<p>interesteddad, I'm with you. While the policy may draw in a few minorities, I suspect that the main reason is to draw in full-pay kids who have been coached, tutored and prepped (at either a private or public school) to have a good transcript and GPA, but for whom SAT prep has not been as effective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My understanding was that the only study that ever showed ANY correlation between SAT and college success was one that showed a SLIGHT correlation between SAT and frosh year grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only ONE study? Except for the small circle of Fair Test fanboys, that seems to be hard to believe: one study alone the results from more than 1,700 previous studies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
College Board-Sponsored Study Claims SAT Is Good Predictor of Grades, Graduation - Scholastic Assessment Tests - Brief Article</p>
<p>The researchers were looking at existing findings, involving more than 1 million students, he says. Camara encouraged anyone to examine the study once it's published.</p>
<p>Using a new technique called meta-analysis, the study, which is the largest ever undertaken regarding the SAT, culled its results from more than 1,700 previous studies.</p>
<p>The meta-analysis is expected to be finished at the end of the year, when it will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. The authors presented their results last month at a professional meeting in Seattle.</p>
<p>The research affirmed the SAT is a good predictor of grades for the first year of college, particularly the first semester. But it was also effective in forecasting a grade-point average through the fourth year. Further, it was useful in forecasting study habits, whether students stayed enrolled at the school and graduated in four or five years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fwiw, this is the information that the College Board was prepared to use to sink the Atkinson made-to-order "study." As we know, this was hardly needed as Gaston flew back home with one of its easiest victories ever. Of course, the remarkable part is that the clueless UC is now considering reversing its stance on the SAT Subject tests.</p>
<p>"The College Board, which owns the SAT, paid about $250,000 for the three-year study by University of Minnesota graduate students."</p>
<p>
[quote]
"The College Board, which owns the SAT, paid about $250,000 for the three-year study by University of Minnesota graduate students."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well that is probably $250,000 more than the Fair Test or Princeton Review Foundation "researchers" ever spent on ... studies.</p>
<p>"Well that is probably $250,000 more than the Fair Test or Princeton Review Foundation "researchers" ever spent on ... studies"</p>
<p>Irrelevant.</p>
<p>Those conclusions are hardly resounding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Well that is probably $250,000 more than the Fair Test or Princeton Review Foundation "researchers" ever spent on ... studies"</p>
<p>Irrelevant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, Dstark! As irrelevant as your comment about the funding of the study.</p>
<p>The point was to show the existence of thousands of studies.</p>
<p>Xiggi, Since there are thousands of studies... surely you could have picked one that wasn't funded by College Board.</p>
<p>From your article... </p>
<p>"The various studies ranged from the 1940s to 1999. The vast majority were College Board studies correlating SAT scores with first-year results."</p>
<p>Who funds the study or studies is never irrelevant. So College Board did a study to study their studies. Hmmm.</p>
<p>There have been over 3,000 studies of the SAT alone, and that was back in 1988 (Roberta Zwick, Fair Game: The Use of Standardized Admissions Tests in Higher Education); I'll bet that the number has doubled since. Nearly all show significant correlations between SAT and first-yr. grades, the usual gold standard for reasons I won't enumerate, but among them is that first yr. gpa is very good predictor of cumulative gpa.</p>
<p>There is no real question about the substantial predictive validity of the SAT. What there is disagreement about is what's called "incremental predictive validity," the extent to which SAT scores are redundant with other information an admissions office already has in the folder before the test scores arrive. There's also disagreement about how important maximizing gpa is in building an interesting class. Those are reasons why colleges can reasonably come to diametrically opposed conclusions about SAT-optional.</p>
<p>Thanks, MarathonMan88, I think that's a well nuanced statement about why colleges can legitimately disagree about SAT policies for admission.</p>
<p>The incremental value of the SAT is exactly what the College Board has been defending. While it makes no sense to measure the validity of the SAT as a stand alone element, a number of studies have focused on the rather simpler proposal that GPA + standardized test scores is a better yardstick than GPA only. </p>
<p>Given the incredible variances in GPA calculations and "quality" of GPAs throughout the nation, there is a need for an equalizer. And that is what the SAT and ACT attempt to do.</p>
<p>However, does any of this truly affect the ... students and their parents? Unless a student is absolutely certain about his or choices and that those choices are ALL SAT optional, there is a need to take the test(s.) In addition, schools that do not use the scores for admission might still require the scores for analysis purposes. </p>
<p>So, in the end, a number questions remain:</p>
<ol>
<li>Why is it important for parents and students to debate the merits of the SAT</li>
<li>Can someone really afford to skip all the standardized tests?</li>
<li>Isn't it simpler to view the SAT as a SMALL part of the entire college application and simply find a way to maximize the scores that are needed for the targeted schools? </li>
</ol>
<p>From my vantage point, when considering the waste of time and effort a student accumulates during his or her K-12 career, the SAT represents a rounding error. Add all the ridiculous projects and other teachers' pet ideas and the total would dwarf the small investment in time and money spent on the SAT.</p>
<p>
<ol> <li>Why is it important for parents and students to debate the merits of the SAT</li> <li>Can someone really afford to skip all the standardized tests?</li> <li>Isn't it simpler to view the SAT as a SMALL part of the entire college application and simply find a way to maximize the scores that are needed for the targeted schools?
</li>
</ol>
<p>These are all good questions. Taking them in turn, </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Parents and students debate the merits of all elements of the college admission process at all the various colleges of interest to the families doing the debating. It's legitimate and perhaps even helpful to debate issues of policy. In the pluralistic nonsystem of higher education in the United States, it's quite possible for hundreds of colleges to disagree with hundreds of other colleges about which admission factors are most important. I actually am NOT in favor of all colleges having the same kind of admisson process. When I join in these debates, one proposition I like to argue for is that each college should be able to decide what admission policy to have based on its own experience and own institutional goals. </p></li>
<li><p>I asked once in a CC thread if students can afford to skip standardized admission tests, </p></li>
</ol>
<p>and the general answer from most participants on that thread is that a student hurts only the student by declining to take standardized admission tests. </p>
<ol>
<li>I think all students at all score levels on standardized admission tests should understand that most colleges that don't have an explicit open admission policy will regard test scores, but even the most selective colleges that most regard test scores still look for other information besides test scores when choosing students. </li>
</ol>
<p>And how do they rank?</p>
<p>Wake is not the first top 30 University that does not require proficiency test scores.. It is the "only" University in the top 100. If they wanted a more diverse student body, they should have raised the bar, academically and lowered the tuition. Foreign sudents, for the most part, score very high on profecency tests. Obviuosly, they strive to get into the colleges with the highest rankings just look at Stanford, Emory, Georgetown, and Harvard. The foreign students who can't afford the high tuitions of these prestegious schools do not even consider Wake Forest, because; Wakes test score standards are already too low. The balance of foreign students not attending top 25 Universities go to less expensive State Universities. So what was Wake thinking?</p>
<p>If Wake wants more students coming from low income backgrounds, they should use the mitigating circumstances rule, like all top 25 Universities do. They should not throw out the baby with the bath water by joining the ranks of the bottom 100 Universities</p>
<p>People will always assume, you went to Wake or applied to Wake, because; you tested poorly and did not want to show your test scores. How embarrassing. As a friend, family member, neighbor, co-worker or employer, that is what I would wonder about a Wake Forest graduate. Even if I had good test scores, I would rather go to Clemson or Furman, if I wanted to get my education in the south, rather than Wake Forest.</p>
<p>Lastly, I hope Wake Forest is not a hypocritiical institution. Lets see if they have the guts to back up what they preach, and drop proficiency test score requirements for their Medicall School</p>
<p>"People will always assume, you went to Wake or applied to Wake, because; you tested poorly.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that's how Bowdoin grads are perceived; though perhaps they are viewed as having lower test scores than Amherst/Williams grads.</p>
<p>As for hyprocrisy, if going SAT-optional doesn't significantly increase diversity, why pretend that that's the reason for nor requiring the SAT for admission.</p>
<p>So, lets compare apples to oranges Bowdoin is not a University it is a college. People in the know about colleges, rather than Universities, know that the student body at Bowdoin is made up of more students with low test scores than lets say that of Wellesley. </p>
<p>Dropping test score requirements will not help diversify Wake.. As statistics show Stanford, Harvard, Emory, Georgetown are all diversified and lowering standards is not what accomplished that. Savy enrollment officers determined to do the work required to diversify while still maintaining high ranking status are to be given the credit.</p>
<p>Lowering the standards at Wakeforest will lower the ranking and the cirriclum. This will put less pressure on recruiting officers at Wake, put less pressure on the freshman retention ratio at Wake and less pressure on Mr. Hatch. I believe his real goal is to become just another good university rather than a highly ranked prestigious one.</p>
<p>Minority status;</p>
<p>Harvard: 35% Minority 10% foreign residents</p>
<p>Duke: 39% mINORITY 7% foreign residents</p>
<p>Stanford: 48% minorrity 7% foreign residents</p>
<p>Princeton: 32% minority 11% foreign residents</p>
<p>Northwestern: 32% minority 5% foreign residents</p>
<p>Emory:</p>