<p>I’m fine with the SATs current level of importance. I do believe, however, that more emphasis should be put on SAT IIs, IBs, and APs</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that AP scores are so dependent on one’s high school offerings and teacher quality that they are not good predictors of individual success. Plus, the scale is very coarse; a large number of applicants, especially those from well-funded high schools, will have all 5’s.</p>
<p>Of course, as with the current system, a student’s circumstances would have to be taken into account. Perhaps add some more variation in score for AP tests (a breakdown of # of MC correct and essay points), and add a reasoning element, and I’m sure it would predict college success more closely than an SAT</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How did she manage to graduate first in her class if she has a disability that impairs her ability to visualize or concentrate? Did she receive twice the amount of time for every exam? If so, she should have been wise enough to request extra time for the SAT, time that the Collegeboard would have been more than willing to give.</p>
<p>What does her being or not being a URM have to do with anything? As a recruited athlete, the standards of admission to which she had been subjected are “different” too.</p>
<p>Take your own advice and be careful of drawing too many conclusions from one example.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a “lowest score that SHOULD be allowed,” nor do I think there should be. If I had to choose, however, I’d use the old outlier test from statistics: subtract the 25th percentile from the 75th percentile of the average applicant score (the interquartile range, or IQR), and multiply by 1.5. Then subtract it from the 25th percentile. In statistics this is generally considered the outlier test - anything lower than this range is an outlier and is considered “unusual” or “unlikely.”</p>
<p>EXAMPLE: Say that at one particular school, the average applicant has an SAT score of 2100. If the 25th percentile of all applicant scores is a score of 2000, and the 75th percentile of scores of all applicants is 2200, then the IQR is 2000. Multiply it by 1.5 and get 3000. So, if you subtract 3000 from 2000, the 25th percentile, you get 1700 as a cutoff score.</p>
<p>Note that these numbers are completely made up - I have no idea what the real score percentiles are, I just used simple numbers that seemed (to me) to be potentially accurate. This is a common test in statistics to determine whether data is an outlier, so if there had to be a minimum score, I’d say that this would be how to find it, and an applicant with a score below the test would have to have significant other things going for him/her in order to be admitted.</p>
<p>So there are lots of talks about the SATs, but what about the ACTs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt that anyone would have a different opinion on that; just convert the scores cited.</p>
<p>^^^I am horrible at math (and it was that sort of thing that made stats rough for me, too), but I totally don’t follow your math. </p>
<p>To add my two cents: any top college (Ivy or close to it) would do itself a disservice by relying on a cutoff test score. There are amazing people who would benefit from a HPYSM (et al) education, but who just can’t get an amazing score. Those people deserve an opportunity as well. That’s why I personally LIKE the concept of holistic review; after all, the system is geared towards those who are generally very strong, but aren’t perfect. </p>
<p>Also, whatever the SAT indicates, one (or several) four to five hour sittings should not determine one’s capabilities in life. There are so many more things that indicate much greater success.</p>
<p>I agree with the above poster. I honestly doubt that a test of which you can master by taking over multiple times is a good indicator of the grades a person will get in college. Being academically capable to handle a college is something that you either have or need to work on, no test can show you that. Besides, the things that a person is tested on is relatively different from what he/she will be studying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SAT predicts college grades just about as well as high school grades do.</p>
<p>Well, I never said if was worse than high school grades, I simply stated that it is just not that great of an indicator.</p>
<p>They don’t want to make it too hard for the basketball players to attend, which is important, right???</p>
<p>hahaha, riggghht… How about you go post in the athletic forum bud?</p>
<p>kwu, </p>
<p>She finished first in her class because she is very bright. She has a reading problem, but she picks up things very quickly in a lecture situation. She’s very quick. Her parents were able to help her by hiring a company that read her lessons and recorded them on tapes, like readings for the blind. She would listen to the chapters at night and even on the road at tournaments. Her iPod is mostly made up of recorded textbooks. When she hears material, she’s great. She just doesn’t read well. She’s a good athlete, but not great, so I am not sure how much that helped her.</p>
<p>I mentioned that she wasn’t an URM because I’ve been on this board for over a year. I’ve read enough posts that I knew if I didn’t point this out, some people would say, “She’s probably black! See how Ivies lower their standards for blacks!” I wanted to avoid this rude argument (and it seems to pop up all of the time) to avoid the pain it causes African Americans who read these posts. FWIW, she’s Asian (and so am I).</p>
<p>Thanks!
Much appreciated.</p>
<p>I just thought I’d add to my post above by clarifying that I don’t think there should be a “cutoff” number either. I think that everything depends on the individual applicant (and it’s been proven that socioeconomic status has an effect on SAT scores). I was just suggesting a method that is used in statistics to determine a probable lower cutoff * for the sake of this discussion, * not ever for use in real life.</p>
<p><a href=“and%20it’s%20been%20proven%20that%20socioeconomic%20status%20has%20an%20effect%20on%20SAT%20scores”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where has this been proven? I’m sure that it is true for some low-income students, but I don’t know how it can be proven.</p>
<p>Silverturtle - Sorry, that was poor word choice. I should have said that in studies, there is a known positive correlation between income levels and SAT scores.</p>
<p>All of the links below detail studies that have found strong positive correlations between income level and SAT scores. In other words, wealthier students tend to score higher.</p>
<p>[SAT</a> Scores and Family Income - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/]SAT”>SAT Scores and Family Income - The New York Times)</p>
<p>[SAT</a> scores tied to income level locally, nationally - Examiner.com](<a href=“http://www.examiner.com/a-254205~SAT_scores_tied_to_income_level_locally__nationally.html?cid=rss-Baltimore]SAT”>http://www.examiner.com/a-254205~SAT_scores_tied_to_income_level_locally__nationally.html?cid=rss-Baltimore)</p>
<p>[Research</a> Says Socioeconomic Factors And Race Affect SAT Scores](<a href=“http://www.citytowninfo.com/career-and-education-news/articles/research-says-socioeconomic-factors-and-race-affect-sat-scores-10061801]Research”>Research Says Socioeconomic Factors And Race Affect SAT Scores)</p>
<p>The graphs on the first link above indicate a pretty strong correlation. Correlation is not causation, but such trends do lead to questions - such as about the fact that in general, the wealthier a student is, the higher their SAT score. For the stats geeks out there, there is an R-squared value of 0.95, which is a hard number to argue with.</p>
<p>The third study also brings up the interesting fact that, on average, the poorest students in the US score aover 700 points lower than wealthy, affluent students.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use the SAT, only that it shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all in college admissions because there are so many factors that affect it.</p>
<p>^“Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’” -xkcd (I like that quote)</p>
<p>I agree that socioeconomic status influences many aspects of education, including the SAT. Private schools, prep classes, prep books, and plenty of free time can all contribute to an increased SAT score, whilst having to work to help support your family, stress over foreclosure, being hungry a lot, sub-par schools in sub-par living conditions, the inability to pay for prep classes or books, pressure to drop out of school to start work, and a lack of encouragement to attend college are just some of the many factors that keep poor students from scoring as well as middle class or rich students. One characteristic of poverty is how incredibly difficult it is for the children of the poor to not be trapped in poverty themselves, and one reason for this is poor educational opportunities.</p>
<p>The problem is that AP scores are so dependent on one’s high school offerings and teacher quality that they are not good predictors of individual success. Plus, the scale is very coarse; a large number of applicants, especially those from well-funded high schools, will have all 5’s.</p>
<p>The problem with the AP exams is they aren’t tough enough to do well on in general. Some of them are tough, but others are laughable. I think the calculus exam should be tougher by a good margin, as in it should be more thorough in covering materials.</p>
<p>The problem with comparing scores <em>too</em> closely is that they may begin to be influenced too much by how one did on that particular day, which could vary, but as long as a safe margin is chosen, it’s fine.</p>
<p>I like the idea of APs and subject tests - you learn what you enjoy learning, but the problem is the fact that they are not so difficult to do well on and depend a lot on how well the teacher preps you exactly for the tests (which is not in my opinion similar to getting a good understanding of the material). I think APs should be more exclusive - the choice to even take a certain course and sit through it and earn a good grade in it, along with a good one on the AP exam should be a matter of high achievement among the good students out there, not something everyone kind of does. A huge, huge number of people take Calculus BC or AB, and I don’t think they really know what they’re doing usually. People who’re scared of math get 5’s. </p>
<p>Having more accurate APs and subject tests would do a great job to balance SATs to provide a good picture of an applicant. I am growing more and more skeptical of how an intelligent applicant, who is primarily just interested in academics, can sell her/his resume to schools without partaking in extraneous competitions, and it’s not in the least because doing well in the basics doesn’t mean enough. </p>
<p>I think one good thing about the SAT is that it does its job differentiating applicants well, according to what it’s supposed to test, but of course given the test structure, additional data points are dying to be made and considered in applications.</p>