<p>@Data10 You are correct. My point was that Bowdoin was in effect selecting students from the pool of non-submitters that had SAT scores close to those of SAT of submitters. If this is the case, then why is Bowdoin test optional, these same students may have been selected if they had submitted their test results because they were within the bottom 25th percentile of admit-tees? If this is the case, then what’s the benefit to the non-submitters who have high HSGPA, excel in other factors but have really low SAT scores relative to Bowdoin.</p>
<p>My guess is that going test optional means that it will receive more applicants from those with high HSGPA and substantially low test scores relative to the overall profile of Bowdoin students. These students have little or no chance of being admitted to Bowdoin, but Bowdoin welcomes these students to apply.</p>
<p>As to your statement " Test scores add relatively little to the prediction of academic success beyond other sections of the application" this is consistent to what has already been stated that after a certain level of achievement on the SAT, applicants are pretty similar in ability and SAT predictability has little value. </p>
<p>I highlight the correlation from the graph because if an applicant has a high HSGPA and high SAT score of that is 2 standard deviations from average those students are fully qualified to do well at any institution from the most prestigious to the least prestigious university. </p>
<p>As @2018RiceParent has mentioned there are many low SES students with high SAT that do not apply to top schools. Given the data from the graph, the SAT can be a leveling factor for many of these low SES students to get into top schools.</p>
After adding controls for GPA, curriculum, race, …, the study found relatively little difference in grad rate between those with scores near the 25th percentile at a particular college and those with scores at the 75th percentile. This is quite different from saying that after a particular threshold, scores do not matter. The study does not suggest a threshold level test score.</p>
<p>
The graph shows +2 SDs from the mean test scores for a particular college. +2 SDs corresponds to a test score in the top ~2% of the entering class at a particular college (in a normal distribution). Obviously it is not possible to have a SAT score in the top 2% of the entering class at Bowdoin since more than 2% get a perfect M+V score of 1600 . Even among the high scoring CC population, very few will have scores among the top 2% of the entering class at any college they attend, so this +2SD group is not especially relevant.</p>
<p>@voiceofreason66 mentioned data about students +2 SD above average. Two standard deviations is approximately top 5%. The data quoted earlier about the relatively large percentage (17%) of high achievers (those who scored in top 10%) on SAT/ACT whose families are in the bottom 25% of family income should be reasonable to quote as an approximation. Top 10% of SAT/ACT scorers represents approximately top 5% of the 18 year olds (many low achieving students do not take the ACT or SAT or drop out of HS before they would take it). This data on the top 10% (of test takers) represents approximately +2 SD above average for 18 year olds overall. The data showed clearly that these high achieving students are at a disadvantage and a large subset are not matched to appropriate colleges, and the graduation rate of this subset suffers significantly vs. those more fortunate (mostly poor from larger urban areas near elite colleges) students who can get matched to appropriate colleges.</p>
<p>A more interesting exercise might be to turn this discussion around and ask the obvious unanswered question.
Why does the SAT correlate more with success at some colleges but not all?</p>
<p>If the SAT is measuring three important (albeit narrow) skills:
the ability to read college level textbooks and papers
the ability to do basic mathematics (algebra and geometry)
the ability to edit for grammar errors (and do simple writing)</p>
<p>We have heard claimed that there are high schools for which these skills are not particularly important,
but why would there be colleges for which these do not have a bearing on the student’s success?
fantastic tutoring and remedial preparation? (UT has summer programs for example for low scoring students to get remedial math, writing etc. to partially catch up)
students improve their skills so quickly when they get on campus (the schools have a hidden test to identify students with a “potential to catch up quickly”)?
those skills are not needed for enough courses to affect their graduation?</p>
2.3% falls above 2 standard deviations in a normal distribution. You are probably thinking of the combined amount that falls out of the +/- 2SD range – the sum of the amount below -2SDs and the amount above +2SDs.</p>
<p>
If low achieving students are dropping out of HS and/or not taking the ACT/SAT, then most of this group is not going to attend college, so they do not appear in the study’s +/ # SD range, comparing how far an individual’s score differs from mean at that college. For example, suppose a kid with a 1550 SAT chooses to go to a local state school, such as SUNYSB, instead of a more selective college. SUNYSB has a mean combined score of ~1250 and 75th percentile combined score of ~1350, so using the methodology described in the study (they mention basing SD estimates off 25th and 75th percentile reported in IPEDS), the student’s 1550 SAT would be estimated as ~+2.0 SDs above the mean of this school. 1550 is among the top ~0.3% of test takers (not including super scoring) in the United States and probably better than top 0.2% of the full US HS population in SAT dominant states, but the score barely makes it in to +2SDs at SUNYSB.</p>
<p>
The study found only a 0.5% difference in graduation rate between students who chose a college with low scores over a college with a mid or high scores, when controls were added for similar student characteristics and similar institutional characteristics (besides test scores). However, in reality the institutional characteristics will tend to vary between more and less selective colleges. Without institutional controls, the difference in grad rate for a particular student increased to 3% – not exactly a huge difference. I’m sure there are still graduation rate issues in low income students, but the study suggests those issues generally do not relate to choosing colleges whose SAT score ranges do not match well with their own score. </p>
<p>If a student has had received decent grades in a rigorous curriculum (without grade inflation where it’s easy to get A’s in all the AP classes), a 2000+ on the SAT shouldn’t be a problem. </p>
<p>If a student has A’s in AP Lit and AP Calc and yet can’t get above a 600 on math or CR, it would be pretty suspicious of their true ability in such classes.</p>
<ul>
<li>Schools which require application essays could infer writing skills from the application essays in lieu of the SAT or ACT writing sections (although proofreading by others can make such measures somewhat cloudier).</li>
<li>Schools where few or no students go into math-heavy subjects (e.g. Sarah Lawrence College) may find that the SAT or ACT math sections are irrelevant to predicting student performance at the school.</li>
<li>Schools where many students emphasize visual and performing arts (e.g. Sarah Lawrence College again) may find that the reading and writing sections of the SAT and ACT are less relevant for those students.</li>
</ul>