<p>
[quote]
Nor do the grades given out even at elite institutions seem to have much relation to student ability or performance. As reported by his lawyer, an imposter who in the early 1990s gained admission to Yale with a fake transcript earned a B average in the two years before he was caught, even though his GPA at the community college he previously attended had been only 2.1. In this climate, predicting grades is a little like predicting the price of potatoes during the Weimar inflation of the early 1920s, a pointless and erratic enterprise.
<p>There needs to be some sort of standardized testing program for college admission.</p>
<ol>
<li>It makes the college admission process easier for both the colleges and the students. Without a numerical measurement of intelligence/ability-to-reason/probability-to-succeed-freshman-year-in-college/or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it, admission officers most likely will have to spend at least twice as much time to evaluate each applicant. This slows down the admission process, and most likely raises the application fee (which would be racist, heh?). </li>
<li>College ranking would be so much harder. </li>
<li>Students too can have a good idea of where would suit them best. Without a number to place them in the middle of the SAT bracket, many can be lost as to where they are qualified, not qualified, or over qualified to attend.</li>
<li>If abolishing the SATs helps the "disadvantaged" low-scorers, wouldn't it also harm the "advantaged" high-scorers? Personally I know some very intelligent students that basically can only shine with their perfect or near-perfect SAT scores. </li>
<li>The GPA system differs for each high school. It's very difficult to account for grade inflation, deflation, course difficulty, or simply the average intelligence/work-ethic of the school's student population.</li>
<li>As to the claim that the SAT is racist---should there even be a refutation? Is anything that shows or suggests that races differ in certain aspects racist? Look at the IQ test. Asians score highest, then Whites. Blacks are at the bottom. Is the IQ test "worded" to discriminate Blacks or Hispanics? In the meantime, we might as well get rid of all standardized tests. If they are not PERFECT indicators, then they must not be trusted AT ALL, right????</li>
</ol>
<p>What would be wrong with a university having their own test. That way the school could decide what they expect incoming students to know and offer admittance to the high scorers or whatever cutoff point the determine gets the school the class size they want. They could offer their test at various locations and have their admissions people monitor the test. Seems less expensive then reviewing applications.</p>
<p>I may be off base, but I think universities should use SATs only as an admission requirement and then ignore them. For example, selective schools like ivies should require applicants to have like a 1400/2100, and once you make the cut, results should be ignored. At that point, any better scores are just splitting hairs.</p>
<p>Fascinating article; however, it does have the tendency to generalize all successful students with one analytical mindset - those that are successful with college work must demonstrate a specific rote memorization of comprehension processes. He also discounts the influence of wealth that I believe deserves more credit that is given in the article. Students who are not struggling with financial ordeals or have opportunities to enroll in enriching academic environments obviously have an advantage in nourishing the intellect. One point that I find painfully agree with is the notion that a student who might not perform well on the test may not have the ability to succeed in college. Is it unfeasable to acknowledge that some students may not be able to succeed with just hard work at elite levels? I found the parallel between the NBA and this idea to be effective. The question is how to differentiate these students who don't do well from those who simply have an impediment to the exam - whatever the reason. The SAT isn't a measure of everything one is capable of, but it does provide insight into the important skill of test taking. In the essence of test taking lies an important ability to be creative and be able to "think out of the box." Finding ways to circumvent the exam itself - in all its simple tricks and mind games - can be considered a form of problem solving. On another amusing note, how many students that go to Rutgers have a 700+ verbal score to have this professor be able to compile data to yield significant results?</p>
<p>In a place like India, students are required to take one test after graduating (similar to our SAT). Additionally, they must take mandatory tests administered by each college they want to go to. So basically they take two tests, which compares students in two different groups: the entire Indian population and the population of students who want to attend a specific university.</p>
<p>Really though I must ask why should each iniversity bother in creating its own test? Most universities are looking for roughly the same thing and I personallythink it would be a massive waste of time and money for both the professors and the students. Also have you given though to how in the world each university would have to administer the test to people around the world? That is not a very easy or cheap thing to do. I believe that even with all its flaws the SAT is a pretty good indicator of intelligence (take for example that SAT scores correlated almost exactly with class rank in my school)</p>
<p>At teh end of high school, there is one huge test that everyone takes that will make or break you. GPA does not matter.</p>
<p>Just 1 test will determine everything. It will be extremely high level and long to weed out those who lack academic ability and it makes a perfect score extremely rare. Like only a handful out of the entire population at most.</p>
<p>Afterall, what use is some of the junk that admissions officers look at. So what if you volunteer a lot. Does that make you a better programmer later in life? Does that "add" to the college that you are a liar willing to do things you don't like to get into college?</p>
<p>that man is despicable. did you read how nonchalantly he stated: people in lower socioeconomic strata can "go to the public library" to get better verbal skills?!?!</p>
<p>i like how he stood up for the SAT, but i hate how he acted like everyone who tried hard to educate themselves could succeed...um, excuse me, the SAT is biased, and more importantly, if you are born into a working class family that doesnt have time to read to you all the time, you're screwed. if you didn't get a good education in elementary/middle schools and weren't encouraged to read by your family, then you aren't going to "become a reader." it's a lovely thought, but its bull$hit. america ought to do something to help the poor and downtrodden. and i cant believe i just used a phrase from a pink floyd song.</p>
<p>But forcing colleges to have their own standardized tests for admissions purposes would mean extra economic burdens for countless students and their families. That factor alone would kill this proposal.</p>
<p>i don't think they should just be for a cutoff...if you've done considerably better (like near perfect), college admissions should know that. But the SAT had problems back in the 90s because it was considered unfair by many and also considered to ask tricky questions that don't measure actual knowledge at all. Colleges that agree with this are encouraging ACT results instead, but I still see SAT scores everywhere I go much more than those of the ACT.</p>
<p>Whichever is chosen, (or if it remains both or an entirely new test is used) there needs to be some sort of universal test primarily to determine the validity of one's GPA. One person with a 4.0 that has taken all AP courses may have gotten through without being as intelligent as their grade would indicate, so colleges need something to compare that to students who may have worked very hard for their 3.8 and are actually much more knowledgeable. A standardized test helps to weed out those that aren't as smart as their grades may indicate.</p>
<p>I don't really see any problem with individual colleges giving out their own tests, but it would be difficult to compare the students academically/academic quality as different colleges.</p>
<p>Interesting points, but several unfounded claims. Where is the evidence that being a life long reader implies high verbal SAT scores? If this were true, would it reflect "aptitude"?</p>
<p>He ignores the strong relationship between family wealth and SAT scores, since it would be inconvenient to his thesis. </p>
<p>He posits an apparently arbitray minimum SAT score for success in the English curriculum at Rutgers, with no data behind it. To imply that similar SAT minimums exist anywhere is to endow the test with better predictive power than any data would support. </p>
<p>The comparison with the NBA is particularly misleading. In the NBA there is only one goal- winning basketball games. There are only a narrow range of activities that contribute to this, and thus all successful NBA players display outstanding performance on a small set of measures (shooting ability, stamina...). Colleges define successful graduates much more broadly, so the characteristics that lead to success are also more varied. </p>
<p>He claims that coaching only helps in the midrange, and that it does not work above scores of 700. Says who? Hernandez presents no evidence either, and one wonders how she even would think she would know. It may be more likely that many people who score 720 the first time do not bother to take courses, or to talk about them, but how else would anyone except the coaching companies themselves know how well coaching helps already high SAT's? </p>
<p>No discussion of the small statistical differences between a 750 and an 800. </p>
<p>The top colleges manage to educate and graduate the vast majority of those who enter, including those with lower SAT scores. Harvard may not enroll many people with SATV of 580, but those on the low end of Harvard's distribution still graduate.</p>
<p>Overall, the SAT still does what it claims- provides one piece of information about ability to succeed at a competitive college.</p>
<p>Most colleges do essentially use it as a rough cut off - We all know that once you hit a certain level - they start to look at other things. I mean in reality, what does a person with a 2400 know that a person with a 2200 doesn't? The differences are marginal and admissions officlals are aware of that, or so they say.</p>
<p>Additionally, to answer the question of why do admissions officials look at non-academic things? Because if they didn't, the make up of an incoming class would be rediculously homogenous on multiple levels...ie they would all be white females from New England wanting to major in psychology. </p>
<p>To understand the history of why institutions use non-academic factors, the history dates back to the Rhodes Scholarship upon which early university admissions policies were based on. When Rhodes died in 1902, his will stipulated that the greater part of his fortune was to go toward the establishment of a scholarship fund to reward applicants who exhibited worthy qualities of intellect, character, and physical ability.</p>
<p>Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and in qualities of person which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead. The four main categories were:</p>
<pre><code>* literary and scholastic attainments;
* energy to use one's talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
* truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
* moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one's fellow beings.
</code></pre>
<p>Universities believe these characteristics to be of importance as well when admitting students and hence they use non-academic factors when admitting students to their class. :)</p>
<p>I liked the article. No one can deny that there is some correlation between people we consider to be "smart" and those who do well on the SAT. It isn't random, folks.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there is, in my experience, a small correlation between those who read and those who do well on the verbal (and math, to a smaller extent) SAT. I know people who never read in high school; cheated, used the CliffNotes, and got (relatively) weak vSATs. Surprise? Not at all. I do think that the SAT reveals something you don't find elsewhere. Besides, how are we supposed to compare people to each other otherwise? Standarized tests to have a role to play; is there something wrong with that?</p>
<p>Going to be very politically incorrect here... but if those who are in low-income families, poor schools, or bad home environments don't get as good an education... why should that not be reflected in the SAT? Either you have an aptitude test (which would have everyone up in arms) or you have a test that measures some combination of aptitude and education - which, apparently, is biased against those who have not received a good education. How's that for a tautology? IMO, that is NOT the fault of the test but rather a slew of other sources: those who rely on the test data too much; those who are more passive and take the education they are given; and system that has huge differentials in educational quality.</p>
<p>As for wealth v. SAT scores - my parents didn't pay for a test course, let alone 10 Real SATs, but I did fine. So their salary alone magically imparts, via osmosis, the super-secret knowledge of how to take the SAT into my brain? I don't buy it. (By the way, I outscored my older sister by 330 points, and she had a prep class.) Wealth is a proxy here for two things: 1) quality of education already received throughout life (i.e. better public schools, top privates, tutors, etc); and 2) parental education/intelligence... and there is obviously some genetic component to intelligence. Smart people tend to earn more money and have smart kids - the double genetic jackpot to those born into that situation. The SAT measures it, but that is not the fault of the test, IMNSVHO.</p>
<p>true...but people won't reach their full potential unless they are given the same opportunities as say, a well-educated prep school middle class student. i agree...smart kids will do well relative to their means...but in order to REALLY make it fair, everyone should get the same education, and THEN ONLY can we use the SAT to measure just ability. and of course that doesnt happen in the real world.</p>
<p>that being said, if you cant do well on the SAT, it doesn't matter if your lack of success is due to ability issues or educational opportunity issues. either way you won't succeed in college.</p>
<p>Just make it an IQ test. Or something less "coachable" than the SAT. At which point we wouldn't have this argument anymore. And watch the class ethnic & socioeconomic percentages remain virtually untouched...</p>
<p>My problem with the SAT is that it is NOT truely standardized. You have some kids with TI-89 calculators, some with TI-83s, and some with no calculators at all. The same thing with preparation: some have private tutors, some go to classes after school, and some don't do it (some by choice... I know some kids who actually DIDN'T know you were allowed to prep for the SAT). </p>
<p>To put it simply, it's not a leveled playing field. I think they should revamp the SAT and make it the way they did in the "olden" days: no calculators, no one sees the test beforehand (and, anyone caught discussing the exam or its format will have scores cancelled, and companies like the Princeton Review will no longer be able to make "sample questions"). This ensures that you are truly tested on what you learn, not how to get around a test, and how well YOU do compared to everyone else around you on the math portion, not how well your calculator did.</p>
<p>Those who believe that colleges will offer their own tests are too hopeful. Evevry school used to have a differant application, but to make things simpler they created the common application, used at 300 colleges. If every colleges starts have their own admissions test, eventually, 300 colleges will team up and use one test, and it will be just like the SAT.</p>