The college (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/05/briefing/dartmouth-sat.html) found that not only were the SAT scores more reliable in predicting student success, but also that students who withheld their SAT scores might have been admitted.
The first few paragraphs from the article:
QuoteDartmouth College announced this morning that it would again require applicants to submit standardized test scores, starting next year. It's a significant development because other selective colleges are now deciding whether to do so. In today's newsletter, I'll tell you the story behind Dartmouth's decision.
Last summer, Sian Beilock — a cognitive scientist who had previously run Barnard College in New York — became the president of Dartmouth. After arriving, she asked a few Dartmouth professors to do an internal study on standardized tests. Like many other colleges during the Covid pandemic, Dartmouth dropped its requirement that applicants submit an SAT or ACT score. With the pandemic over and students again able to take the tests, Dartmouth's admissions team was thinking about reinstating the requirement. Beilock wanted to know what the evidence showed.
"Our business is looking at data and research and understanding the implications it has," she told me.
Three Dartmouth economists and a sociologist then dug into the numbers. One of their main findings did not surprise them: Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades — or student essays and teacher recommendations — of how well students would fare at Dartmouth. The evidence of this relationship is large and growing, as I explained in a recent Times article.
A second finding was more surprising. During the pandemic, Dartmouth switched to a test-optional policy, in which applicants could choose whether to submit their SAT and ACT scores. And this policy was harming lower-income applicants in a specific way.
The researchers were able to analyze the test scores even of students who had not submitted them to Dartmouth. (Colleges can see the scores after the admissions process is finished.) Many lower-income students, it turned out, had made a strategic mistake.
They withheld test scores that would have helped them get into Dartmouth. They wrongly believed that their scores were too low, when in truth the admissions office would have judged the scores to be a sign that students had overcome a difficult environment and could thrive at Dartmouth.
We can't prevent all good things from happening!
Whatever ways various colleges weight attributes of potential admittees, the SAT relatively favors the poor. And this, in spite of the well off paying for their progeny to get test prep. The reasons are easy to see:
--the poor go to lousy high schools. Only HS grade inflation makes the kids competitive to enter a good college, but not to graduate.
--the poor cannot compete with the rich in doing anything that costs money while in HS. How about music lessons? Tennis anyone? Instead, they may have to work part time. The SAT is their one chance.
Let's remember that Harvard first used the SAT to get kids who didn't come from the blue blood families that sent their kids to private schools on the East coast.
That family income plays some role here is the greatest discovery since finding that the earth is round. Turns out that if colleges discriminated in favor of the poor, which is legal, they'd get almost as many Blacks as if they discriminated in favor of Blacks, which is illegal. Yet, so far, no college except Dartmouth has seen the connexion. I guess that discriminating in favor of Blacks rather than the poor gets them more money. :-)
Indeed, the most recent wave of research is showing that while the SAT is biased towards the well off, so too are the factors that colleges were leaning on in lieu of standardized tests, such as letters of recommendation and activities. And at the same time, standardized tests are better predictors of future success than high school GPA, since grade inflation has eroded the meaningfulness of grades.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of standardized tests, but a good lesson on the dangers of jumping on a trend (i.e. dropping the SAT requirement) without thinking it through thoroughly. My university, for example, was all too happy to drop the SATs and other standardized tests, just because they saw that the Ivy league schools (and their peers) were doing so.
It also makes sense that if everything is now watered down (everyone has a 4.0, and pretty much everyone does, even at the college level regardless of the quality of the school) and everyone has a positive letter of recommendation (I mean, who agrees to write a bad letter and who asks someone to write a letter that might be bad? The answer is no one, so letters of recommendation are pretty useless as well) then society needs something objective or near objective to truly assess what students know. The certification/accreditation has to come from somewhere, and it isn't coming from high school grades/degrees or even college/and even some graduate degree grades and degrees (think grad programs with no qualifying exams, no GREs/GMAT etc, no theses, no comprehensive exams.) In the "good old days" a piece of paper was all you needed to signal your worth. Now the marketplace and schools need something more than the degree to signal quality and comprehension.
Perhaps some of us should go work in the nascent certification industry. That's where the growth will be.
Our Admissions Office marketing materials were proudly emblazoned "test-optional." What they didn't highlight was that a lot of university-sponsored scholarships were still test-mandatory.
A lot of potential students were cut out of scholarship consideration for many of our financial aid opportunities, because they just didn't know that "test-optional" was only for admissions and not scholarships. They thought test-optional was across the board, which is a logical thing to assume, for those that don't work in academe.
Yup, you guessed it. It was the lower income students that got screwed. A lot of those students still got things like the Pell, but for those admitted lower income students whose parents were not poor enough for Pell, they missed out because they didn't send their test scores.
I have a feeling that we will be requiring standardized test scores, again in the future.
Quote from: TreadingLife on February 05, 2024, 06:01:00 PMIt also makes sense that if everything is now watered down (everyone has a 4.0, and pretty much everyone does, even at the college level regardless of the quality of the school) and everyone has a positive letter of recommendation (I mean, who agrees to write a bad letter and who asks someone to write a letter that might be bad? The answer is no one, so letters of recommendation are pretty useless as well) then society needs something objective or near objective to truly assess what students know. The certification/accreditation has to come from somewhere, and it isn't coming from high school grades/degrees or even college/and even some graduate degree grades and degrees (think grad programs with no qualifying exams, no GREs/GMAT etc, no theses, no comprehensive exams.) In the "good old days" a piece of paper was all you needed to signal your worth. Now the marketplace and schools need something more than the degree to signal quality and comprehension.
Perhaps some of us should go work in the nascent certification industry. That's where the growth will be.
Absolutely. As they say, "Nature abhors a vacuum."
Quote from: dismalist on February 05, 2024, 12:48:20 PMWe can't prevent all good things from happening!
Whatever ways various colleges weight attributes of potential admittees, the SAT relatively favors the poor. And this, in spite of the well off paying for their progeny to get test prep. The reasons are easy to see:
--the poor go to lousy high schools. Only HS grade inflation makes the kids competitive to enter a good college, but not to graduate.
--the poor cannot compete with the rich in doing anything that costs money while in HS. How about music lessons? Tennis anyone? Instead, they may have to work part time. The SAT is their one chance.
Let's remember that Harvard first used the SAT to get kids who didn't come from the blue blood families that sent their kids to private schools on the East coast.
That family income plays some role here is the greatest discovery since finding that the earth is round. Turns out that if colleges discriminated in favor of the poor, which is legal, they'd get almost as many Blacks as if they discriminated in favor of Blacks, which is illegal. Yet, so far, no college except Dartmouth has seen the connexion. I guess that discriminating in favor of Blacks rather than the poor gets them more money. :-)
No, they used it to keep out Jews who couldn't pass the cultural biases in the test. This created an opportunity for Stanley Kaplan to start his business doing test prep.
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 06, 2024, 06:33:25 AMQuote from: dismalist on February 05, 2024, 12:48:20 PMWe can't prevent all good things from happening!
Whatever ways various colleges weight attributes of potential admittees, the SAT relatively favors the poor. And this, in spite of the well off paying for their progeny to get test prep. The reasons are easy to see:
--the poor go to lousy high schools. Only HS grade inflation makes the kids competitive to enter a good college, but not to graduate.
--the poor cannot compete with the rich in doing anything that costs money while in HS. How about music lessons? Tennis anyone? Instead, they may have to work part time. The SAT is their one chance.
Let's remember that Harvard first used the SAT to get kids who didn't come from the blue blood families that sent their kids to private schools on the East coast.
That family income plays some role here is the greatest discovery since finding that the earth is round. Turns out that if colleges discriminated in favor of the poor, which is legal, they'd get almost as many Blacks as if they discriminated in favor of Blacks, which is illegal. Yet, so far, no college except Dartmouth has seen the connexion. I guess that discriminating in favor of Blacks rather than the poor gets them more money. :-)
No, they used it to keep out Jews who couldn't pass the cultural biases in the test. This created an opportunity for Stanley Kaplan to start his business doing test prep.
That is not correct. At Harvard, a Jewish quota was in place by 1926, disguised as a new admissions policy. Using the SAT to find non blue bloods dates from 1933. That was the explicit policy of James Bryan Conant, who became president of Harvard that year.
"Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades — or student essays and teacher recommendations — of how well students would fare at Dartmouth".
Almost certainly true at elites. Certainly not true at the vast majority of campuses. Most acutely at regional publics and cc's, where grades and the type of courses taken are far stronger predictors.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 06, 2024, 01:47:59 PM"Test scores were a better predictor than high school grades — or student essays and teacher recommendations — of how well students would fare at Dartmouth".
Almost certainly true at elites. Certainly not true at the vast majority of campuses. Most acutely at regional publics and cc's, where grades and the type of courses taken are far stronger predictors.
It's not a question of either or or. The evidence suggests that standardized tests
add to the predictive power of success in college of HS grades taken by themselves.
It doesn't seem as though any researcher has bothered to distinguish among types of schools. And, anyway, it's a question of not throwing out information.
[I got no skin in this game. The best that colleges can do for their customers is to choose their preferred admission criteria. Just wish everybody kept it legal, :-)]
I think this is an example of Ivy reality being different from the rest of the world. Test scores have never been a great predictor of success at my pseudo-SLAC; they have been a great predictor of privilege and tendency toward anxiety. For us, it usually the type/level of the class - if a student hasn't had Calculus, they won't do well in any of the engineering degree programs; if they haven't had AP English or similar they likely won't do well in humanities programs. I'd rather have 20 students who made mediocre test scores but passed an advanced English class than 5 who aced the SAT and can't handle it when they get a B in college.
Dartmouth wants to admit students who will thrive in a challenging classroom environment among other elements of success. What they may have found is that they admitted people who, despite an A average in high school, were not able to hack Dartmouth classwork. My guess is that they think they could have elimintated some of those if they had had GRE scores to work with.
In the absence of GRE scores, they would have to institute some other proxy, such as blacklisting high schools that give top grades to second-rate students. That would be justified based on the data they had, but not fair to other applicants from those high schools.
If this is Dartmouth's use of GREs, then the rationale does not apply to very many other schools.
Quote from: Hibush on February 07, 2024, 11:33:17 AMDartmouth wants to admit students who will thrive in a challenging classroom environment among other elements of success. What they may have found is that they admitted people who, despite an A average in high school, were not able to hack Dartmouth classwork. My guess is that they think they could have elimintated some of those if they had had GRE scores to work with.
In the absence of GRE scores, they would have to institute some other proxy, such as blacklisting high schools that give top grades to second-rate students. That would be justified based on the data they had, but not fair to other applicants from those high schools.
If this is Dartmouth's use of GREs, then the rationale does not apply to very many other schools.
Older [2016] College Board propaganda says the SAT adds information to HS GPA even in low selectivity schools. Newer data says some underrepresented minority students or the otherwise disadvantage can benefit from having their SAT considered. This is essentially what Dartmouth has done.
My broader point is to ask why throw away information.
Quote from: dismalist on February 07, 2024, 02:10:50 PM[. . .]
My broader point is to ask why throw away information.
Organizations will throw away information if doing so is in the incentive of the organizations' leaders.
I once witnessed an enrollment management VP claim that quality of applicants had increased over time because their average SAT scores had increased. He deliberately ignored the fact that the university had gone test-optional in the middle of his time series.
Quote from: spork on February 07, 2024, 06:09:41 PMQuote from: dismalist on February 07, 2024, 02:10:50 PM[. . .]
My broader point is to ask why throw away information.
Organizations will throw away information if doing so is in the incentive of the organizations' leaders.
I once witnessed an enrollment management VP claim that quality of applicants had increased over time because their average SAT scores had increased. He deliberately ignored the fact that the university had gone test-optional in the middle of his time series.
Absolutely!
So getting rid of SAT's makes it less transparent in rejecting less prepared kids. We all gotta live! :-)
Quote from: spork on February 07, 2024, 06:09:41 PMQuote from: dismalist on February 07, 2024, 02:10:50 PM[. . .]
My broader point is to ask why throw away information.
Organizations will throw away information if doing so is in the incentive of the organizations' leaders.
I once witnessed an enrollment management VP claim that quality of applicants had increased over time because their average SAT scores had increased. He deliberately ignored the fact that the university had gone test-optional in the middle of his time series.
Because wishing will make it so (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsWmfljeIq0)!
dismalist, I'm going to push back some more. There IS research on different races and sexes. The SAT is actually not as good a predictor for students of color or young women. It under states their chance of success relative to what grades and type of courses taken successfully, which are more accurate predictors.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 08, 2024, 08:36:17 AMdismalist, I'm going to push back some more. There IS research on different races and sexes. The SAT is actually not as good a predictor for students of color or young women. It under states their chance of success relative to what grades and type of courses taken successfully, which are more accurate predictors.
Is this mainly a reflection of more
specific information? For instance, how a student did
in calculus would probably be a better predictor of their performance in
physics than their SAT math score, but for students w
ho have never had a chance to take calculus, the SAT math score would be reasonable.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 08, 2024, 08:36:17 AMdismalist, I'm going to push back some more. There IS research on different races and sexes. The SAT is actually not as good a predictor for students of color or young women. It under states their chance of success relative to what grades and type of courses taken successfully, which are more accurate predictors.
I must repeat, it's not an either/or decision. The point is that the SAT
adds predictive power to the HS GPA.
Same with types of courses, which themselves
add predictive power.
So, use all these criteria.
The SAT is laden with problems, and likely always will be, but it is something that is the same for all kids who take it, whereas, like it or not, high school America is extremely diverse, and it is essentially just not possible to know what exactly any given grade, or even any given course title, means, across hss.
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 08, 2024, 02:18:15 PMThe SAT is laden with problems, and likely always will be, but it is something that is the same for all kids who take it, whereas, like it or not, high school America is extremely diverse, and it is essentially just not possible to know what exactly any given grade, or even any given course title, means, across hss.
And increasingly at the college level as well, at least in the US.
As a Canadian, I really don't understand why the SAT is used or why it is so important. Canada's top universities have no problems finding and admitting students who are successful. Sure, some students fail or drop out, but how does a biased test tell you which students will succeed and which won't? There's a reason why there's a movement among Canadian medical schools to remove the MCAT as a requirement- a couple already only look at CARS or have a very low cutoff. Standardized tests tell you who is good at taking tests, and who has money and privilege. They tell you nothing about who might succeed or be effective in any given profession.
The SAT has predictive power on who cam succeed in an academic setting. To the extent that there have been some studies that link SAT scores to intelligence quotients and all (though I think some of these are quite old and leave some questions to be answered), they probably have *some* predictive power for professional success, since that tends to correlate with conscientiousness. Of course that's just a hypothesis on my part, not knowing what actual literature shows, if anything. But I can see how there would be a relationship.
But, yes, the various biases are there, and the issue of test cost, and ability to pay for costly tutoring is all real. Its doesn't totally negate the finding that the SAT has predictive power, and its hard to believe that getting an A in History at some high school in Raleigh will EVER mean the same thing as one in Tallahasee. let alone mean for sure that the common meaning would correlate with college performance.
How standardized is the quality of high school education across Canada? IIRC, there are also very few private hss there?
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 08, 2024, 09:01:14 PMHow standardized is the quality of high school education across Canada? IIRC, there are also very few private hss there?
One example: In Ontario, the funding for school boards comes from the province, so every school gets the same amount per student. Thus, you don't get "rich" schools and "poor" schools based on the local tax base. That goes a long way to removing inequities.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 09, 2024, 04:59:06 AMQuote from: kaysixteen on February 08, 2024, 09:01:14 PMHow standardized is the quality of high school education across Canada? IIRC, there are also very few private hss there?
One example: In Ontario, the funding for school boards comes from the province, so every school gets the same amount per student. Thus, you don't get "rich" schools and "poor" schools based on the local tax base. That goes a long way to removing inequities.
In CA all the schools get the same amount as well.
But that means high cost of living areas (urban) struggle while lower cost of living areas (suburbs) do quite well.
Affluent areas also have their own local fundraising and foundations to supplement their public schools.
Some really affluent areas are allowed to opt out of the state funding system and fund their own schools with local property taxes. Or pass local tax supplements to support the schools.
So, equity schmequity.
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 09, 2024, 07:25:11 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 09, 2024, 04:59:06 AMQuote from: kaysixteen on February 08, 2024, 09:01:14 PMHow standardized is the quality of high school education across Canada? IIRC, there are also very few private hss there?
One example: In Ontario, the funding for school boards comes from the province, so every school gets the same amount per student. Thus, you don't get "rich" schools and "poor" schools based on the local tax base. That goes a long way to removing inequities.
In CA all the schools get the same amount as well.
But that means high cost of living areas (urban) struggle while lower cost of living areas (suburbs) do quite well.
Affluent areas also have their own local fundraising and foundations to supplement their public schools.
Some really affluent areas are allowed to opt out of the state funding system and fund their own schools with local property taxes. Or pass local tax supplements to support the schools.
So, equity schmequity.
Well,
there's your problem.
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 09, 2024, 07:25:11 AMIn CA all the schools get the same amount as well.
But that means high cost of living areas (urban) struggle while lower cost of living areas (suburbs) do quite well.
Affluent areas also have their own local fundraising and foundations to supplement their public schools.
Some really affluent areas are allowed to opt out of the state funding system and fund their own schools with local property taxes. Or pass local tax supplements to support the schools.
So, equity schmequity.
For Dartmouth, the distinction isn't so much between stronger and weaker public schools, it is between elite prep schools (e.g. Andover, Exeter, Sidwell) and elite public schools. The Dart Mouth (https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2022/10/cradle-to-cap-and-gown-the-prep-school-to-ivy-pipeline)published a piece on it. Prep schools supplied 34% of the Class of 2025.
This study is a better description than College Board statements. And before anyone slams me, I do indeed know that the ACT is not the SAT, nor even an ETS product.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 09, 2024, 10:45:32 AMThis study is a better description than College Board statements. And before anyone slams me, I do indeed know that the ACT is not the SAT, nor even an ETS product.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
One thing to note:
QuoteThey examined 55,084 students who graduated from Chicago Public Schools of varying academic profiles between 2006 and 2009, and who then immediately enrolled in a four-year college. At the time of the study, all Illinois students took the ACT in the spring of 11th grade.
So, in some important ways, it's a relatively homogeneous group. The value in using standardized test scores is greatest when there aren't
other metrics that are consistent for the entire population.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 09, 2024, 10:59:03 AMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 09, 2024, 10:45:32 AMThis study is a better description than College Board statements. And before anyone slams me, I do indeed know that the ACT is not the SAT, nor even an ETS product.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
One thing to note:
QuoteThey examined 55,084 students who graduated from Chicago Public Schools of varying academic profiles between 2006 and 2009, and who then immediately enrolled in a four-year college. At the time of the study, all Illinois students took the ACT in the spring of 11th grade.
So, in some important ways, it's a relatively homogeneous group. The value in using standardized test scores is greatest when there aren't other metrics that are consistent for the entire population.
I'd suggest it is not only relatively homogenous, but comprise for the most part by the groups I cited earlier. What isn't emphasized is that the ACT would under predict their chance of success in a four year regional public or CC.
As someone (Hibush?) pointed out, Dartmouth is trying to distinguish among highly prepared prep school students. The CPS group is disadvantaged if forced to take the SAT or ACT as an equally weighted entrance requirement to attend a public that isn't R1 (say Illinois State), and probably even at a flagship R1 (such as University of Illinois).
Good point about Dartmouth's heavy reliance on uberelite prep schools, but the same poster notes that most of the other students come from elite pub hss, such as the Greenwich, CTs of the country. People who spend enormous amounts of dough to buy into such communities do so because they well know that they can expect elite prep school-quality pub schools there, and they get 'em. Meanwhile most American kids go to schools that are very different, some almost parallel universe-level different.
There's a lot wrong with SATs, but one big thing going for them is that everyone takes the same exam, allowing for meaningful comparison. In the absence of some standardization, HS grades are basically meaningless, especially given grade inflation (A is Average).
I'm not in the US so my place doesn't do SATs. We do have an entrance exam (so it's standardized in that everyone takes the same test), and we do have hard evidence that performance in the test correlates with performance of admitted students. HS grades, on the other hand, basically don't correlate. My campus' students have basically the lowest socioeconomic profile of any major, accredited HE institution in the country (and this is a developing country) so our test isn't about keeping poor students out.
SATs are an example of standardized tests mostly working.
Close to universal access to the test for all high school students without major travel or financial requirements.
It doesn't require a huge amount of student prep time and there is little incentive for teachers to waste class time "teaching to the test".
The fancy tutors and Kaplan classes create some class inequity, but college admissions committees can adjust for it (if they wanted) because the difference they make is not huge.
I think the heated debates arise from ppl worrying that SATs will be all that colleges look at and that admissions committees will be unwilling to adjust based on other factors including socioeconomic status. Maybe worth fearing, but it doesn't play out like that in the vast majority of cases I am aware of.
Quote from: fizzycist on February 17, 2024, 09:20:01 PMI think the heated debates arise from ppl worrying that SATs will be all that colleges look at and that admissions committees will be unwilling to adjust based on other factors including socioeconomic status.
Among other things, the margin for error on these measurements is often overestimated by people worrying about "other factors". Even for my won course, I'd agree that two students who wound up 5% apart might not be as different as that indicates, but a difference of 10% reliably indicates something significant.
So, while an absolute numerical cutoff may be statistically unsupportable, the realistic range for adjustment based on "other factors" will still be pretty small, like maybe a few percent.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2024, 05:22:49 AMQuote from: fizzycist on February 17, 2024, 09:20:01 PMI think the heated debates arise from ppl worrying that SATs will be all that colleges look at and that admissions committees will be unwilling to adjust based on other factors including socioeconomic status.
Among other things, the margin for error on these measurements is often overestimated by people worrying about "other factors". Even for my won course, I'd agree that two students who wound up 5% apart might not be as different as that indicates, but a difference of 10% reliably indicates something significant.
So, while an absolute numerical cutoff may be statistically unsupportable, the realistic range for adjustment based on "other factors" will still be pretty small, like maybe a few percent.
I'm not sure what is meant by "a few percent".
If you were an admissions officer, would a kid with a 1400 SAT, but a B- average in high school, be on equal ground with a kid with a 1300 SAT and straight A's?
Or a kid with a 1200 SAT, high quantitative portion, straight A's and strong work ethic, from a poor zip code who wants to go into an under-enrolled physics major should be denied for a kid with 1300 SAT, rich zip code, who wants to be in an over-enrolled sociology major?
It's rare that all things are exactly equal except SAT and race or whatever. There are plenty of useful signals throughout the packet. At the R1 state schools I'm familiar with I suspect they do a decent job with admissions overall because most ppl are pretty reasonable when it comes to this stuff in practice.
The main factor in favor of continued use of the SAT is indeed the vast (and I do mean vast) differences amongst hss in this country, not only in terms of grading policies but even in terms of mere titling of courses.
Quote from: fizzycist on February 18, 2024, 08:18:26 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2024, 05:22:49 AMQuote from: fizzycist on February 17, 2024, 09:20:01 PMI think the heated debates arise from ppl worrying that SATs will be all that colleges look at and that admissions committees will be unwilling to adjust based on other factors including socioeconomic status.
Among other things, the margin for error on these measurements is often overestimated by people worrying about "other factors". Even for my own course, I'd agree that two students who wound up 5% apart might not be as different as that indicates, but a difference of 10% reliably indicates something significant.
So, while an absolute numerical cutoff may be statistically unsupportable, the realistic range for adjustment based on "other factors" will still be pretty small, like maybe a few percent.
I'm not sure what is meant by "a few percent".
Since the SAT isn't a big thing in Canada, my knowledge of it is pretty basic.
Nevertheless, there are no doubt lots of stats out there about what type of variation there is between regions, high schools, etc. so that it can be "calibrated" with other things.
QuoteIf you were an admissions officer, would a kid with a 1400 SAT, but a B- average in high school, be on equal ground with a kid with a 1300 SAT and straight A's?
I certainly wouldn't know, but as I indicated above I'm sure there are lots of people who have analysed the data to determine whether that difference (from 1300 to 1400) is more reflective of the individual or the school. (If they were from the
same school, and took the
same courses, then the GPA may be a better indicator, but otherwise whether that's a significant difference or not should be pretty well established by lots of data.)
QuoteOr a kid with a 1200 SAT, high quantitative portion, straight A's and strong work ethic, from a poor zip code who wants to go into an under-enrolled physics major should be denied for a kid with 1300 SAT, rich zip code, who wants to be in an over-enrolled sociology major?
Since those are completely different programs, I'd imagine they'd have different requirements and cutoffs, so it wouldn't require a choice between those two students.
QuoteIt's rare that all things are exactly equal except SAT and race or whatever. There are plenty of useful signals throughout the packet. At the R1 state schools I'm familiar with I suspect they do a decent job with admissions overall because most ppl are pretty reasonable when it comes to this stuff in practice.
That's why it always going to be useful as, at least, one
more piece of information. If it seems to be wildly out of synch with other information, then there's something else going on that needs to be looked at.
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 19, 2024, 11:06:04 AMThe main factor in favor of continued use of the SAT is indeed the vast (and I do mean vast) differences amongst hss in this country, not only in terms of grading policies but even in terms of mere titling of courses.
Somehow this came up in conversation last night. My friend's son had a 4.xx GPA from a very prestigious high school, a 33 on the ACT (which I guess is pretty good) but a "very low" SAT score. Is that a fluke?
Anyway, he went to Duke and does just fine for himself.
I am totally unfamiliar with the content, mechanics, etc., of the ACT-- exactly how different is it from the SAT, and in what respect does it differ?
Here's an explanatory note (https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-vs-sat.html#:~:text=Both%20tests%20evaluate%20your%20skills,assessment%20of%20your%20academic%20abilities.) from the ACT website.
Dartmouth's decision got attention only because Dartmouth is one of the Ivy League universities that U.S. media and economic elites are fixated on. MIT resumed requiring that applicants submit SAT scores two years ago, after a two-year pandemic-driven hiatus. MIT's decision didn't generate nearly as much media coverage.
Thanks for the ACT article, which is of course an ACT house organ piece. If indeed the ACT is as good relative to the SAT, as this piece claims, why has it not been adopted in lieu of the ACT by most non-Southern unis?
BTW, one of the claims the ACT makes in the piece, as a reason to prefer it to the SAT, concerns the writing sample test it has-- is it not true that the SAT did eventually adopt such a component at some point, only to eventually ditch it?
Yes, there was a writing section on the SAT for maybe 10-15 years?
I took them both back in the day. But that was a very long time ago, and I couldn't really tell you what the difference was, let alone how they differ today.
Quote from: spork on February 20, 2024, 03:01:34 AMDartmouth's decision got attention only because Dartmouth is one of the Ivy League universities that U.S. media and economic elites are fixated on. MIT resumed requiring that applicants submit SAT scores two years ago, after a two-year pandemic-driven hiatus. MIT's decision didn't generate nearly as much media coverage.
Yes and no. MIT requires applicants to be able to add and subtract. Ivy League schools do not do so systematically.
I'm guessing that that distinction is what drove and drives media interest, which in turn reflects overwhelming parental interests. Buy my kid into a place. The MIT graduates I have known were by no means bought in!
Caltech is different in method. It has refused SAT scores until 2025, but an applicant can submit a research paper! There's no media outcry over this either.
Yale (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/us/yale-standardized-testing-sat-act.html) too.
QuoteYale to Require Standardized Test Scores for Admissions
Officials said test-optional policies might have harmed students from lower-income families.
Quote from: dismalist on February 20, 2024, 03:11:25 PMQuote from: spork on February 20, 2024, 03:01:34 AMDartmouth's decision got attention only because Dartmouth is one of the Ivy League universities that U.S. media and economic elites are fixated on. MIT resumed requiring that applicants submit SAT scores two years ago, after a two-year pandemic-driven hiatus. MIT's decision didn't generate nearly as much media coverage.
Yes and no. MIT requires applicants to be able to add and subtract. Ivy League schools do not do so systematically.
I'm guessing that that distinction is what drove and drives media interest, which in turn reflects overwhelming parental interests. Buy my kid into a place. The MIT graduates I have known were by no means bought in!
Caltech is different in method. It has refused SAT scores until 2025, but an applicant can submit a research paper! There's no media outcry over this either.
Luckily MIT didn't run itself as a pay to play scheme. As a first-generation college student, I didn't have the money it would have taken to get in. This is one reason I didn't have any interest in applying to Harvard.
QuoteBrown University will reinstate standardized testing requirements for admission (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/us/brown-university-admission-test-optional.html), joining Yale, Dartmouth and M.I.T. in backtracking on "test optional" policies adopted during the Covid pandemic.
Brown's decision, announced on Tuesday, will require either SAT or ACT scores and will be in effect in the upcoming admissions cycle.
QuoteU. of Texas at Austin Will Return to Standardized Test Requirement (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/us/ut-austin-standardized-test-admission.html)
The university said SAT and ACT scores help it place students in programs that fit them best.
Harvard and Caltech join the fray!
QuoteHarvard and Caltech Will Require Test Scores for Admission (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/us/harvard-test-scores-admissions.html)
The universities are the latest highly selective schools to end their policies that made submitting SAT or ACT scores optional.