As I said above, I was overly telegraphic when I first brought this up. What I argue is evidence-free is the claim that high schools are in a sort of “arms race” where they’re increasing GPAs to make their students look better than students from other schools.
Also: Higher GPAs of themselves are not necessarily evidence of “grade inflation” as the term is usually used. It could, for example, be an indication of better average competence on the part of high school students (whether due to the teachers or the learners or something else) now than in the past. That is, it is entirely possible that an A now means the same thing as an A in 1980, but more students show that level of competence.
And that may well be what’s going on, at least for college-going students, given that HS GPAs remain the best predictor of first-year college success. If increases in grades were occurring without a simultaneous increase in competence, then the predictive power of HS GPAs would start to vanish.
However, HS GPAs continue to have predictive power, and stronger predictive power than SAT/ACT scores. Given that, I would suggest that the increase in HS GPAs is not the result of what people usually mean by “grade inflation” (which is the idea that HS students are being given higher grades for no academic reason other than being given higher grades), and further that the argument that SAT/ACT scores are necessary to contextualize HS grades is unfounded.
I guess I misunderstood. When I described my school as having grade deflation and you asked if that meant everyone with a 89.5 was rounded up to an A, I assumed you were being snarky and sarcastic.
Might I remind members of the forum rules: “Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others."
I think your line of thinking has some merit. Kids are more focused than they were a couple of decades ago. More are going to college and they know it.
As far as the “arms rac” for increasing grade as you call it, it’s likely a number of factors. Most things are.
I don’t believe that GPA is the best indicator of college success. I think a combined GPA and national test score of some sort is best. But that’s a difference of opinion. Agree to disagree. And I think it really depends on the colleges. On CC, folks are often talking about T20 schools. IMO, those schools need a baseline score that is the same for all to assess all. For other schools, perhaps not. Again, a difference of opinion.
Unfortunately GPAs aren’t standardized.
Straight As at one school may be far easier than at another school. Not to mention there can be vastly different class averages at the same school with different teachers. Students shouldn’t be penalized because their school has different standards, and relying only on GPA incentivizes schools/teachers to use grade inflation. I think both are very valuable in evaluating an applicant.
And if GPA in isolation without considering anything about which classes were taken, rigor of classes, grade distribution in HS profile, which classes had lower grades, … is still more predictive of college success than standardized test scores, what does that tell you about the predictive value of standardized test scores?
The reality is that no combination of GPA in isolation and SAT score in isolation is especially predictive of college success, particularly at the “top schools” that are the subject of this thread. This relates to why the “top schools” that are the subject of this thread never admit by looking at GPA in isolation, or just GPA+SAT stats in isolation. Instead they consider the full transcript and consider many factors besides just GPA+SAT stats in isolation. Studies previously listed in this thread suggest that SAT score tends to add little value beyond this combination of many factors.
Agree. The sad thing IMO is most low income kids can’t get access to many of the programs which can differentiate someone such as AMS, AIME and so many more.
A single data point doesn’t mean it’s valid across a wide spectrum. There used to be a lot of press on a girl who was homeless who went to Harvard. But that doesn’t mean that many girls who go to Harvard are/were homeless.
Many/most low SES kids can have access to standard tests in non-Covid times. So there will be many ( thousands in fact) of kids whose family income is low but whose scores are high. Bingo. For that kid, that’s a plus. Even if the kid has a score that is below the mean for that school but is still much higher than the mean for their HS, that’s also a bonus. More ways to bring low SES kids into the mix. And for kids who have low scores and low SES there are programs. But these programs are highly limited and only a tiny fraction of kids gets through.
In part, arguably, because the applicant pool for T20 schools (heck, to T50 schools, and maybe even T100) is highly self-selecting, which skews the whole issue of which stats would be most useful for admissions purposes, since they’re likely to be oddly high as it is.
GPA-wise, I was in the bottom 1/3 of my high school class because I never studied, yet when it came to ACT and SAT scores, I was in the top 2%-3% of the country. (I remember those percentiles because I was so shocked when I got the test results.) My final GPA in college was slightly higher than average, but I did very well on the GRE. I always felt I was one of those people who was good at taking tests. I never did any prep for the ACT or SAT. I bought a prep book for the GRE. This was a million years ago.
I firmly believe standardized test scores need to continue to be used. It is a valuable tool for admission, along with course difficulty and GPA. Do some people “game” the SAT system? Yes, but I feel the system would be even more abused if we are relying on GPA and especially EC’s.
I have 3 children, one of which is a highly motivated student, taking all the hardest courses possible, along with getting a 1580 on the SAT by self studying, without a Tudor or test prep.
My other child takes hard courses but just received a 1220 on his SAT. He did this with no prep, because he doesn’t have the drive my daughter has. If he did study the amount she had, he probably could have brought his score up to a low to mid 1300, which is a far cry from a 1580.
The combination of the SAT and course load/GPA, is an appropriate measure of both of my children’s collegiate ability/fit.
As for EC’s… this has the most potential to be abused by people that have money, connections, or live in large cities with large amounts of opportunities.
Exactly. It is unrealistic to assume that AO’s will be able to evaluate the ever growing number of applications. This year was the perfect storm of Covid limited college visits, TO, and to a lesser degree common app. In theory a thorough examination of courses, GPA, Recommendations, essays and EC’s ought to be enough but it would take an army of AO’s to evaluate them. This is why you read about so many disappointed kids with great stats not getting accepted this year. Like it or not, the SAT and ACT were another data point or filter (either by the school in accepting or the applicant themselves in deciding to apply.) AO’s, especially at top schools were overwhelmed with 20-50% more applications this year which is why in some cases decisions and FA have been moved back from previous years.
I think that some people are missing the optional part of “test optional.” If schools stay test optional low income students can still submit scores if that’s what they want to do. But colleges will also consider students who don’t submit scores. More applications means lower admission rates. I believe some people cling to test scores because requiring them creates a barrier to admission for many and reduces the competition.
There are schools that have been test optional for a number of years. And research shows that some of those schools are seeing an increase in the number of minority and low income students who matriculate. So test optional doesn’t appear to be the barrier to admission that some people like to think it is.
I also don’t understand the concern about how schools will evaluate students if they choose to be test optional. If schools are truly test optional I don’t believe they’re going to require competitions outside of the SAT/ACT that are also test based. Requiring those types of tests wouldn’t meet the definition of test optional. I do believe schools will figure it out. Some are already doing it. I think families who are concerned about what factors will be considered should carefully read college websites so they understand what each college wants. But they should be doing that anyway.
Nothing (other than admissions by lottery?) is perfectly equitable. If we take the tests away, many, including some who are complaining about these tests, would still complain about the inequity.
Without the tests acting as a rough filter, the gap between the fortunes of the top schools and the rest are widening even faster, quickening the pace of the demise of more and more schools that are already struggling with demographic trends, impact of college rankings, among other things.
With top colleges receiving many more applications, admissions are even less certain. Students would have to apply to more colleges, which in turn drives down acceptance rates even lower. Students would then apply to even more schools in the following year. The cycle (or is it more like a death spiral?) continues…