggests that while colleges are not missing the SAT, students aren't missing the SAT, or the ACT for that matter - because they continue to take standardized tests and in higher numbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The SAT and ACT college entrance exams each report the number of students taking their test this month is up sharply from a year ago, a likely sign more students are trying both exams to boost their admission chances.</p>
<p>About 520,000 students have registered for the Oct. 28 sitting of the ACT, a 17 percent increase from last year, according to the latest figures. The number of students who took last Saturday's SAT was about 660,000, compared to 570,000 last October...</p>
<p>Both tests report early registration figures for their later test dates are running no higher than last year. </p>
<p>But much of the ACT increase, at least, appears to come from students switching exams or trying both of them. About half the increase in ACT-takers is on the East Coast, where most students have historically taken the SAT. ACT registration is nearly two-thirds higher than a year ago in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and about 50 percent higher in New York, Connecticut, Georgia and Florida, according to the ACT.</p>
<p>The number of high school seniors overall is up slightly from last year, but not enough to account for the increase. </p>
<p>...The SAT was created to democratize college admissions, and can still help talented students who haven't had access to a strong curriculum show their stuff.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One point I find it interesting in the Newsday article - that some guidance counselors are now telling their students to cover their bases and take both the SAT and the ACT as part of college admission strategy:</p>
<p>"Students just show different strengths, so play to your strengths," said Mary Bogle, counselor at Quakertown Community High School in Pennsylvania, a school that has been advising students to take both exams.</p>
<p>Wonderful. Just what we need. Piling on in the admissions race. Students need more hoops to jump through, no question.:(</p>
<p>Here's a radical thought, seniors: Have a national boycott. Every graduate takes a gap year in order to engage in the full-time admissions activity <em>sanely</em>. See how GC's and colleges start changing their tune when there are not enough available students to fill those freshman seats. Sheesh.</p>
<p>epiphany- "Wonderful. Just what we need. Piling on in the admissions race. Students need more hoops to jump through, no question."</p>
<p>When I read the Newsday article, I couldn't help thinking "what in the world is going on" because I thought the basic idea is to make things better through reform and not just pile it on. Well put and worth saying again and again. While I do argue in favor of the SAT, I am all in favor of fewer hoops, not more. I don't think that most of us are ready to commit to a national boycott to make that point though!!!</p>