<p>There is a LOT of grade inflation at colleges in the non-science areas - so SAT scores may not predict college GPA's. I'm a fan of SATs. Too much grade-inflation at high-schools, and many schools do not weight AP classes and end up with "lite-scholars" in their top 10%. Although some bright people score poorly on the SAT, ALL kids who score well on the SAT are bright. They may not have a work ethic, (thus the need for colleges to look at their hs courses, grades, ecs, etc) and they may not be positive, ethical individuals, (thus the need to check recommendations before offering admission), but they are bright. And being bright is a useful thing for figuring out things in college and in life. I hope colleges keep the SATs because the alternative is not good.</p>
<p>The SAT is one very important (cross-checking) factor along with grades, class rank, quality of school, difficulty of classes taken and so forth.</p>
<p>Dropping politically-correct speech for the moment, most of us realize the SATs in general tend to roughly correlate with IQ for the average person/avg school (completed 10th grade) person sitting for the exam.</p>
<p>This is the elephant in the room that rarely can be discussed, because IQ itself is largely out of one's control and in effect has an element of unfairness built-in.</p>
<p>Now unless one argues (as some do) that IQ's do not matter in life, then its hard to argue that the SAT is not important</p>
<p>Colleges that drop the SAT risk degrading the entire value of the degree at that institution, and will hurt themselves over the longer term.</p>
<p>Do SAT and ACT predict college success? Two true stories that compare value of ACT and grade point avg:</p>
<p>Relative 1: Perfect grades, honors classes, lots of e.c., disappointing ACT (in her mother's words). Great deal of trouble in calc and econ freshman year, changed major to education. Graduated with honors as ed major, so counts as a success. </p>
<p>Relative 2: High GPA, lots of ec including sports, highly recommended by counselors, poor ACT. Flunked everything hard freshman year and had to redo lots of classes at community college. Returned as ed. tech. major, graduated with honors as ed major, counts as success.</p>
<p>In fact, both of these young ladies have established successful careers, but schools looking for kids likely to do well in challenging fields are making a mistake, in my opinion, if they disregard standardized tests. GPA is worthless, and interesting extracurriculars don't mean you can pass calc or chem.</p>
<p>High GPAs demonstrate reliable work ethic. My guess is that 90% of 4.0 students are reliable students when they get to college.</p>
<p>High SATs demonstrate high IQ. In all likelihood, a slacker with a high verbal SAT will be able to do the work but colleges (and parents) cannot rely on that possibility.</p>
<p>If there were enough High GPA/High IQ students to perform at the very highest tertiary levels, High SAT slackers would never see the inside of a decent school. Since competitive schools do accept bright but immature and iffy students (boys), they must not have enough (male) talent in the more reliable High GPA group.</p>
<p>Sometimes the almighty 'merit' concept clouds reality, in my opinion, especially when it appears to trump talent. A good work ethic is important but it is a mere learned skill. One can learn to be a good student at age 20.</p>
<p>Talent, on the other hand, is the stuffing that makes brilliance.</p>
<p>"High GPAs demonstrate reliable work ethic. My guess is that 90% of 4.0 students are reliable students when they get to college."</p>
<p>My point was that both of the students in my example had high GPA but had never been required to work hard to "earn" those grades. #1 rarely cracked open a book, probably due to very high IQ. They got to college, discovered they had no work skills and no work ethic in the classroom and bombed in classes that required both. Both went to suburban public high schools, graduated about 10 years ago. #1 went to a school that bragged at graduation that 25% of the graduates had earned over a 4.0 gpa. I get the impression things are improving with regard to expectations and less grade inflation in recent years. Until public schools, and some privates, improve their product, colleges should not be too quick to accept the hs' in-house assessments (personal, not professional opinion).</p>
<p>Aside: my S is a senior at a public school that offers a lot of AP courses and encourages students to take the AP test, so there is a clear way to distinguish those with some work ethic. Not grade point or rank, though, because there is no adjustment for honors or AP classes. Those with high gpa and AP records can be assumed to be ready for college, but gpa alone is quite unreliable.</p>
<p>The Reed College President is correct in his reasoning</p>
<p>Consider the fact that many elite schools claim to put great weight on recommendations. In reality, few guidance counselors or teachers are going to give bad recommendations, as it would be against their own interest to prevent a student from gaining admission to a selective school. As a result, with the better students, for example those who do well in honors or AP classes - these recommendations end up as little more than rubber stamps, in effect affirmations of what is already on the record, with grades or perhaps AP test results</p>
<p>The point is: if the "SAT tests s/b ignored" proponents are claiming SATs are meaningless or unfair, how can they honestly say that recommendations really mean that much - when the writer of the recommendation would obviously have an innate bias in favor of the student?</p>
<p>In fact SATs, despite any real or imagined unfairness or biases, are far more meaningful than recommendations. If anything recommendations s/b dropped as they are for the most part virtually meaningless - particularly when other evidence of success in the class can be presented by the student.</p>
<p>Also consider that essays often are given significant weight, however with top schools its not likely that these essays are being exclusively written by and edited by the applicant. They are usually in the nature of a collaboration.</p>
<p>Conclusion: both essays and recommendations often have little if any substantive meaning, thereby making SAT score results that much more important.</p>
<p>I agree with the questionable value of essays and recommendations for most students. I've always thought that they provide a subjective element that helps colleges to decide which students appeal to them and that they, therefore, want to admit.</p>
<p>Does anyone know why the SAT and ACT aren't constructed in such a way that it would take a true genius to achieve a perfect score? It does seem like there are so many students who receive top scores on these tests that there would be real value in being able to know how these students would score relative to each other if there were a higher ceiling. Would it just make the test too long? Might it make sense to have a basic SAT or ACT test and then another optional test that is more challenging?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does anyone know why the SAT and ACT aren't constructed in such a way that it would take a true genius to achieve a perfect score?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"True genius"? From a timed multiple-guess standardized test? That has to be an extremely narrow definition of "genius"? Have we learned nothing from research into mulitple intelligences? History? Common sense? Gadzooks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If anything recommendations s/b dropped as they are for the most part virtually meaningless
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not at all. Guidance counselors develop relationships with college admissions people. Selective college adcons travel, visit schools, attend conferences, and spend their careers learning how to evaluate recommendations. Recs are a valuable tool. A smart GC provides meaningful information, because this is an ongoing relationship. A bad call will discredit the GC.</p>
<p>Certainly there are limitations to these tests, and there are other "intelligences" that can't be measured by them. However, in spite of these shortcomings, I think a more challenging test would be useful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dropping politically-correct speech for the moment, most of us realize the SATs in general tend to roughly correlate with IQ for the average person/avg school (completed 10th grade) person sitting for the exam
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I.Q. tests are constructed to measure much the same constellation of abilities measured by SAT tests. Well, duh. Why is acknowledging this not PC? The problem is, many people unacquainted with the history of I.Q. testing believe the tests objectively measure some universal human quality. I.Q. tests measure the ability to score well on I.Q. tests, and that's about it.</p>
<p>Plus the pretty common belief among experts that TONS of the greatest thinkers in history have had enormously high IQs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plus the pretty common belief among experts that TONS of the greatest thinkers in history have had enormously high IQs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, when exactly was the first "IQ" test invented? Wasn't it somewhere around 1920? By a racial bigot who was later discredited?</p>