Out of our close group of high school friends, the guy who scored by far the lowest on the SAT is by FAR the wealthiest now, and we all couldn't be happier for him. What a great guy he is.
So the SAT has some value after all
- Thread starter GrimReaper
- Start date
As with anything, this is not an absolute and I would argue that the SAT is not the best predictor of student success. I did not do overly well on the SAT either time I took it, but I was a good student with a good GPA and still got into dear old state. While there, I made the deanās list 7 out of 9 semesters I was there and graduated with a good GPA. Then, I got into one of the more competitive masterās programs at another school and graduated at the top of my class and got to sit on the stage at graduation and represent my entire masterās program colleagues. Iāve done pretty well for myself through a ton of hard work and determination. If the SAT was the sole determinant in my process, I would have never gotten the opportunities I did to succeed. College success, in my opinion, is not about who is the smartest, itās about who is willing to put in the most effort and apply themselves. A single standardized test does not define someone.The SAT is, by far, the most effective single predictive tool for student success - especially for the "tier 2" schools, like a PSU (more so than for the "elites", the Ivies and what not).
And that has become even more dramatic - has become even MORE strongly the top predictor - in recent years, as grade inflation has gone absolutely crazy in secondary schools.
Are there other useful data points and considerations? Sure. And they also should have a "place at the table".
FWIW: The data at PSU since going "test optional" are proof positive. Clear, significant, and impactful between those who do - and those who don't - submit test scores prior to admission (and, as always, the parameters for those with higher vs lower scores)
Non-elite schools that have dropped the standardized test score from being a PART of the acceptance process (they never have been, and never should be, the only metric) do so for 1 or more of 5 reasons:
1) To maximize applications
2) To allow for admission of more (lower quality) prospective students without having it reflected on their statistics
3) To increase revenue
4) To allow them to "social engineer" their acceptances
5) To make a political/ideological virtue statement
Period. End of f-ing story.
PSU Administration continues to refuse to even consider re-instituting required test score submission - even as a tracking mechanism, if not an acceptance metric (despite their never-ending lullabies about being "data driven")
They refuse for, probably, all five of the reasons listed above. It's all BS.
I think the SAT is making a comeback due to the fact that grading policies in high schools now inflate kids grades so much that you canāt use GPA for as good of a predictor of their work ethic as you used to. There are lots of kids that Iāve seen go through schools in the last five years that had near 4.0 GPAās and scored less than 1000 on the SAT.
I would agree with that. I would also say those that I knew that scored the highest on the SAT were the smartest. Those that weren't the smartest (and that would be me) didn't score the highest.
I always get a chuckle when I hear parents say..."oh Joey just doesn't do well on standardized tests". I quietly think to myself of the great Judge Smails..."the world needs ditch diggers too"
How many kids do you see with a GPA below 1.0 and an SAT score below 800? Asking for a friend.
I review a lot of internship applications for a highly selective/competitive internship program. The criteria for placement has changed in recent years - so, things that normally would have been of great value (elite college, previous internship experience at top firms/locations, top tier recommendations, etc.) are not weighted, or as advantageous, as they used to be - now it's about geographic diversity (in terms of candidate background/school location), lack of elite internship experience, personal experience (such as first in family to go to college, tough upbringing, etc.) and underrepresented majors. This week I spoke to a candidate from LSU (3.8GPA) and couldn't be more unimpressed. No idea what their SAT was, but having been around students in this program for many years, likely the worst candidate I've interviewed. The Ivy League kids who I've been around have universally been impressive. Have had others from smaller schools do as well or better. Not sure how this fits into this discussion - just something I've noticed....
Thatās another reason that I think we need to use the SAT more. Yes, kids take plenty of standardized tests throughout their academic careers in high school but none of them really matter for graduation. The kids know this and so they half *** it. then youāve got so many kids now who once they fail a test in elementary or middle school their parents claim they need an IEP, which the school gladly gives them, so they get more money, and then for the rest of their academic careers they get tests that have less answer choices and they get extra time or something like that.
There are plenty of kids who do need that assistance and accommodations for testing but again in the last few years, there are plenty of Karenās who are using that as a way to make their kids chances to score well higher.
Itās funny how the university that your applicant is from makes such a difference depending on your field. I have no doubt that youāve had many Ivy League candidates whoāve been exceptional, but when I hire a high school teacher, I would never hire an Ivy League student again. give me the kid with the 3.2 GPA from Penn State or Maryland or a smaller school like Juniata or York every time.
You would think that someone who goes to an Ivy to become a K-12 teacher is not particularly good at determining ROI. Unless it was a free ride, why would you do that?
Have not had a lot of PSU applicants but the one I did have could not write well. Didn't even give them an interview. The best intern I've ever had was a Michigan grad (top ten - not top ten percent - top ten overall; said they got an award for the achievement) and Yale graduate student. Other top interns were from Brown, Illinois, Davidson, and Puget Sound. All have gone on to do wonderful things (law school, top private firms, elite grad school, etc.). For me it's less about the 'hard' skills and more about the soft ones - are they a good communicator? Can they synthesize ideas? Can they work as part of a team? Lead when necessary? Build consensus and defend a position? A lot of times it's just whether or not the individual is built that way; less to do with academics noting the top kids are usually excellent writers/communicators.
They're usually from well to do families and do not need the money. Likely marry well and want to do something other than 'fundraise'....
I did also. Coincidentally, I scored, by far, the highest on the critical thinking portion of the GRE which is largely what my masterās program was looking for.
Weāve hired three in the last 10 years and two of the three are exactly what you said. they think itās their calling and how they can change kids lives but all three of them have been emotional nightmares and have trouble with deadlines and technology.
Hammer meet nail. College admissions officers are increasingly confronted with piles of transcripts that, for all intents and purposes, look the same i.e. everyone has a 4.0. How do they differentiate and decide who to offer admission? Standardized test provides another data point. Beyond that everything else is smoke.
Or maybe they didn't look at their decision on where to pursue higher education on an ROI basis,
I would agree with the higher SAT scores representing the smarter kids, but that doesnāt mean they will apply themselves and take advantage of that. Nor does it mean they have any common sense, critical thinking skills or time management skills. For example, my sonās friend is pretty much a genius. He scored nearly perfect on SATs, took the maximum AP courses in high school(aced them all) and is currently enrolled a very prestigious university. One day he pulled out a wire brush to wash his car. He was going to wash the entire car with a wire brush until my son stopped him.
See midnighters comment, he was exactly right about two of the three. The third one majored in English literature and I really donāt remember everything but I think her plan was teaching at a university but the one she got hired at she didnāt like what she was doing so she applied for high school jobs just to make money until she could find another college job. HR gave her an open contract just because she had a degree from Harvard. normally I wouldnāt even have been in on the interview since sheās English, but one of the other admin was out that day and I got out voted. I could just tell from the way she talked and answered the questions that she was an emotional wreck and didnāt have her life together. Plus her basic skill set in anything except English was low.
Yeah, there is a book always recommended to new parents at our school that was written by a Stanford professor about how to teach bright kids ācommon senseā skills for when they leave home (cook, do laundry, etc.). Sort of sad.
Don't disagree with anything you've written. But how does a college admissions officer determine whether any of the applicants have the skills you've outlined? Yes, there might be a small handful of applications from which that can be gleaned, but hundreds?
They canāt. Thatās my point. Using a single standardized test score to determine who will be successful during their time in college leaves out a lot of unknown variables. Take my personal example for instance. My SAT wasnāt great, but I got into PSU through a four year body of work that included really good grades while being a two sport athlete and holding down a part time job. If you ignore all those types of example for one test, you shut out a lot of young people with the drive to succeed.
But they're not using a single test score to make their decision. They're using them to differentiate among applications that increasingly looking alike with transcripts that show nothing but As, essays that are heavily edited, if not written, by "college admissions counselors," manufactured extra-curricular activities lists, etc.
āManufactured extra-curricular activities listsā? Are you insinuating that applicants lie? Seems like a broad brush to paint with. The point was made by another poster that the SAT was the single best predictor of college success. All of my responses were to that thought.
If I meant "false" or "fraudulent" I would have used those words. A "manufactured" list is one put together by a college admissions counselor who sold the client on what colleges want to see as opposed to what the applicant, of the applicant's one volition, wants to do. Years ago, a popular activity was to "build houses for the poor in Costa Rica." That was on the application. What wasn't on the application was that, during the two weeks, the applicant stayed at a five-star resort with all of the attendant amenities. It was so common, that it didn't take admissions officers long to catch on.
Another tack was to do multiple volunteer activities because more was considered better. Colleges, particularly the most selective, disagreed.
My suggestion is to read the article.
My suggestion is to understand the point I was making and the post I was responding to.
for the non-elites I am sure this is all about revenue. demographics are working against universities. fewer available students so the last thing they want to do is reduce the available student ;pool to pick from. this assumes the students are actually paying full or near full tuition and fees.The SAT is, by far, the most effective single predictive tool for student success - especially for the "tier 2" schools, like a PSU (more so than for the "elites", the Ivies and what not).
And that has become even more dramatic - has become even MORE strongly the top predictor - in recent years, as grade inflation has gone absolutely crazy in secondary schools.
Are there other useful data points and considerations? Sure. And they also should have a "place at the table".
FWIW: The data at PSU since going "test optional" are proof positive. Clear, significant, and impactful between those who do - and those who don't - submit test scores prior to admission (and, as always, the parameters for those with higher vs lower scores)
Non-elite schools that have dropped the standardized test score from being a PART of the acceptance process (they never have been, and never should be, the only metric) do so for 1 or more of 5 reasons:
1) To maximize applications
2) To allow for admission of more (lower quality) prospective students without having it reflected on their statistics
3) To increase revenue
4) To allow them to "social engineer" their acceptances
5) To make a political/ideological virtue statement
Period. End of f-ing story.
PSU Administration continues to refuse to even consider re-instituting required test score submission - even as a tracking mechanism, if not an acceptance metric (despite their never-ending lullabies about being "data driven"
They refuse for, probably, all five of the reasons listed above. It's all BS.
this is a two edge sword as the less prepared students cost more to serve. they have to invest in student assistance programs to get them through.
my brother lives in Columbus and does legal work around universities there. He said some of the state schools have gone test optional so have a less prepared population. They are also providing scholarships and added assistance. this means the more of these they "sell" the more $$$ they lose. that is a head scratcher.
I appreciate what you are saying and donāt disagree. I just think we are talking about two slightly different angles.
The article I linked had to do with use of standardized tests in college admissions. Didn't take long for the discussion to go off track. Big surprise.
I graduated in 1963. I was in the first Penn State- Jefferson 5 year Program. We were maturer than many of our colleagues. At our 50th Reunion we found so many of our group quite accomplished in Research, Clinical Practice, Education, Health Policy and engaged earlier than most. Now at the end of our careers we are re establishing our relationships and many have made significant contributions to medicine and society.
I'll eat my crow well done. Thank you for your contributions. I certainly can't claim that level of achievement for myself.
I moved to a new high school my junior year. Academics were a really big deal at my new school (for most). Students were very competitive and took SAT prep courses, etc. Many planned to take the test multiple times. I didn't prepare thinking that I would be taking them more than once. I remember continually looking up at the clock across the room and by the end of the test I couldn't see the clock anymore because everything was blurry. I was sitting at a table with some ultra competitive students. When they called time, I put my pencil down and said to the students around me that I didn't care how I did but I won't be taking the test again. Fortunately, I did very well.
Get unlimited access today.