<p>that’s only the most recent UC study, but UC has lots of 'em that show the same thing. Gpa is #1, followed by test scores. (And AP scores are even better than STs.) </p>
<p>But the OP is really stretching it, IMO, to say, “that the SAT/ACT are pretty poor at measuring anything…”. If that is true, then gpa must be almost as poor, at least from a statistical basis. (GPA accounted for 20% of the study variance, followed closely? by test scores at ~17%.)</p>
<p>Be glad we have schools with differing entrance requirements; something for everyone. How boring if all schools were the same in this regard.</p>
<p>bluebayou, I’m no statistician, but it seems to me that the study referenced by ucbalumnus showed much more predictive power for HSGPA. However, since this was data from admitted UC students, they all had to have had good GPA & good SAT scores. So, what the study says is that within such a group the GPA differences trump SAT differences in predicting college GPA. Since making good grades depends on valuing grades and being willing and able to work for them, I don’t think that is surprising.</p>
<p>^^that’s exactly correct, notakid. </p>
<p>But what the study does NOT show, which is the OP’s supposition, is “that the SAT/ACT are pretty poor at measuring anything…”</p>
<p>Indeed, just the opposite.</p>
<p>thanks for a link to that study.
@ bluebayou, i do agree that AP’s are good. personally i think everything else is pretty weak.</p>
<p>i did say that the SAT was pretty bad, and i also think the GPA is unreliable too. how else can you explain juniors with 4.0’s who are weak at math/science and cannot find a subject/verb pair in sentences?</p>
<p>my overall point is that this education system is flawed and massive overhaul is necessary.</p>
<p>I’d rather drop gpa than sat. My kids attended a rigorous private prep school, right next to what was considered a top ranked public school. I can tell you for sure a kids B’s represented more thought, rigor, work, then the A in the school next door. Too many transfers both ways have proven that.</p>
<p>Plus rewarding straight A’s has sent a huge bunch of kids into grade grubbing mode vs real learning. (will that interesting discussion be on the test?)</p>
<p>None of this stuff is ideal, but at least the sat is a great equalizer.</p>
<p>Among the conclusions of that paper are that: Neither high school GPA or SAT scores (or the combination thereof, which is slightly better) are “good” predictors of college success by most definitions of the word good, especially if individual outcomes are the subject of the prediction. Here is what the authors of that paper said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College admissions officers understand this better than we CC members do, generally speaking (exceptions allowed). They’ve dealt with it for decades, and they won’t always get it right.</p>
<p>Until every student in America can receive free SAT/ACT test prep courses and the inherent cultural bias of the SAT can be exorcised from the exam I have no problem at all with colleges that wish to go standardized test optional or only “consider” SAT/ACT scores rather than consider them “Important” or “Most Important.”</p>
<p>Four years ago my eldest daughter received the highest SAT scores in our county in over 3 years. Yet they were barely respectable compared to the scores reported here on CC. Nonetheless, many of my daughter’s peers have gone off to excellent colleges, including some Ivys, and have largely succeeded academically. They never would have been given the chance to prove their mettle in one of those socities in which all things depend on standardized test scores.</p>
<p>Flash forward four years and some of the wealthier parents in our area have begun forking over money for expensive test prep and we are beginning to see some students reporting SAT scores in the 2300+ range. Are these smarter students than their older brothers and sisters? I actually have found most of the ones I know to be less impressive and intellectually curious. But damn do they have impressive test scores.</p>
<p>After seeing more daughter’s PSATs, I hope more schools go the optional route. She is a top student, straight A’s, can learn any material, but her PSAT scores shocked us. She wants to be a physical therapists, and not sure how the reading section or writing scores on the SAT have anything to do with her ability to do the work that she has to. I have no doubt whatsoever that she will be a top student in anything she does. But now, she has to study to do well on the SATs or she will be denied from many schools, which would be a shame. I think studying for the reading section is really a waste of time, but now something she must focus on.</p>
<p>I think of it as the various ways kids can shine. Whether it’s SAT, ACT, essay, interview, recommendations, GPA, rank, ECs, or courses taken (AP, honors), an applicant needs some way to stand out at selective schools, the more the better. It just might not be test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can read about the history of that in this recently released book that brings together expert views on the SAT from many of the most esteemed heavyweights in the college admissions field:</p>
<p>[Teachers</a> College Press](<a href=“http://store.tcpress.com/0807752622.shtml]Teachers”>http://store.tcpress.com/0807752622.shtml)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I challenge posters to carefully read the chapter from the above book by Jay Rosner titled “The SAT: Quantifying the Unfairness Behind the Bubbles”, and still proclaim with certainty that the SAT is an equalizer. I believe the jury is still out re: whether there is inherent race and class bias in the SAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen to that. What a waste of time and effort. And what a lot of wasted money that could be spent on so many other more worthwhile things. But yes, not likely to change, since the profit motive in the testing industry is so huge for the College Board, and all the test prep companies that feed off of it.</p>
<p>Standardized testing introduces its own problems while attempting to mitigate a different problem – that of the inconsistency in curricula and grading across different high schools – by providing a common measure.</p>
<p>It seems that in most of the arguments about standardized testing, solving the problem which brings about the desire for it gets little or no attention. Going to a standardized curriculum for each subject, with consistent grading across all high schools, would eliminate the need for standardized testing. But that appears politically very difficult in the US.</p>
<p>“I believe the jury is still out re: whether there is inherent race and class bias in the SAT.”</p>
<p>I think there is, but it’s largely irrelevant, because good adcoms recognize it and account for it.</p>
<p>I’ve enjoyed the many thoughtful posts in this thread. One thing missing though, is a COMPELLING reason to change the current system. Also missing is an alternative system that has even a small chance of being implemented.</p>
<p>Re post #34:
But the students themselves and those who advise them often don’t, so the test scores and testing system has ramifications that go far beyond whether kid A. gets into college X. Kid A. may never even apply to college X. because he assumes that he has no chance of getting in; and the overworked guidance counselor at his high school may steer him toward community college when he has the potential to do well at a 4 year college for the same reasons. </p>
<p>If all colleges were SAT optional, students who felt the scores helped them would submit, and others wouldn’t. It would mean that colleges would tend to see high end scores, and they would also see the scores of students whose tests were more impressive than their grades – for example, B students with high test scores. It could also be used by strong students attending small rural high schools or homeschooled. The score would be a supplementary rather than central piece of information. But top students at well-established public or private high schools would know that they didn’t need the test score – they might take the tests once to see what they got, but they wouldn’t bother with intense prep or re-testing. That in turn would actually improve the value of the tests for those who did take them – scores would no longer be artificially inflated by the intense prep and the practice of submitting multiple scores to get the best combination from multiple sittings.</p>
<p>However, in the absence of standardized tests, high schools would increase grade inflation and decrease course rigor.</p>
<p>We can see the reverse phenomena with AP tests. The proliferation of relatively worthless (for college credit) AP tests like statistics and human geography seems to be the only reason many high schools offer (good high school level) courses in those subjects.</p>
<p>Note that this is not advocacy of the tests, which have plenty of problems. But they exist to mitigate or measure the problem of unevenness in high school rigor and grading, which would likely get worse if the tests were simply removed without some other means of solving the problem that they are trying to mitigate and measure.</p>
<p>I agree with hudsonvalley (post 29) on the one hand, BUT being a middle class parent of kids that went to a very competitive public hs, I loved that SATs helped to level the playing field.</p>
<p>Additionally, all prep classes are NOT The same. I believe that a student who took a group SAT prep for 4-8 weeks would not have as good of a chance on average as one who had private tutoring for 4+ hours every week for over a year to prep for the SAT (assuming that tutors were equal in their ability to tutor for the SAT). This is just my opinion, so don’t ask for proof.</p>
<p>
The flaw in your logic is that the SAT is not tied to the curriculum. The math is geared mostly to algebra & geometry – the CR/writing is skill based, not curriculum based – focused mostly on the mechanics of writing & vocabulary. </p>
<p>So how does it possibly help to assess school rigor to give a test that is unrelated to the high school curriculum? Those test scores tell you more about demographics than school quality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The worst K-12 school systems do not teach algebra, geometry, and writing well, and may not have students read enough to build up a good vocabulary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So does this mean that you are saying that demographics determines your skill at algebra, geometry, writing, and vocabulary, independent of the quality of school that you attended?</p>