<p>"these days a high grade point average is as likely to reveal rampant grade inflation as individual brilliance."</p>
<p>I agree with much of the article. At least the SAT and ACT will provide some evidence as to whether a student's GPA is real or inflated. I know many 4.0s who have low SAT scores because their schools give A's to nearly everyone.</p>
<p>If we think colleges should drop the SAT and ACT for undergrad admittance because such tests are "meaningless" or somehow "less than an accurate measure of perfomance", then why keep the LSAT, MCATs, etc for grad/prof schools?</p>
<p>There was an earlier thread discussing this op-ed. Today's NYT has letters to the editor responding to the op-ed, including two from adcoms.</p>
<p>Oh, just ask that little "middle" school in bucolic Vermont how the game is played. This said, it is quite ironic that the article was penned by none other than the Prez of Reed. :D</p>
<p>marite...</p>
<p>I looked around for the op ed thread... where is it?</p>
<p>I have always felt that past performance is the best predictor of future performance. Many years ago my husband and I were Alumni Admissions Interviewers for Lafayette College. At that time Lafayette had done a study which confirmed what other colleges had already found. They compared the HS GPA of an incoming class to the college senior GPA of the same class. They also compared the SAT scores to the college senior GPA. Like every other school that has done this they found a very strong correlation between HS GPA and college GPA, and almost NO correlation between SAT scores and college GPA. But they didn't drop the SAT requirement, I suspect for fear of dropping in the USNews rankings. </p>
<p>My sister-in-law teaches SAT prep classes and she'll be the first to tell you that the whole testing thing is a money-making racket. </p>
<p>Honestly, anyone can have a bad day on a test, but not many hard-working students have 4 bad years of HS. If a kid has great SATs and weak grades, it probably means they're not working hard. But a kid with great grades and weak SAT's probably just didn't test well. </p>
<p>Frankly, I admire the schools that are getting rid of SAT's. The only value I see in the SAT is the ability to compare kids between different high schools.</p>
<p>Jlauer:</p>
<p>It's on p. 4 or so of the parents forum. Sorry I don't know how to link.</p>
<p>Thread: Reed College president praises and supports SAT Reply to Thread</p>
<p>marite: thanks, now I'll find it. I think that you just copy the http address on the top of your page and it become a link when you paste it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only value I see in the SAT is the ability to compare kids between different high schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's a HUGE value. S's friends come from totally diverse geographical areas, income groups, school types. One from a town where the median income is $26+k , one where an income of $260k is probably low, with schools to match. One had attended a well-known school, the other probably was recruited through an outreach program for URMs. How does one compare an A from one school with an A from another school?</p>
<p>yep... it works</p>
<p>Test prep is not just to rake in money.
There are students who never learnt proper techniques to do specific kinds of
problem solving, and then they finally learn it in a good test prep class.
(As to whether the info was not taught/well learnt in school, I don't know).</p>
<p>Also major merit scholarships have a standardized test score component.
High test scores can make a huge difference.
Of course one can say that test scores should not be used for scholarship evaluations, as to what should be used in place of it, there is no consensus.
As discussions on the Scholarship Board has shown, many local scholarship/awards then end up being given out based on very subjective criteria.
Some examples cited there included local politicians' children,
"important" parents' children, etc.</p>
<p>My sister-in-law doesn't think the test-PREP thing is for money-making, she says the SAT test itself is a cash cow. Educational Testing Service has a pretty good monopoly (except for the ACT) on the standardized testing business and ETS is an unregulated FOR-PROFIT company. Colleges are afraid to buck the system because of the US News rankings. Yet as studies show, SAT's DO NOT predict success in college! So what's the point? It's an easy way for big schools to do an initial weed-out when they get tens of thousands of applications, and an easy way for top schools who get way too many well-qualified applicants to narrow their pool. </p>
<p>By the way, I'm not opposed to SAT's out of bitterness. I did quite well on my SAT's back in the day, 1350 on the first try. My son got a 2080 on his first try (1370 on the "old" sections). My husband is at least my intellectual equal, but in 3 tries he never broke 1200 on the SAT. </p>
<p>The bottom line is, the SAT's don't do what they claim to do. They don't predict who will succeed in college. They do make a lot of money for ETS and allow colleges a quick "objective" way to weed out applicants.</p>
<p>"Honestly, anyone can have a bad day on a test, but not many hard-working students have 4 bad years of HS. If a kid has great SATs and weak grades, it probably means they're not working hard. But a kid with great grades and weak SAT's probably just didn't test well."</p>
<p>Or they came from a weak high school, but they are capable of playing catch up in college. That said, I do think most kids with high SAT scores are very smart, the trouble is that unless that intelligence is coupled with good grades, it's likely that they'll continue to underachieve in college as well. My gut instinct is that most kids with sky high SAT scores and middling grades desperately need to take several years off before attending college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They do make a lot of money for ETS and allow colleges a quick "objective" way to weed out applicants.
[/quote]
And that is valuable. Try dealing with 50k applications if you are at a state u, or 23k if you are working at H or Y. But it's not just about weeding, it's about comparing schools. </p>
<p>Applicant A; 4.00 GPA; Applicant B; ditto; Applicant C; ditto. And on for several thousand more apps. What's and adcom to do?</p>
<p>So ETS is for profit? Is that the only or even main objection? Not a very good one. Honda is a for profit and profitable company. It also happens to make pretty good cars.</p>
<p>"Honda is a for profit and profitable company. It also happens to make pretty good cars."</p>
<p>True, but but Honda doesn't try to tell me which car I am going to be allowed to buy. SAT's can determine which school a student will be admitted to. It just bothers me that ETS markets the SAT as predicting how students will perform in college and it's just not true.</p>
<p>I can empathize with Giant State U trying to weed thru a huge pile of applications. I think SAT's are ok as long as they're only a SMALL part of the admissions decision. I really can't see spending thousands of dollars to boost my kid's SAT scores by a few points. I think the money would be better spent on tutors to improve his grades and study habits.</p>
<p>LaFalum:</p>
<p>I guess I don't understand the data sources for your post. According to thier website, ETS is nonprofit.</p>
<p>Is ETS a government agency or part of Princeton University?</p>
<p>It's neither. ETS is a private, nonprofit organization devoted to educational measurement and research, primarily through testing. We develop and administer millions of achievement and admissions tests each year in the U.S. and 180 other countries. Our headquarters are located in Lawrenceville, New Jersey (with a Princeton, New Jersey, mailing address). We also have offices in California, Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>Further, after exhaustive studies, the Univ of California found that SAT I does help predict Frosh grades, albeit minimally; the UC found that Subject Tests were better predictors, btw.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really can't see spending thousands of dollars to boost my kid's SAT scores by a few points.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's your choice to make. ETS does not tell you to do so. S bought the 10RealSATs. Investment of about $30.00. One try, high score, he was done.</p>
<p>The thousand of dollars go to test prep companies such as Princeton Review and Kaplan, by the way, not to ETS.</p>
<p>My sister-in-law lead me to believe ETS was making a lot of money, either she was mistaken or I misunderstood her about their non-profit status. Kaplan and Princeton review are making a lot of money, along with a lot of small firms. Also, Collegeboard.org is more than happy to sell you a lot of books and expensive online classes when you sign your student up to take the SAT.</p>
<p>Either way, there's a lot of people spending a lot of money on a test that at BEST is "minimally predictive of freshman year grades." My son did well with no prep whatsoever, but he is lucky. If he were not a good test taker, would I really have a choice whether to pay for SAT prep? He'd be competing with others who are either good test takers or paying for prep. And again, his college choices would be limited by a test that seems to have a hard time proving that it does what it claims to do, predict success in college.</p>
<p>Many of the top colleges downplay the role of SAT scores, and they have my respect. I don't consider making the SAT's optional to be a "marketing ploy," I think its an acknowledgement of the test's severe shortcomings as a predictive tool.</p>
<p>It would be good to check the range of schools from which these test-optional colleges draw their students. </p>
<p>{quote]If he were not a good test taker, would I really have a choice whether to pay for SAT prep? He'd be competing with others who are either good test takers or paying for prep.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, everybody has a choice. This country has thousands of colleges. At most of those, a student can get a great education. And at most of those, the admit rate is over 50%.</p>