Posted on 07/14/2007 6:27:48 AM PDT by RKV
For most high school students who want to attend an elite college, the SAT is more than a test. It is one of life’s landmarks. Waiting for the scores—one for verbal, one for math, and now one for writing, with a possible 800 on each—is painfully suspenseful. The exact scores are commonly remembered forever after.
...
The pivotal analysis was published in 2001 by the University of California (UC), which requires all applicants to take both the SAT and achievement tests (three of them at the time the data were gathered: reading, mathematics, and a third of the student’s choosing). Using a database of 77,893 students who applied to UC from 1996 to 1999, Saul Geiser and Roger Studley analyzed the relationship among high school grades, SAT scores, achievement test scores, and freshman grades in college. Here is what they found:
Achievement tests did slightly better than the SAT in predicting freshman grades. High school grade point average, SAT scores, and achievement test scores were entered into a statistical equation to predict the grade point that applicants achieved during their freshman year in college. The researchers found that achievement tests and high school grade point each had about the same independent role—that is, each factor was, by itself, an equally accurate predictor of how a student will do as a college freshman.
But the SAT’s independent role in predicting freshman grade point turned out to be so small that knowing the SAT score added next to nothing to an admissions officer’s ability to forecast how an applicant will do in college—the reason to give the test in the first place.
(Excerpt) Read more at american.com ...
Thank you. Well said.
As I said, it is one of the requirements. What they are looking for is increasing, striving to always do better. They aren’t looking for the intelectual as much as they are looking for the kid who can get 25 hours out of a 24 hour day. They are looking for leaders.
I think Murray (same as the author of this article btw) in his book, The Bell Curve, did quite a lot to focus people on g. He’s not worried about being appreciated after how The Bell Curve was received. Heh.
a "kinder and gentler" Charles Murray from Bell Curve days?
Also...
an “A” at one school does NOT equal an “A” at other schools.
A “straight A” kid at a small, rural school met different standards than a “straight A” kid at some prep school.
The SAT’s are a leveling judge.
I never took an SAT. I took the ACT. ONly once. And no, I don’t remember my score. I took it because I had to and didn’t give a crap about it or worry about it. I’d always been one that scored very high on standardized tests...much higher than my GPA would predict.
I remember my highschool chemistry teacher decided to use a standardized test for our final. I was a B student. I scored in the top 2 percent in the nation and the top score in our school. I was accused of cheating.
My memory (for what its worth) is that if a student can get through their freshman year in college, the odds of graduation are pretty favorable. My experience base is that of a former RA who looked after 55 freshmen guys at a UC. BTW we managed to get through the year without anyone flunking (though a couple of academic probations) or getting arrested. ;>)
Well, your chances of getting into the Acadamy was ruined by your 800 score on each section the first time you took it. Maybe you can find a nice ROTC program if you still think you can cut it in the military.
ACT and SAT test are IQ tests. There is a formula to convert between them. Ditto for the military aptitude tests.
Thanks. Reading the whole article we find
I know how counterintuitive this sounds (I am presenting a conclusion I resisted as long as I could). But the truth about any achievement test, from an AP exam down to a weekly pop quiz, is that the smartest kids tend to get the highest scores. All mental tests are g-loaded to some degree. What was not realized until the UC study was just how high that correlation was for the SAT and the achievement tests.So he's NOT saying that test scores do not matter. He's saying that certain SAT II achievement tests measure the same things as the SAT I, and therefore can be substituted.Before, studies of the relationship had been based on self-selected samples of students who chose to take achievement tests along with the SAT, and there was good reason to think those students were unrepresentative. But by requiring all applicants to take both the SAT and achievement tests, the University of California got rid of this problem—and the correlations were still very high.
After the College Board did all of its statistical corrections in its 2002 study and applied them to test-takers from California, it found, for example, that the correlation between the SAT Verbal and the Literature Achievement test was a very high 0.83 (a correlation of 1.0 represents a perfect direct relationship). The correlation between the SAT Math and the Math IC achievement test was 0.86. So I conclude that bright students who do not go to first-rate high schools will do fine without the SAT. Consider these scenarios:
When he says
But the SAT’s independent role in predicting freshman grade point turned out to be so small that knowing the SAT score added next to nothing to an admissions officer’s ability to forecast how an applicant will do in college—the reason to give the test in the first place. In technical terms, adding the SAT to the other two elements added just one-tenth of a percentage point to the percentage of variance in freshman grades explained by high school grade point and the achievement tests.What he's actually saying is that the information already conveyed by the achievement tests is not that much improved by the SAT I.
“the information already conveyed by the achievement tests is not that much improved by the SAT I” Yep, and given that he bases his conclusions on significant data (the UC results) I am inclined to agree. Many here don’t seem to be up to date on how college admissions works these days. I am only up on it because I have two kids who are approaching that age. It’s changed since I went to college.
So Murray admits that the present SAT is dumbed down. He also states that he doesn't think the 1994 revision changed the g-loading, but he has no proof of this. So far we have established that all of his data (1996-1999, from one college system) for this essay is based on questionable or dumb-downed SATs.
Secondly, his data is based on a study that determines the efficacy in using SATs to predict freshman-year grades (Because we all know that only potential affects freshman grades). Do they help determine graduation rates? Four year graduation rates? Overall GPA? None of these possible predictives are discussed. Why attack the SAT based on such a limited range of uses? One answer might be that most colleges use SATs for only that purpose... but does that negate other predictive powers of the SAT?
Thirdly, notice that Murray simply shifts the testing medium away from the SAT I to the SAT II subject tests. In addition, his argument isn't that SATs aren't predictive. His argument is that GPA+SAT+SAT II = X% correlation to freshman grade performance is only slightly better than GPA+SAT II = X-.1% (From the article: In technical terms, adding the SAT to the other two elements added just one-tenth of a percentage point to the percentage of variance in freshman grades explained by high school grade point and the achievement tests.. What then is the argument against SAT I? It's not like it is negatively correlated with performance... just that it adds very little to a GPA+SAT II formula. Since most kids don't take SAT IIs, how does this help (other than as a call to replace one test with another... that will soon be dumbed down when the "wrong" people don't score well on it)...?
As the parent of two kids (one in high school) who is not looking forward to the junior year round of tests (AP, SAT, SAT II, etc.) eliminating one of these which doesn't improve college's ability to predict academic performance seems like a good idea.
Since Mr. Murray will probably not be sitting on the admissions committee at whatever college your child applies to, I wouldn't suggest changing your child's testing routine to much. If Murray manages to convince colleges of this... maybe then. But until then...
No - those are the results of his regression analysis. Do you have any data to present, or are your posts simply your opinion?
I’ve still not figured out why colleges have not gone to a capitalistic model, instead of this bizarre mix of “arcane brotherhood” and capitalism. Why not allow students to enroll with few hoops, take some placement tests to determine course options, and pay for them. Hard workers will pass and continue. Lazy folks will drop out. Those who need additional help will seek out tutoring to avoid wasting their investment.
I scored very well on the 1991 tests (ACT and SAT). I test well, even with the flu and a fever of 103*. Neither my high school grades nor my test scores had anything to do with how hard I chose to work in college. The biggest factor was my bank account—I was paying for everything, and didn’t want to waste my investment. Even a 17 year old kid can figure out basic “return on investment” concepts.
I would suspect that if you get a perfect score that would suffice, but I also suspect that you would be rejected too. They want leaders over the intelectual.
“So this guy thinks that somebody with an SAT Math score of 400 has a chance of doing well in an MIT engineering class?”
That’s not at all what he’s saying.
He’s saying two things:
1. Both the SAT and the SAT II are good predictors of success in the freshman year of college, but the SAT II is a better predictor.
2. The SAT doesn’t add very much extra predictive value to the SAT II when both are taken. In other words, maybe the SAT II alone gets it 80% right, and the SAT II and the SAT together get it 83% right. It’s redundant to take both. It’s more economical to take only one, and since the SAT II has superior predictive value, that’s the one to take.
sitetest
Understood. You play the game with the rules in place at the first pitch. That said, there is a reasonable rationale for changing the rules.
Why?
Answer: $$$$$$$ for many folks/companies/schools with chips in the "game."
Pretty simple reason why market based education hasn’t caught on. You ever try to compete with someone who has a government subsidy? They can spend you into the dirt. The places you find it now are in technical training, where the gummit schools have dropped the ball.
Never mind. It’s clear you got this later on in the thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.