<p>My DH claims that the SAT IIs should carry equal weight with the SAT I among college adcomms. His reason: While the SAT I measures reasoning ability, the SAT II shows how hard the student studies and how well he/she masters the subject. This, in turn, is an indispensable predictor of future academic success. A kid can be a near-genius when it comes to reasoning ability, but if he/she won't work hard to master the subject matter, then he/she won't succeed in the more rigorous, demanding college classes. (We have known kids like this. Brilliant kids but lazy as all get-out.)</p>
<p>I assume the AP tests also measure studiousness and mastery. But, if a student has not taken AP courses / tests -- and this is true for many home-schoolers -- then shouldn't the SAT IIs carry substantial weight? I don't mean that they should carry MORE weight than the reasoning tests...but shouldn't they carry at least equal weight? Isn't studiousness as important as native ability in predicting how well one will do in college? Doesn't one need both indicators?</p>
<p>Full disclosure: This is not a disnterested question. DS did better on his SAT IIs (800, 790, 700) than on his SAT I (700M, 690CR, 710W). So far, he has been admitted everywhere he has applied, but we're hoping to squeeze some merit money out of his top-choice colleges, and I am hoping his SAT IIs will factor into that. :D</p>
<p>The argument that SAT Subject tests are better predictors of college success has some merit, and in fact was one the reasons why the College Board added the writing section (based on the discontinued Writing subject test) to the SAT. The ACT was developed (50 years ago!) as an alternative with this argument in mind. However, high school GPA is apparently more predictive than any of these tests.</p>
<p>Further info: use a search engine to find the PDF of “UC and the SAT: Predictive Validity and Differential Impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California”.</p>
<p>LD - That’s a pretty good rationale. I sometimes offer as a justification for the SAT that its relevance is similar to 40-yard dash times and number of bench press repetitions for NFL prospects. The 40 times and bench presses don’t tell you about the athlete’s work ethic or desire to succeed, but they can give you an idea of the basic tools he has to work with. To push the analogy further then, I suppose that SAT IIs are like the actual game statistics that the NFL prospects racked up as college players.</p>
<p>The only study of which I am aware was conducted by UC. Their researchers found that the Subject Tests alone were better predictors than the SAT/ACT alone. Of course, California being run by ???, promptly dropped subject tests as a UC admission requirement. :)</p>
<p>I do not believe the UC parsed the data so finely, however, to indicate whether 800 scorers in ST’s were materially better Frosh than 700 scorers on the SAT.</p>
<p>Whether a college considers ST’s for merit money is (obviously) up to them. But understand that colleges offer merit money for all kinds of reasons, one big one being high test scores, which they can publicly report/use. But ST’s are not reportable to USNews, so not of much value in the rankings game, should a merit money be so inclined to play. Thus, I would guess that SAT/ACT has higher weight for merit money at most schools.</p>
<p>btw: The UC study also found that high scores in AP/IB courses were even better predictors.</p>
<p>bluebayou, thanks so much. I am reading the study to which you refer. Loved your comment about the people who run California. So many juicy ways to fill in that blank, LOL.</p>
Reading it now…very interesting.</p>