<p>Others have commented on wide variations in GPA and that many public schools often grade more easily. Not our experience - some public schools are not at all savy about the impact of grading policies. Until very recently, the local public high school used a 7 point scale (93 to 100 = A- to A) rather than a 10 point scale and there was no weighting for AP or honors. Therefore, an 83 in an AP class was a C and earned a 2.0 toward a GPA on a 4.0 scale. After much lobbying by parents a 10 point scale (90 to 100 = A- to A) and weighting has been introduced. Now, the same student with an 84 in an AP earns a B and 3.33 towards the GPA. To get AP credit and extra weighting the student must take the AP exam.</p>
<p>My kids' public high school is still on the 94-100 is an A scale, though they do have weighting for honors and AP. There was a push here in NC about a year ago to do away with weighting throughout the state---not sure what has happened with it (once all kids out of the system, I lost touch with the issue).</p>
<p>As those who are familiar with me know, my son was a high-scoring NM Finalist who performed inconsistently in college and dropped out of 2 years, went to work, and is now finishing on his own dime at a CSU. (Where, I am pleased to report, he has an easy time earning all A's as a 23-year-old junior). My test-challenged daughter at Barnard is the one with the discipline and drive -- and anyone who knew both kids could have figured that one out in early childhood. (D. was voted "most likely to succeed" back in 8th grade).</p>
<p>I realize that there is NO standardized way to measure these things, especially as S. had a GPA even higher than D's, though his class rank was much lower (different high schools). But the information is there in the recs, at least if the ad coms are sophisticated enough to read between the lines: the teachers wrote that my son was "brilliant" and had great "potential" -- my daughter was merely "bright" but she was "ambitious", "assertive", and always seeking greater challenge. And class rank really does tell a story -- even those PE grades, which brought down my son's GPA because of his C's, give some indication as to the kid's attitude. (At my son's school, the klutziest of kids could still get an A, provided they know how to change into their gym clothes and do it consistently.) </p>
<p>There was a place at colleges for both my kids -- but I honestly felt even at the time my son was applying that the National Merit thing was ridiculous. My son was deluged with mail and scholarship offers from all over the country.... and quite frankly, he didn't deserve it. Fortunately, my son felt the same way about his high scores -- he realized that some of the smartest kids at his high school did not score well on the test, and he noticed an unhealthy correlation between the scores and skin color that was not reflected in classroom performance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a well thought-out exam for an individual subject to evaluate in depth understanding of a particular concept
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aren't those called the SAT2s?</p>
<p>SAT2s are purely multiple choice. I doubt that they can evaluate in depth understanding of anything.</p>
<p>Many colleges(certainly UC and CSU) would recalculate the high school GPA, taking out the non-college prep course, weight the grade of honor and AP courses more.</p>
<p>SAT1 measures potential (SAT2 and ACT are more on achievement), while GPA/rank measures what one has achieved. That is why most colleges want to use a combination of the two.</p>
<p>The correlation of between SAT and GPA obviously is not 1, as many have pointed out there are smart slackers, smart people who do not test well, motivated student who can compensate for ability. Still the correlation is positive. So we should bear in mind these disparities between SAT and GPA are the exceptions rather than the rule.</p>
<p>I agree with Ophiolite and other posters who tend not to put the emphasis on using the SAT as one of the measurements used for college admission (and also as a predictor of success in the freshman year - and beyond). I know from my family's own personal experiences that the SAT's were a complete waste of time, energy and money, and there was absolutely no correlation between scores and academic success in college (and beyond). The SAT's (and the other exams given by the College Board) are just a money-maker. I wish that someone would make a documentary film as to what really goes on behind closed doors at "The Board".</p>
<p>mkm56-</p>
<p>The grades are still weighted, 1 point for honors, 2 points for AP. No pluses or minuses and yes, the 93-100 for an A, 85-92 for a B, 77-84 for a C, 70-76 for a D and 69 and below an F. Transcript reports both weighted and unweighted. Transcript also included course flags which designate some courses EXCLUDED from the GPA. Testing info can also be added to official transcript IF the students request it, left off if NOT requested. </p>
<p>As far as SAT scores with my kiddos, they varied greatly. Kiddos all one year apart, like steps, raised same home environment, same socio-economic status... Middle DD, now a college sophomore, had the lowest scores (by a HUGE margin) compared with her sibs and yet she has the HIGHEST college GPA, the most units taken per semester, most rigorous courses (even compared to her bro at Pton) and has made Dean's List every semester to maintain her academic scholarship while being a D1 athlete. She by far is the hardest worker and has an attitude that scares her brothers!</p>
<p>Her oldest sister had decent scores but no where near her brothers' and yet she managed to graduate early with a BS in a science/and moved on to vet school. She too worked her behind off. Granted none of mine prepped for the test, didn't have the time nor inclination and after watching the bulk of them and their multitude of friends I think it is what it is. A test given on one day for a couple of hours. The score obtained is how well that student performed on that test on that given day. It in no way was an indicator of how well, how fast or how long or if they even graduated, they did in college.</p>
<p>When son last year received a hand-written note from the MIT adcom crew it clearly indicated that the reason for his admit was NOT his SAT scores. But rather his humor, his essay and the person they assumed him to be from letters of rec, phone calls and his research. At his school this year he has the LOWEST combined SAT score of all the students in his hall. And yet he helps the perfect 2400 SAT test takers with their homework sets.</p>
<p>I know that son would agree whole-heartedly with NYUMOM's take of the CB.</p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>I'm in the camp of marite and others who believe the ACT/SAT is one arrow in the quiver. I also agree with marite that it is one area where a kid from WideSpotInThe Road, Texas, for that one day on that one test, can compete with the kids who have all the advantages of a prep school or rich suburban school. </p>
<p>And when the adcoms look at that kid's performance against the average performance of students at their school and they are (the SAT equivalent of) over 500 points higher , it tends to somewhat level the field.</p>
<p>To score in the top 2000 kids of 1.2 million testtakers coming from where they come from? Yeah. It gives that kid a real shot they wouldn't otherwise have had. </p>
<p>IMO no other factor other than a personal interview could be as impacting for a rural kid from a low/average performing school with few AP's and zero college counseling (and NOBODY ever going to a superselective school in the memory of the high school . U of Chicago has been the best acceptance prior to last year).</p>
<p>Rank, GPA, and course selection were all "verified" by the standardized test.</p>
<p>It provided an umbrella of legitimacy. </p>
<p>I believe the same would apply to a great standardized test-taker from a low/average performing city school. </p>
<p>In general , as parents we tend to support those things that make our kids look best. I have to think this is normal. But for that rural kid with stellar GPA, rank, toughest course selection , that has done everything at the highest level possible but is from an unknown school , it really helps. </p>
<p>Now as to how valid an indicator it is? I have no idea. I just know on that one day and on that one test if the kid from nowhere kicks the advantaged kids' rears, the game gets closer. ;)</p>
<p>Curm, I never looked at it from your prospective before, but do I understand it. </p>
<p>I also think that standardized tests can help demonstrate to a college that the average performing kid from a competitive high school is not so average afterall.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon... wouldn't that benefit be the same if all the colleges were test optional? That is, students with strong scores could submit them, students who felt that their score didn't reflect their abilities could withhold them, and the college ad coms would make decisions based on the information they had. Obviously it would be in the best interest of the kid from Hole-in-the-wall, Arkansas attending Big Joke High to submit steller SAT's, if the kid had them.... but maybe the kid who has top grades and is everyone's favorite leader at Super-Mega-Competitive High in Rich-Suburb, New Jersey, but can't seem to break 1350 on the SAT might just choose to rest on her accomplishments rather than take a back door to the Review Course wizards she goes to school with. It doesn't make the college process any more or less holistic -- they are already comparing different kids from different backgrounds and different schools.</p>
<p>Calmom:</p>
<p>It is true that the SAT can be prepped for, and it advantages some kids, including those who do not prep but have good family resources (well educated parents, a large home library or an easily accessed public library); but course grades are also subject to individual whims and extra-academic criteria. Teachers routinely reward the compliant students, the students who spend lots of time producing well presented projects whose contents may not be of the highest academic value, etc... In the case of the student in your example, the college would need to feel that it can rely on the GPAs and recs presented by the student. This, in my opinion, tends to advantage kids from well-known schools, especially if others from the same school and with similar GPAs and recs have submitted their SAT scores (this gets to the issue of validation).</p>
<p>States like TX have opted to accept the top % of students based on GPAs. It would be interesting to learn more about the differences in preparation between students who are all in the top % in their respective schools. </p>
<p>Personally, I think the main value of the SAT is as a validating tool rather than a predictive one. As many have pointed out, college success depends on all sorts of factors, including motivation.</p>
<p>Marite's example seems to me one of the best justifications for requiring standardized test scores (though the ACT or SAT-IIs might be better instruments for validating high GPAs from an unknown high school). But I'm not sure that the validation-tool idea provides an overwhelming argument for requiring standardized testing.</p>
<p>Students whose SAT scores validate their high school record (along with those whose SATs are discrepant with gpa in favor of the SATs) submit them under any system. A high-GPA, low-SAT student submits them under a SAT-required policy and withholds them under an SAT-optional policy. But at the SAT-optional school (colleges' public protestations to the contrary), non-submitting students are known to have scores at the low end of a school's range, so the amount of additional info that the SAT-required school has over the SAT-optional school is very small.</p>
<p>How should colleges balance that additional validating/predicting power against the stress, cost, time, and perhaps inequities of standardized tests (not to mention more self-serving interests like being able to report higher mean scores)? I'm truly ambivalent but think that there's good reason why reasonable people disagree about how to strike that balance.</p>
<p>Marathonman:</p>
<p>
[quote]
non-submitting students are known to have scores at the low end of a school's range, so the amount of additional info that the SAT-required school has over the SAT-optional school is very small.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So why do the colleges feel comfortable admitting these students? Because they can rely on the profiles of students who have similar GPAS, recs, etc... to give the colleges a sense of the significance of the non-submitting students. In other words, the non-submitting students benefit from the fact that others are taking standardized tests. While the colleges may suspect that the scores of the non-submitting students are lower, they can feel that their GPAS, recs... are a reliable gauge of their abilities because others have taken the trouble to validate them through standardized tests. Re: SATIIs, some colleges that make the SAT optional do require some SATIIs. They are not giving up on the idea of validation altogether.</p>
<p>Now, of course, the best validation is college performance. But that works only if a college has previously admitted a student from the same school. Again, a student from an unknown school would not have that benefit.</p>
<p>Marite, </p>
<p>Point well taken: the SAT-optional system works so well because we live in an SAT-required (or preferred) world. Another reason for my mixed feelings. </p>
<p>I'm anything bud a rabid critic of the SAT. Once all the strong arguments pro- and con-SAT are weighed (and the validation notion is one of the strongest pro-SAT arguments), I think that colleges with different enrollment figures, selectivity levels, diversity initiatives, admissions models, and views on the econmoic and emotional costs of standardized tests might come to opposite conclusions about requiring standardize testing and have reached the right answer for their circumstances. </p>
<p>I can't imagine the most selective schools, which have to make fine distinctions between enormously qualified candidates, functioning without standardized test scores. On the other hand, I can see how small, moderately selective LACs, or relatively unselective colleges might decide that they don't need the small incremenetal predictive power that requiring SATs provide.</p>
<p>My biggest issue with the measurement of the SAT as a predictive factor is the general lack of good data published on the issue.</p>
<p>According to College Board, the SAT and academic success have an R value of around .55. The r^2 is around .30, meaning that approximately 30% of the variation in success can be measured by SAT score.</p>
<p>In theory, at least. They never publish the significance values of any of these data, meaning that we don't even know if we can take the r values as meaningful!</p>
<p>Until I see some good data, I say the SAT is about as meaningful statistically as GPA (not very.) And there lies the problem with admissions: how do we admit students when we have no good metrics to use?</p>
<p>UCLAri:</p>
<p>I agree that the SAT has no good predictive value; nor does any test that seeks to measure academic achievement, since none can predict whether a student, freed from the constraints imposed by parents and high school, will choose to party instead of attending classes, and generally display the kind of self-reliance and motivation needed to make the most of college and, in general, succeed.<br>
But because the SAT, GPAs, etc... are not good gauge of personality does not render them worthless. One has to be clear about what they measure and do not measure.</p>
<p>I don't particularly like any of the standardized tests available in this country; but I see the cumulative worth of having different metrics to evaluate applicants. Alone, the SAT is not very useful. As an additional metric, especially as a validator of other metrics, it has its uses. And those who stand to benefit the most from using the SAT are applicants from unknown schools; not the Andover and Exeter.</p>
<p>marite,</p>
<p>Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that it has no good predictive value. I'm saying that I don't know whether it does or not because of the dearth of good statistical data on the subject available.</p>
<p>If I could see some p-values, t-values, and other significance value, then I'd make a judgment. Otherwise, I'm on the fence.</p>
<p>Well, I do not think that academic tests can predict college success in a direct way. They can measure retrospectively, not prospectively. They can show that a student is well prepared academically for college; and, all things being equal, a well-prepared student is more likely to succeed than an ill-prepared one. BUT, a well-prepared student who parties all the time is less likely to succeed than a less well-prepared stundet who seeks to remedy the deficiencies in his/her preparation and takes college seriously. That is not something that academic tests whether they be APs, ATc, SATs, or even GPAs can predict.</p>
<p>In the aggregate, there is some correlation between good preparation and college success as the likelihood that all well prepared students will be partiers is lliekly to be small. But it does not truly help predict the path of individual students.</p>