<p>@Sue22 Yes, I should have quantified my observation about National Merit Finalists who have high SAT scores with good grades. Thank you for adding this bit of information. </p>
<p>Here is a telling graph about High School GPA (HSGPA) and ACT Composite (ACTC) and probability of getting a College GPA over 3.0 (CGPA). The graph is on page 27 figure 3 of the following link:</p>
<p>As one can see if you have a HSGPA of 4.0 and 10 ACTC, your probability of getting 3.0 CGPA is only 30% that’s the same probability as a student who has a HSGPA of 2.2 and 35 ACTC.</p>
<p>A 4.0 student’s probability of 3.0 CGPA goes up with higher ACTC. So if this student has an average 20 ACTC, probability of 3.0 CGPA goes up to 73% which is about the same as student with 2.9 HSGPA and 35 ACTC.</p>
<p>To have a probability of 3.0 CGPA over 90%, a student must have an ACTC over 30 according to the graph. </p>
<p>@2018RiceParent See the link I provided above in addressing Sue22. The predictive value does become insignificant for ACT scores over 30. So a 4.0 HSGPA student with a 35 ACT and one with a 30 ACT, there is little difference. However comparing a 4.0 HSGPA student with 35 ACT and 25 ACT the difference is substantial at least as it relates to the probability of getting a college GPA over 3.0. If you have both high HSGPA and ACT you are virtually guaranteed of getting at least 3.0 college GPA versus only a 73% probability for high HSGPA and 25 ACT with probability dropping as the ACT scores drops.</p>
<p>So in the case of Rice and other schools with high ACT score students after a certain point in ACT scores, there is little difference and as you state other factors need to be looked at although in my opinion the predictive benefits are at the margins at that point.</p>
<p>A 10 on the ACT would place a student in the 1st percentile, worse than 99 percent of all test taker. I can’t imagine there’s a statistically significant pool of kids earning a 4.0 in HS but a 10 on the ACT. Perhaps a few home schooled kids with LD’s?</p>
<p>I also wonder how much of this has to do with HS rigor. For instance, a kid from a rigorous private prep or suburban HS is likely to have to do higher quality work for their grades than a kid at a mediocre and underfunded school where they may be a top scoring student but not be well prepared for college.</p>
<p>@voiceofreason66 great link. The table on page 28 reinforces something which has been hinted at earlier. ACT (and probably SAT) are better than HSGPA at predicting probability of high level (3.5 or higher), but slightly worse at predicting moderate level GPA.</p>
<p>When looking at aggregates in high schools or school districts, standardized tests can give a general idea about the rigor of the school, even if there are a few individual students who do much better or much worse on standardized tests than how they do in high school or college.</p>
<p>Test-optional colleges could theoretically be aware of applicants’ high schools’ aggregate standardized test performance and use that as a means of putting high school GPA and rank into context, even if the applicant does not show individual test scores. (Yes, it is free-riding on the fact that most college applicants do take standardized tests.)</p>
<p>@Sue22 Yes, I would agree it would be helpful if HSGPA could be weighted for rigor and the predictive value might go up but I’m not sure if the costs to properly weight the 50000+ High Schools and its many courses would be cost effective. This is why most colleges use GPA and Test Scores for admission. </p>
<p>@2018RiceParent Yes it appears that is the case, but the combination of ACT and HSGPA is the best predictor according to this study and basically every study that I have seen says the same thing. High GPA + High Test Scores = Successful College Students. Not in all cases, but in great many cases as exemplified by the data from the National Merit Corp.</p>
<p>This raises my concern about test optional schools. For these school, if ACT and SAT do not have any predictive value then why use them at all in their admission process. They could go no Test required and then request test scores after the students are admitted for reporting and ranking purposes. Sarah Lawrence could have done this but it chose to go test optional instead. I had respect for SLU before this change even though I disagreed with their belief that SAT/ACT tests do not have predictive value, but not so much now. Now I think that it is just a way schools use to Game their ranking positions and get more applications.</p>
<p>If Hsu and Schombert is correct, I would expect to see few non-submitters graduating in physics or mathematics. The Arcidiacono study shows that weaker students have the tendency to move away from hard majors to soft majors in order to protect their GPA.</p>
<p>For those who think standardized tests do not predict much of anything, this would be an eye opener:</p>
I am assuming that you are referring to the study at <a href=“http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/grades_4.0.pdf”>http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/grades_4.0.pdf</a> . The study found that White students who plan to major in engineering, natural sciences, or economics; but later switch to humanities had an average SAT of 1384/1600. While the students who stuck with the tough major had a significantly higher SAT of 1443/1600, so at first glance, it sounds like getting admitted with a lower than typical SAT score is somewhat predictive of dropping out of a tough major. However, when he digs deeper and looks at how the much an individual component adds to the prediction of dropping out of the major beyond the other measured factors, the conclusion changes. This latter measure is closer to looking at how much predictive power SAT adds beyond the other components of the application a test optional college would use. </p>
<p>His findings are below for looking at the additional application components without filtering for harshness of grading in specific Duke classes. When he filters for harshness of grading, the SAT correlation becomes even smaller. Admission rating categories refer to the 1-5 rating that was given by Duke admissions when the students initially applied to the college. A positive number means increased chance of switching out of the engineering/physical science/economics major. And a lower number means increased chance of staying in the major.</p>
<p>Being Female: +0.18
Admission Rating of HS Course Rigor: -0.17
Admission Rating of HS Grades: -0.09
Admission Rating of Essay: -0.07
Admission Rating of LORs: -0.063
Being Black or Hispanic: +0.059
SAT Score: -0.057
Being Asian: -0.048
Admission Rating of Personal Qualities: +0.006</p>
<p>The Arcidiacono study suggests that the largest portion of the correlation between SAT score alone (not considering other sections of application) and college academic success relates to the correlation between SAT score and other sections of the application, rather than the score itself. For example, students with lower test scores are more likely to take less rigorous classes in HS. Students who take less rigorous class in HS are less prepared for math and science foundation classes taken by engineering/science majors. Students who are less prepared in the foundation classes are more likely to switch out of an eng/phy science major. So if you compare students who took equally rigorous classes and did equally well in them, SAT score appears to have much less correlation with college academic success than if you look at SAT alone without considering course rigor. Several other studies have come to similar conclusions.</p>
<p>The last time we got this far, the thread was locked before I could respond.</p>
<p>Students are not admitted randomly at Duke. They come almost exclusively from the right tail. So it is no surprise that other attributes come to the fore when cognitive ability is more “range bounded” than the general population. If Duke were to admit students by lottery, you will certainly see much higher measured correlations.</p>
<p>Now when we start to talk about “2nd and third derivatives” such as Duke students who take hard courses, and Duke students who take hard courses and do well on them, why should we be surprised by the low correlation?</p>
<p>This is exactly the same reason why Google did not find GPA and test scores useful in predicting work performance.</p>
<p>For increased educational variety and for continued experimentation the “test optional” movement may be ok as long as it doesn’t change students behavior - but in this era of teens on social media 24/7 … I hope that the “test optional” movement doesn’t reduce the amount of work that teens do even further. Sadly the task of preparing for the SAT (or ACT) may be more rigorous than what some kids do in High School classwork. The basic Algebra 1 and Geometry skills, the basic grammar skills, and practice reading a variety of hard college level passages that preparing for the SAT entails (and similarly for ACT prep) is not a bad thing. At least SAT prep could improve “useful” skills (useful in the long run, not just useful in getting a better score) and motivate a few teens who would otherwise be on social media.</p>
<p>This is a quote from the Temple Article which seems to confirm my belief that going test optional is about getting more applications.</p>
<p>"“Students were getting discouraged. They were feeling that they didn’t have an opportunity to go to Temple,” said Gregory Anderson, who became dean of the College of Education a year ago, and served on the committee that made the decision to abandon the SAT requirement. “There’s the belief that there’s no point in even applying.”"</p>
<p>If Dean Anderson and Temple really believed that the SAT/ACT isn’t valuable in assessing students, then just go NO TEST but not test optional.</p>
<p>Another problem with this test optional movement is that who does it really help? Is Temple and other test optional schools going to increase the class size of incoming freshman to accommodate the increase in applicants as a result of the testing policy change? </p>
<p>If these schools do not increase freshman enrollment then they are just punishing some test submitting applicants for the benefit of some non-test submitting applicants.</p>
<p>Going back to the graph posted in post#260 that shows how the ACT and HSGPA determines the probability of graduating with a 3.0+ college GPA, my guess is that the students who are going to be punished by the Test Optional policy are those students who have lower HSGPAs and higher test scores in favor of applicants who have high HSGPAs.</p>
<p>The problem with this Test Optional trend is that it will be difficult for lower HSGPA students who performed poorly in some courses or had issues that contributed to their lower HSGPAs to overcome this without the benefit of performing well on the SAT/ACT. Compare this with high HSGPA students who score low on the SAT/ACT. These students can always study to try to increase scores. The same cannot be said of the low HSGPA students. </p>
<p>This is also the same problem with the “Super-Scoring” trend as well. Both Test-Optional and Super-Scoring sounds good to students but ultimately it is just another way for colleges to game the system without some students knowing that they are the lemmings falling of the Application Collection Cliff.</p>
<p>@Sue22 Apparently there are many low scoring top HSGPA students just in Philly alone. Quote from Temple Article, “Many students from Philadelphia’s neighborhood high schools are finishing at the top of their class, but have SAT scores in the 800s, putting them at a disadvantage.”</p>
<p>High schools in Philadelphia are challenged financially, physically and socially. Temple is a huge part of that community. With the inherent failure of the public school system if the selection process doesn’t become more personal. Temple may be eliminating from the application process the community they’re supposed to be serving. </p>
<p>@Mayihelp Who determines which students get into Temple? Temple Admissions makes the decision and no one else. So whether a student has a low or high SAT/ACT, Temple AdCom can choose to admit low scoring students without going Test Optional. No one is stopping them other than themselves.</p>
<p>So why does Temple and other schools go test optional if admission decisions are in their own hands, because there is a price to be paid for taking low scoring students. That price is lower perceived prestige, selectivity, and rankings to name a few.</p>
<p>BTW if the SAT/ACT was not so important to Temple then why is the level of merit scholarship tied to how high you score on those tests and why is there a minimum SAT/ACT score needed to apply to Temple’s BS/MD program?</p>
<p>Temple and other Test Optional Schools its about increasing their own prestige rather than about the students. How many students from the same area high schools in Philadelphia will be denied admission to Temple because of this test optional policy?</p>
<p>Temple could just give Philadelphia High School students preferred status in the admissions process if it really cared about enrolling more Philly students, but Temple knows it has a price it must pay to do so, so it doesn’t. Instead it has taken the route of going test optional for motives that are less than honorable. Yes, it will help some students but it will hurt others.</p>
<p>They’re doing it so that students who have high grades, strong EC’s. A high rank in class, leadership skills etc, won’t be discouraged from applying because when they look up a common data set or their visiting with their guidance counselor won’t be discouraged from applying because now there will be a clear understanding that a low test score will not eliminate their opportunity. The average test score at Temple is probably around 1700 a student with a 1400 may not feel it’s worth their while to apply or may be advised not too. Now if that student excels on the other parts of the app they will be encouraged to apply since the testing is no longer part of the equation. </p>
<p>@Mayihelp Then Temple should go NO TEST rather than Test Optional. But if Temple went NO TEST, then those students who have low HGGPAs but high test scores might not want to apply. The policy is about increasing applications, not about helping Philly kids. </p>
<p>Temple will have to change its merit scholarship policy as well since it currently uses SAT/ACT scores for eligibility. As you would guess, higher the scores, more the $$ merit scholarships.</p>
<p>My guess is the scholarship requirements won’t change because that is how Temple can entice high test scoring students to consider Temple over other schools. But why would Temple want high scoring students if test scores are meaningless for admissions? I’m sure you can guess the answer.</p>
<p>@voiceofreason66 Why does being test-optional hurt students with low GPAs and high test scores? You’re still allowed to submit test scores, so the student with a great SAT and lackluster GPA would choose to submit his/her SAT score, and it would definitely be considered, especially if the student has extenuating circumstances that have hindered their performance in high school. </p>
<p>I don’t think Temple, or most other test-optional schools claim that the SAT has no value. They just acknowledge that the test is flawed, and that in some cases it is not indicative of a student’s true ability. Then, of course, there are fringe benefits, more applicants, lower acceptance rates, higher average test scores, these have been touched on earlier in this thread. The schools view it as a win-win situation. </p>
<p>I don’t deny there might be some gamesmanship on the part of Temple. I also don’t believe they have to change their merit scholarship policy either. The elimination of test scores is for admissions. universities always have different guidelines for certain schools, scholarships and placement that does not necessarily have to change. Will it result in more applications for Temple sure, but hopefully also more opportunity for some capable students who reside in the shadows of this university, and may not have this opportunity due to issues beyond their control like the inadequacies of the Philly public school system. Let’s keep in mind this is a school that already admits well over 60% of the students who apply. </p>
If a school goes test optional, students won’t be admitted by random lottery. Instead the test optional admits will need to excel in course rigor, HS GPA, LORs, etc. The admitted test optional students who excel in grades, course rigor, and everything except test scores are generally going to have scores far above the US median, at a selective college. The Epstein paper that was quoted earlier said non-submitters at test optional schools averaged 100-150 points lower scores than submitters. This 100-150 point difference is well within the SAT ranges of students in the Duke study. For example, the difference in average SAT scores between Black and non-URM students in the Duke study exceeded 150 points on just the M+V sections.</p>