<p>I take it back. Lawrence University claims to be both need-blind and SAT-optional.</p>
<p>Take it back again :eek: Lawrence doesn't meet full need, so being need-blind is really not much of a promise.</p>
<p>SAT scores are correlated to financial well being...but...they are the single best predictor of performance and sucess in college studies so how would a school go about separating the two?</p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT scores are correlated to financial well being...but...they are the single best predictor of performance and sucess in college studies so how would a school go about separating the two?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that HS GPA was hte single best predictor of performance and success in college studies, and SATs provided little to no correlation (aside from the extreme difference - ie, someone with a 1000 vs a 2400 would do worse, but 2100 vs 2320 doesn't make a huge difference).</p>
<p>"The SAT has proven to be an important predictor of success in college. Its validity as a predictor of success in college has been demonstrated through hundreds of validity studies. These validity studies consistently find that high school grades and SAT scores together are substantial and significant predictors of achievement in college.1"</p>
<p>UC</a> and the SAT</p>
<p>There are endless studies like this example from the California university system. The prime reason why "785,019 (54 percent) of SAT takers are female and 680,725 (46 percent) are male" took the test last year.</p>
<p>"Forty-three percent of 2006 college-bound seniors reported grade averages of A+, A, or A-. Ten years ago, the figure was 36 percent, and in 1987, the first year these data were collected in the same manner, the figure was 27 percent. This year's average grade point average was 3.33, compared with an average GPA of 3.21 in 1996 and 3.07 in 1987."</p>
<p>Also from the sat site. Grade inflation is lessening the value of GPA as a predictor when used in isolation.</p>
<p>luckycharmed, I believe you are right -- studies show that HS GPA has the most predictive value and SAT scores have only a very slight additive value to that; also SAT scores purportedly predict 1st year college performance only. </p>
<p>It could be argued that students from more privileged backgrounds and students coming from more rigorous secondary schools (who are also likely to be more privileged and to do better on their SATs) are simply better prepared for college expectations when they enter, and so their first year GPA simply suffers due to the need of the less-prepared students to make adjustments and catch up.</p>
<p>25% of Yale's 2011 class had SAT's above 1570. Amherst the same. Pretty much the same for all elite schools. They sure seem to think SAT's are a predictor. And it would be hard to argue that the SAT is a direct colleralation to GPA, if it was they wouldn't have students take the test.</p>
<p>Which studies show..." that HS GPA has the most predictive value and SAT scores have only a very slight additive value to that; also SAT scores purportedly predict 1st year college performance only" ????? I would be very intersted in seeing those.</p>
<p>At least at Bates, I believe the there was approximately a .05 GPA point difference between submitters (who probably did well) and nonsubmitters (who probably didn't do well).</p>
<p>Bates</a> and the SAT</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>
[quote]
25% of Yale's 2011 class had SAT's above 1570. Amherst the same. Pretty much the same for all elite schools. They sure seem to think SAT's are a predictor. And it would be hard to argue that the SAT is a direct colleralation to GPA, if it was they wouldn't have students take the test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>USNWR also takes average SAT into their ranking criterion, so I'm sure that has something to do with their motive as well. But the SAT is not necessarily a fair test, and as a student at Bates, I see almost NO real difference in the students who did well (defining well as above 2000) and those who did poorly.</p>
<p>That's what make's the NESCAC such a great group of schools, not a one size fits all conference. Many different ways to achieve excellence. My child goes to Williams and has been at your campus for athletic events. Says it is gorgeous.</p>
<p>Windy wrote;</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which studies show..." that HS GPA has the most predictive value and SAT scores have only a very slight additive value to that; also SAT scores purportedly predict 1st year college performance only" ????? I would be very intersted in seeing those.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here is a study(if I am understranding your question correctly).</p>
<p>An excerpt:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The bottom line, according to Mr. Geiser and Ms. Santelices: High-school grades are at least as strong a predictor of cumulative four-year college grades as they are of first-year college grades.</p>
<p>Standardized-test scores do add a “small but statistically significant improvement in predicting long-term college outcomes,” the authors concede. But they argue that SAT scores are so intertwined with students’ socioeconomic status and add so little predictive value that their use in college admissions should be minimized. “High-school grades provide a fairer, more equitable, and ultimately more meaningful basis for admissions decision-making,” they write.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The rest of the article; High-School</a> Grades Are Best Predictors of College Success, Study*Finds - Chronicle.com</p>
<p>It's also interesting to note the impact of dispensing with required SATs on diversity from the Bates 20-year study:
[quote]
Students of color use an optional testing policy at somewhat higher than average rates, and Bates has increased its enrollment of students of color and international students. But white students using the policy outnumber students of color by 5-to-1</p>
<p>The policy draws sharply increased application rates from all the subgroups who commonly worry about standardized testing: women, U.S. citizens of color, international citizens, low-income or blue collar students, rural students, students with learning disabilities and students with rated talents in athletics, the arts or debate.
[/quote]
<a href="http://www.bates.edu/ip-optional-testing-20years.xml%5B/url%5D">http://www.bates.edu/ip-optional-testing-20years.xml</a></p>
<p>"25% of Yale's 2011 class had SAT's above 1570. Amherst the same."</p>
<p>That figure is true for those admitted to Amherst class
of 2011. For the actual class (those who enrolled) it's 1530.
<a href="http://www.amherst.edu/admission/important_info/61st%20SSR.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.amherst.edu/admission/important_info/61st%20SSR.pdf</a></p>
<p>No bearing on the substance of this discussion; just keeping the record straight.</p>
<p>Madville</p>
<p>Thanks. Certainly a topic with many different views. It will be interesting to see if there are more such studies, and if the SAT will be used less. As always in the field of educational research there is some potential eye of the beholder bias, not much to be gained publishing a study that says SAT's works as a predictor as in the original UC study, and if one is convinced of the socio-economic bias and desires change. Liars, damn liars, and statistics as someone once said. The Ivy league schools, and places like Amherst and Williams are convinced that the processes they use to rate an applicant based on many attributes including GPA (adjusted by their experience with the school and course difficultly) and SAT, are impeccable predictors of college success. I guess that’s why their admission stats are so pegged to the 4.6 GPA and 1500 SAT end of the curve. That does not mean that a child with a 1200 SAT (75th percentile) and few ap's could not get into a top school (the odds are small sadly) and maybe do ok with a less strenuous course load, but they would argue that the likelihood of that child doing well relative to children with higher credentials is quite low, lacking other significant factors that influenced those results. But many more deserve the opportunity to try which is why I am such a big fan of efforts like those of President Marx at Amherst (and many other top schools committed to diversity) to make these schools available to a wider range of student. Schools like Bates that utilize a different standard add greatly to the palate of wonderful schools, and are possibly the harbingers of needed change.</p>
<p>WesDad ...thanks you are right...which I quess is why Yale's yield is so much higher...</p>
<p>
[quote]
At least at Bates, I believe the there was approximately a .05 GPA point difference between submitters (who probably did well) and nonsubmitters (who probably didn't do well).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right: in fact, the difference in SAT scores between submitters and non-submitters was large, on average, 160 points on the old SAT, and the number of students with strong scores who withheld them over the 20 years of the study was vanishingly small. </p>
<p>It's important for students and parents to think about how Bates, with that knowledge, did such a fantastic job of admitting large numbers of low-SAT students who did just as well in college as their higher scoring peers. The nonsumbitting students who were admitted were either: hooked students who would've been admitted in spite of low scores; or students whose academic records were so stellar that they would've been admitted even with the low SATs that can be imputed to them sight unseen.</p>
<p>I've only see one selective, SAT-optional school that was forthcoming about this. At an information session the admissions rep said, "Well, the SAT-optional route is essentially for students with almost all A's who don't test well." </p>
<p>It would be interesting to hear anecdotes about the academic records of unhooked students who were admitted to say Bates, Bowdoin, or Holy Cross without submitting the SAT.</p>
<p>WesDad...</p>
<p>Breaking the first rule of law school, never ask a question to which you don't know the answer...if 660-760 math and 670-770 reading covers the middle 50% of enrolled students at Amherst...doesn't above 1550 cover the top 25%?</p>
<p>windy, </p>
<ol>
<li><p>760 + 770 = 1530, not 1550. </p></li>
<li><p>The fact that the 75th percentile line for verbal scores is 760 doesn't mean that the 76th percentile line isn't also 760. Depending on how broad the bands are, the "top quadrant" may have lots of kids with the same scores as the "second quadrant". (Not really, but you get the drift. Saying 75% of enrolled students have verbal scores 760 or lower doesn't mean that 25% have verbal scores higher than 760.)</p></li>
<li><p>It is extremely unlikely that 25% of Amherst freshmen had combined SAT I scores of 1530 or higher. The top 25% of enrolled students by verbal SAT and by math SAT aren't necessarily the same students. Maybe half, or a little more of them are, but the rest are in a lower quadrant on one or the other test. The 75th percentile for combined scores is probably closer to 1500.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>By the way, if you want to get a slightly different view of who gets accepted at Bates, read one of the extremely sad articles about the Senegalese almost-PhD (in chemistry) who was shot over the weekend at the University of Chicago. His undergraduate degree was from Bates. It sounds like he was a wonderful man.</p>
<p>1550 was a typo...I was referring to the 1530 number WesDad indicated...I do find it unlikely with no stats to back it up that at the above 1530 sat range there is a wide disparity between the two sections of the test...I would quess the top 25% at Amherst is 1550 or above...pretty much the only schools they are turned down for are HPSY, most chance me stats (not that I know that they are true) on this site with questions about Ivy admission seem to be almost identicle in both math and reading. I wonder if there are real numbers somewhere. I quess kind of splitting hairs since all those numbers above 1500 are top 1%?</p>
<p>At least anecdotally MarathonMan-</p>
<p>My roommate was (and is) a terrible test taker, especially on tests like the SAT. Personally, I think her math education was deficient (she stopped after geometry) and though she did well on the essay (~8 or 9 I believe) she did fairly average-poor on the actual scores (I think low 600s on CR and W and low 500s on math). </p>
<p>Her grades in high school were good but not stellar. She pulled a B+ average through most of high school. I wouldn't call her "unhooked" but she didn't cure cancer or write a novel. She had good internships over the summer, worked hard on her essay (which I read and was very, very good) and has lived an interesting life. She's doing well here, though having a very difficult time with math.</p>
<p>My other roommate also did not submit. She had average scores (mid 650s is my guess, but I've never asked her the actual number, and she's never volunteered it). School only offered 1 AP class, she didn't take it. She did pull great grades throughout HS (graduated 7th in a class of about 400) and applied ED1 to Bates. She's pulling a 4.0 here, working her butt off, and doing well.</p>
<p>In contrast to me - I had good grades marred by one semester of very poor grades in HS, I did well on the SATs (defining well as breaking 700 on all the sections) and had extracurriculars I was passionate about, even if they were not unique. I submitted, and got in (I think there was also a diversity pull, but of course, you can never know that). I have about a 3.4 (hoping to raise it this semester) and am also working extremely hard.</p>
<p>If you'd stuck me in a room with my roommates, I'd never have guessed they didn't submit. They're smart, eloquent individuals with good grades, who work hard (and of course we all play hard :-p) and they're genuine people who I think add a lot to the Bates community. I know most students submit, but I feel like I run into a LOT of people who say they didn't and you know what? You really can't tell the difference.</p>
<p>JHS- When I heard about Amadou Cisse, I was shocked. One of my professors had just mentioned him (at least I assume - chemistry major who was at UofC working on a PhD) in class last week. It's terribly sad, and a reality jolt to all of us.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do find it unlikely with no stats to back it up that at the above 1530 sat range there is a wide disparity between the two sections of the test...I would quess the top 25% at Amherst is 1550 or above...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The two parts of that statement have nothing to do with one another.</p>
<p>Of course, above the 1530 range for combined scores, there CAN'T be much of a disparity between the two components, because neither can be above 800. So anyone with a 1530 or higher can't have more than a 70-point differential between his or her scores, and many will have less.</p>
<p>However, that doesn't mean that people who score 750-800 on one part of the test score 750-800 on the other part. Some do, some don't. Looking at kids I know, and kids who post here, a 100-point differential between CR and M isn't uncommon at all, and a larger differential is far from unheard-of.</p>
<p>Looking at the College Board data, for 2007 seniors (single test), over 28,000 kids were at 750+ for CR, and over 35,000 at 750+ for M. For CR and M combined, however, there were only 15,800 students at 1500+. In other words, less than half of the students scoring 750 or higher on the math portion got a score within that range on the CR portion. (Some of the higher M scorers could get 1500 combined with a CR score below 750.) To get to the level where you have the top 20,000 combined scorers, which essentially corresponds to the number of people who got 770+ on each test, you have to go down to 1480. Superscoring probably raises that a notch, but my estimate of 1500 as the true 75th percentile for enrolled Amherst students is generous, if anything.</p>