<p>You are missing the point. UCB has an agenda and it has little to do with SATs. Since Prop 209 in 1996 they have had their previous unbridled discretion constrained by a prohibition against race based preferences and by a series of audits designed to detect continuing efforts to evade the law. By removing objective standards, like the SAT, cheating becomes easier to accomplish and harder to detect.</p>
<p>Don't know whether or not the SAT predicts college success, but daughters and son have usually been able to guess with remarkable accuracy the national merit semi-finalists in their respective classes BEFORE any official announcements. It seems that the students perceived by others as really smart (not just hard working) actually are the ones who are recognized by national merit. Something's somehow working somewhat. :)</p>
<p>
[quote=Saul Geiser, BACK TO THE BASICS 7]
The SAT Subject Tests are hour-long, multiplechoice exams, while the AP exams take two to three hours and include a combination of multiple-choice, free-answer, and essay questions. **Both **are administered at the end of the school year and serve, in effect, as end-of-course examinations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are we supposed to trust the validity of the research of someone who states that "The SAT Subject Tests are administered at the end of the school year." Shall we assume that the school year ends six of seven times a year? </p>
<p>Reading the statements written in that report, one has to seriously doubt Geiser has taken the ACT, SAT, or any Subject Tests in the past decade, let alone read their contents.</p>
<p>Titan, great first sentence in that post 27.</p>
<p>I don't think that the SAT is a bad indicator of college performance. Why? No one is saying that it's 100% predictive, and in fact, it isn't; the SAT is just that--an indicator. The SAT only offers a portion of the larger picture of college success. Along with a slew of other factors, such as GPA, AP exams, SAT II exams, etc, a fuller, complete picture starts to materialize that better maps out one's success in college.</p>
<p>There are similar studies that show that height is not correlated with success in the NBA. Uh duh, because everyone is tall to begin with.</p>
<p>That's why colleges use the SAT - having an SAT range of 1350-1500 is far less predictive (maybe even non-predictive after all things are considered). However, they are already dealing with an extremely smart population!</p>
<p>The SAT correlates well with intelligence, to say otherwise is laughing in the face of reality. Hint: all the smartest people I knew did very well on the SAT. Of course, there were a few outliers that merely got a ~1380/1600 despite being ultra intelligent - that merely illustrates the random nature of test taking. Randomness averages out when the sample size increases (ie: in college admissions).</p>
<p>I agree with the article. Socioeconomic status definitely correlates with SAT performance. During my senior year, I went to 2 different schools. One school, which I attended for all 4 years of high school, is mostly low income and middle class. The other high school was in a suburb and it was composed of middle class and upper middle class/rich students. With more money in its budget, this high school was able to provide more classes and the tools to prepare students for a standardized test, such as the SAT.</p>
<p>The SAT does not provide opportunities to more disadvantaged groups and I believe it does not level the playing field for all minorities and groups. Thus, the SAT must definitely be abolished. Its intended goals have been smasked by the use of expensive test prep courses and leaving every child behind.</p>
<p>In life, there are going to be things that other people have that you don't. Get over it! If you want what they have, just find a way to get it.</p>
<p>"Expensive test prep courses"</p>
<p>I didn't use them, and I turned out fine. It's called motivation.</p>
<p>For a while now I've been of the opinion that how you do on the SAT doesn't say that much about your ability to succeed in college. All my experience tells me that the people who do well in college are those who learned good study habits in high school and who are involved in things -- these characteristics are demonstrated by GPA, class rank, and activities. </p>
<p>It's a cliche, but I really believe that the SAT doesn't tell you much more than how good you are at the SAT -- what's tested is a very specific skill set, a very specific way of thinking. Success in college is about a lot more than that.</p>
<p>Squiddy: Though you posted awhile ago, I can't let a misinformed response to my post get by.</p>
<p>First of all, clearly the article mentioned GPA: "Compared to high school GPA, for example, SAT scores were much more closely correlated with student's socioeconomic characteristics" and "SAT scores are based on a single sitting of three to four hours, whereas high school GPA is based on repeated sampling of student performance over several years." Perhaps you didn't actually read the article and just glanced at the small excerpt.</p>
<p>Secondly, regardless of your personal opinion, studies have shown for decades that grades in high school<a href="yes,%20GPA%20measures%20this">/i</a> *are the strongest single predictor of college success. We're not talking about combination of variables: we're talking about isolated single variables. Of course no system would only use one, but that wasn't the purpose of this article. In fact, I explicitly mentioned that the article unfortunately did not talk about the combination of SAT scores with other variables. Perhaps you also did not read my post and just read that one sentence.</p>
<p>I never claimed SAT was useless: far from it, I merely mentioned what the studies I have read have shown (that GPA in college preparatory coursework alone is a stronger factor than SAT scores alone) and wondered about the results of a study researching combination of SAT with GPA and other factors. Read more carefully: you seemed to have made the same mistake in response to another user's post as well.</p>
<p>nhsharvard...</p>
<p>It is not the SAT that is the problem. The SAT actually clarifies the issue. The problem is the educational system and the lack of resources at some schools. Without the SATs we would not know there was an issue of inequality. Having the information in hand allows folks to act on the issue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Secondly, regardless of your personal opinion, studies have shown for decades that grades in high school (yes, GPA measures this) are the strongest single predictor of college success. We're not talking about combination of variables: we're talking about isolated single variables. Of course no system would only use one, but that wasn't the purpose of this article. In fact, I explicitly mentioned that the article unfortunately did not talk about the combination of SAT scores with other variables. Perhaps you also did not read my post and just read that one sentence.
[/quote]
I was under the impression that AP test performance was the strongest indicator of college success.</p>
<p>More garbage "science" out of UCB, constructed to "prove" a political point. There is a positive correlation between high SATs and high socioeconic status. So what? There is also a positive correlation between socioeconomic status and performance in college. Does that mean we should not admit high socioeconomic students? UCB would like not to. Moreover, given the vast differences in the quality/difficulty of high schools and the vast differences in the quality and difficulty of various universities and of programs within universities, I would dispute any conclusion that there is a supposed "greater" correlation between GPA and "college success" than between SATs and college "success". There are too many fudge words in there and, too many opportunities to skew the results by defining the sample and measures of success. The "study" is agenda-based and not worth the paper it's printed on.</p>
<p>Did the UC study compare GPA's for students within a given major? My niece belongs to a Facebook group called "My GPA is lower than yours because I'm in Engineering." I have seen my large public university's "Study of Grading Practices" across major areas within the university, which shows % of A grades ranging from 6% in a particularly tough major to about 85% (upper level courses, really easy major).</p>
<p>@ Mr Payne: You know, you're probably right. That makes complete sense: I just forgot about that factor as most studies of this nature don't seem to focus on APs--I'm not sure how many are really around that directly compare them. Also, an issue with APs is that many students don't take any (a vast majority of my high school, for example: at maximum 20% of each graduating class ever takes one AP, and a majority of those don't pass), so it's not really universally applicable. It still stands that it was already known that independently GPA is a stronger predictor of college success than SAT scores--perhaps not the best, but it seems to be the best universal method. I only meant to state that I would've preferred if this study had given us more useful information, such as by how much SAT can improve the predictions that superior methods (such as GPA and APs) can make. As of now the study only seemed to confirm what other research has already stated.</p>
<p>@ others: Regarding the issue of differing quality in schools, I think the main point is that if the student cares enough to keep his GPA high in even a poor school, most likely the student will try their best to keep their GPA appropriate in college, as well. It may take them more work, but they have the work ethic. In the end this comes down to the question of what causes the most "failure" in college: lack of ability or lack of work. I bid more on the latter, though I know the former does have an impact (which is why SATs are still useful).</p>
<p>I think failure has to do more with delayed social/emotional development rising to the surface in a generally unrestricted environment. So much emphasis with getting in to college during hs that other developmental issues are put aside ... until college. Could be simply not ready/prepared.</p>
<p>I think everyone should take a gap year.</p>
<p>I dunno, like some others have said, I've always thought that the SAT is a pretty good general measurement of someone's raw abilities. I went to a pretty academically rigorous prep school, and I found that the academically successful people were either smart or hardworking (or both). And believe me, at schools like this, students are always talking about how smart other kids are. All of the perceived "smart" kids did very well on the SAT, even the "smart but lazy" kids who didn't live up to their potential. The kids who were perceived as perhaps "not as smart, but hardworking" did worse on the SAT. I don't think this is a coincidence.</p>
<p>But do you know what these "not as smart, but hardworking" kids can do? They can prep for the exam. We all agree that that SAT can be studied for, right? So is it so unbelievable that "smart" kids can do well without studying as much, while the "not as smart, but hardworking" students can do well by studying harder for it? Isn't that what school (and college and the real world) is like anyway?</p>
<p>I discussed this with one of my hallmates last year, who considered himself more of the hardworking type in high school, and he agreed. He didn't score that high on the SAT compared to other Duke students, but the rest of his high school record spoke for itself (no, he didn't have any URM or legacy status, nor did he have anything ridiculous on his resume), and he was the only one from his high school to be admitted.</p>
<p>The most notable "not as smart, but hardworking" students from my high school happened to be our valedictorian and salutatorian. After retaking the SAT, they ended up at Harvard and Stanford respectively. Unfortunately, it does cost money in order to prep adequately for the exam, and in that sense, I believe the system is flawed because the wealthier kids who NEED tutoring in order to keep up will have an advantage over poorer students of equal intelligence. But in my opinion, it is the industry that surrounds the test, not the test itself, that is unfair.</p>
<p>As a sidenote: obviously the valedictorian and salutatorian had the highest GPAs of our grade, meaning they did very well in school classes. But I think of the 12ish AP tests they took between them, they didn't get more than a few 5s. I believe they had mostly 4s and some 3s. I thought it might have been interesting to bring this up, as some of you have mentioned looking at college level coursework and AP scores instead of the SAT. These two were clearly not very good test takers, but they were still two of the overall most respected and most academically successful people in our grade. And they are going to first tier schools.</p>
<p>The UCB study is extremely (and perhaps deliberately) ambiguous. What do they mean by college success? High grades? Graduating in four years? Graduating in five years? Graduating with high grades? Without a clear definition of success, any argument pro or con is worthless.</p>
<p>Also, I'd like to suggest what the SATs actual measure: The ability to do college level academic work. That's it. Nothing more. I'll also suggest that, although SAT scores do not correlate strongly with higher grades, they do correlate strongly with graduation rates. That is, the higher the average SAT score at a college or university, the greater the percentage of students who make it through their course of study and graduate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll also suggest that, although SAT scores do not correlate strongly with higher grades, they do correlate strongly with graduation rates. That is, the higher the average SAT score at a college or university, the greater the percentage of students who make it through their course of study and graduate.
[/quote]
Correlation does not mean causation. Schools like Harvard are known to be pretty easy once you get in, and even if you really screw up, they're pretty accomodating and get you back on track so you can graduate. Fact is, schools want to have higher graduation rates because it looks good if they do.</p>
<p>This was noted in post #36 but I think it's important to reiterate that intelligence alone will not make you succeed in college. You could get a 1600 or 2400 on the SAT and have the highest IQ score imaginable and someone with a 1200 could easily outshine you if they work harder. In my opinion, the most important factors in whether or not a person will be successful in college include work ethic, future goals, attendance, willingness to seek out help when necessary, and the ability to network with professors and others. In many situations, it's obvious that great social skills and work habits outweigh great SAT scores in terms of what makes a person "successful."</p>