<p>Yes, let's all rush to adopt Charles Murray's views and recognize his brilliant understanding of the SAT.<br>
:D</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>Note this quote in the article you cited.</p>
<p>"Start with the proposition that nothing important would be lost by dropping the SAT. The surprising empirical reality is that the SAT is redundant if students are required to take achievement tests." </p>
<p>Is that what you are proposing? This is far different from what you said: "It has been pretty well proven that SAT scores are not a good predictor of college or later success."</p>
<p>Barrons,</p>
<p>Part of the problem with this analysis or any such analysis is that you are comparing "performance" based on first year grades. Students with higher SAT scores tend to take harder courses e.g. premed and engineering. I have yet to see a study that adjusts for this. </p>
<p>A second problem is that you are examining the performance of people who were in part chosen because of their high test scores. It is not surprising that within a group of people who all have test scores (old system) between 1400 and 1600 or between 1300 and 1500, that the grades of these people would better explain their college performance (measured in grades). But this is not the same as saying that if we had no standardized tests at all and awarded positions entirely on other criteria and then administered the tests that the correlation of grades in college to test scores would not be incredibly high. Ad coms use these tests today to evaluate and compare many students with similar GPA's. The underlying statistical assumption common for most of this work is that the "independent" variables, e.g. test scores, GPA, are truely statistically independent of one another. This criteria is clearly violated in the case of this data set. I doubt anyone would be willing to conduct the kind of test necessary to verify the hypothesis that SAT scores are unnecessary. Actually I take that back Sara Lawrence, I think, recently instructed students not to send in SAT scores, if they also instruct them not to send in the SAT II's and ignore the SAT data provided by the HS concerning the cohorts of the students and then after admission compared the student performance to the previously unsubmitted scores of the students you might have a valid test.</p>
<p>I think Murray is just upset because they took away the analogies section making it less of an IQ test.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Part of the problem with this analysis or any such analysis is that you are comparing "performance" based on first year grades. Students with higher SAT scores tend to take harder courses e.g. premed and engineering. I have yet to see a study that adjusts for this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just skimmed through the article, but I believe I read that the course and university difficulty was considered when doing the UC analysis.</p>
<p>Does Harvard have more engineering or poli sci majors? In fact the most popular majors are all non-science with econ being the most popular. I am sure the same is true down the Ivy list.</p>
<p>I like the SAT (MV old style) and I did well on it. But the focus on it here is way over the actual meaning of the test both in the short (college) and long term (life).</p>
<p>Gator Eng,</p>
<p>Thanks for making me read the whole article. Yes, the UC study, which included a set of SAT II's did adjust for major. But the point remains that the analysis and the author of the article both only suggest replacing the SAT I with a set of required SAT II's. The author seems to support this less because he accepts any notion of bias in the SAT I, either race or class, but rather because he thinks it will be better public relations. Somehow I don’t think this solution will satisfy the anti standardized testing crowd for precisely the reason that it is ok with Murray: the admissions outcomes will change very little.</p>
<p>
[quote="JohnnyK"Why yes, there is.</p>
<p>The nation’s top ten fundraising universities and dollars received in 2006 are:
1. Stanford University ($911.16 million)
2. Harvard University ($594.94 million)
3. Yale University ($433.46 million)
4. University of Pennsylvania ($409.49 million)
5. Cornell University ($406.23 million)
6. University of Southern California ($405.75 million)
7. Johns Hopkins University ($377.34 million)
8. Columbia University ($377.28 million)
9. Duke University ($332.03 million)
10. University of Wisconsin-Madison ($325.94 million)</p>
<p>source: <a href="http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE.2...ss.Release.pdf%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5D">http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE.2...ss.Release.pdf
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>This can't be right. Emory received a $270 million donation in November and another $50 million donation. That puts us at $320 million right there. There's no way we didn't get another $5.94 million from a few other people. Based upon that information I would assume this list is flawed. </p>
<p>Does anyone know the exact date the rankings come out?</p>
<p>What exactly is Emory good at?</p>
<p>What exactly is Northwestern good at?</p>
<p>By the way, I think your argument about lower level schools not caring about rankings is ridiculous. Your argument is very convoluted so I'm not sure whether you're ability to reason is flawed or whether your choice of premises is flawed. I suspect the latter; although the latter does somewhat suggest the former doesn't it?</p>
<p>"What exactly is Northwestern good at?"</p>
<p>-I wasn't being funny. I really want to know. ... As for your question... Chemistry, Economics, Engineering, Communication, Theater, Education, Music, Journalism, Business, Law..... </p>
<p>Your turn. like I asked... what is Emory known for? I really want to know. </p>
<p>"By the way, I think your argument about lower level schools not caring about rankings is ridiculous."</p>
<p>-As is your right. </p>
<p>"Your argument is very convoluted so I'm not sure whether you're ability to reason is flawed or whether your choice of premises is flawed."</p>
<p>-Care to tell me how it is "convoluted", or do you just plan to attack me and not defend it? My "ability to reason"... really? I suppose I made it through college... as an honors student... with no "ability to reason". You may think what you want, buddy. </p>
<p>"I suspect the latter; although the latter does somewhat suggest the former doesn't it?"</p>
<p>Yay.. you used "latter" and "former" in a sentence; you're so smart! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
<p>Emory is good at Biology, Chemistry, Economics, Business, Law and Jewish Studies. We're also good at providing students with an excellent level of education featuring a gorgeous campus, in a beautiful location with excellent professors (including Jimmy Carter, Salman Rushdie, the Dalai Lama, Frans de Waal as well as many professors highly distinguished in their fields). </p>
<p> [QUOTE=kk19131]
-Care to tell me how it is "convoluted", or do you just plan to attack me and not defend it? My "ability to reason"... really? I suppose I made it through college... as an honors student... with no "ability to reason". You may think what you want, buddy.
No. I have no incentive to do so. If you want to act like an idiot and make your school look bad then I stand to gain nothing by stopping you. In fact, the more you post the less likely prospectives are to attend your school, which is not my problem, buddy. </p>
<p>
Yay.. you used "latter" and "former" in a sentence; you're so smart!
Yay, you used sarcasm; you're so clever and witty! I wrote it the simplest way I could. Unfortunately, it appears as though you are under the assumption that people only write to use the biggest words they know to impress people. I find that much more humorous than your attempt to use sarcasm as an effective argument tool. Good show! Once again, you disgrace Northwestern.</p>
<p>"I have no incentive to do so. If you want to act like an idiot and make your school look bad then I stand to gain nothing by stopping you."</p>
<p>-See, I'd say the same to you, but I have no idea why your school would look good in the first place. Coke money I guess.... </p>
<p>"In fact, the more you post the less likely prospectives are to attend your school, which is not my problem, buddy."</p>
<p>-I don't know... In the 4 years that I've been coming to this site applications at my school have risen by several thousand.... I guess I'm doing something right. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>"you're so clever and witty!"</p>
<p>-Why thank you. </p>
<p>"It appears as though you are under the assumption that people only write to use the biggest words they know to impress people."</p>
<p>-Not people, just you. After all, it was you who started attacking me for no reason; I only asked you a simple question. </p>
<p>"Good show!"</p>
<p>-Indeed!</p>
<p>"but I have no idea why your school would look good in the first place. "
Maybe when you mature a bit you'll figure it out. Until then you can resort to attacks like "What exactly is Emory good at?" That question implies that Emory's prowess isn't established, which is somewhat insulting. I don't expect you to understand that concept at this point, but eventually I think you'll get it. </p>
<p>"-I don't know... In the 4 years that I've been coming to this site applications at my school have risen by several thousand.... I guess I'm doing something right."
Great. Keep on fighting the good fight for the Wildcats. I'll be rooting for you, so post often!</p>
<p>"-Not people, just you. After all, it was you who started attacking me for no reason; "
Non sequitur. Does my attack on your crazy ideas imply that I think using big words will impress people? I can answer that: no, it does not.</p>
<p>I say, Mortimer, it appears that the Proles are squabbling amongst themselves...</p>
<p>Emory vs. Northwestern. Quite amusing. But pugachev is right... that data is incorrect.</p>
<p>If my math is correct, that's $1.4 million gain in 2006.</p>
<p>Who are you calling a Prole?</p>
<p>
Emory vs. Northwestern. Quite amusing.
It's not really Emory V Northwestern at all. I expected much more out of a Northwestern student. He should just leave the forum because he really makes you all look like idiots. I hold all of my friends at NU in much higher regard.</p>
<p>Didn't Emory's student government declare war on WashU a few years back?</p>
<p>Then the student government president dissolved the student assembly and declared himself supreme leader...that was pretty much the coolest thing any student government has ever done, ever.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not really Emory V Northwestern at all. I expected much more out of a Northwestern student. He should just leave the forum because he really makes you all look like idiots. I hold all of my friends at NU in much higher regard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are stupid people at every university (not that I'm saying that kk99131 is unintelligent... I wish to stay out of this). Just visit the MIT forums and you'll see many examples.</p>
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>And if "you all" was meant to imply that I was a Northwestern student, that's incorrect. I go to a school that rather dislikes Northwestern.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Upon winning election, he created a War Department and Ministry of Propaganda,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Damn... why didn't I apply to Emory?</p>
<p>"Maybe when you mature a bit you'll figure it out. Until then you can resort to attacks like "What exactly is Emory good at?" That question implies that Emory's prowess isn't established, which is somewhat insulting."</p>
<p>-You can be insulted all you like; I asked a simple question and wanted a simple answer. I never said it wasn't established; all I implied is that I didn't know WHY it is established. I don't expect everyone in the world to know the relative academic strengths of my school, and neither should you. Further, I most certainly don't take offense when someone <em>dares</em> question why it should be highly regarded. </p>
<p>"Keep on fighting the good fight for the Wildcats."</p>
<p>-Only if you do the same for the um.... <em>Checks Wikipedia</em>.... Eagles. </p>
<p>"Does my attack on your crazy ideas"</p>
<ul>
<li>See, there you go again, attacking (with no real argument of your own) my opinion. I stand by what I said.</li>
</ul>
<p>
There are stupid people at every university (not that I'm saying that the person who's arguing with you is stupid... I wish to stay out of this). Just visit the MIT forums and you'll see many examples.
How unfortunate for Northwestern.</p>
<p>Also, that data you posted isn't quite valid. The other data set listed the amount of money donated, not the overall endowment increase (which includes interest earned on investments among other things).</p>