Posted on 08/02/2015 7:15:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 08/02/2015 7:28:30 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I should add to my previous post: We were, of course, actually looking for the best students and only for students who could be successful in college. That part has changed.
But they demand to be treated as “equals.”
My understanding of the research on predictors of academic success in college is that grades earned in challenging high-school courses (e.g., AP Calculus, science, etc.) are the best predictors, followed by SAT/ACT scores. Nothing else (reference letters, extracurricular activities, ...) matters.
For students who are talented in quantitative subjects, there's no question math-related courses in high school can be a pretty objective measure. But they only tell you about mathematical ability. A test like the SAT verbal, which measures reading comprehension and analogy recognition, is really the only way to estimate verbal ability if high-school letter grades aren't particularly objective—which, in humanities courses, they're not.
Essays sent in with the application can help, but it's good to have that verbal SAT indicator—which, like a grade in a high-level math course, is a quantitative measure—in this case, measuring verbal ability and reasoning.
My daughter told me that at Ohio State, athletes took geology courses to fulfill a science course requirement. No mathematics. The courses were referred to as "rocks for jocks."
Yeah, way to increase the value of those diplomas? /s
The research I have read on the subject concludes that SAT/ACT scores help to predict college academic success, but they don't have as much predictive power as the subset of high-school grades I mentioned. Maybe that's because college students today don't have to write as much and as often as students in the past. I know that the writing skills of the college grads I have observed in recent years aren't very good.
Same period: Remember the name for Abnormal Psychology? "Nuts & Sluts"
When I was in college in the more fully degraded 1970s, there was a course in Human Sexuality that was way too gross for me. Content-free, "scientific" porno. It was referred to as "Holes & Poles."
Just based on experience, first as a student and now as a Trustee, I don't see how a grade in an advanced high-school math course is going to predict whether someone is likely to write a brilliant thesis on Shakespeare. I graduated Magna Cum Laude in English at a very tough school. I knew certifiable geniuses who got Summa and couldn't balance a checkbook. We don't need people like that to balance a checkbook.
It takes both sides of a brain to build a civilization—and a student body.
Not so. I'm a trustee at a pretty ordinary college. Not only does everyone have to write papers, there's a lot of attention among colleges generally to teaching incoming freshmen to write—sending them through remedial courses, if necessary. It's actually a reaction to the illiteracy you mention. Colleges have become the writing teachers of last resort.
Believe me—all colleges want verbal high achievers. We compete with other colleges for them. They're not replaceable. And a high school math grade is not going to identify them.
What "SAT optional" really means:
If you are white/Asian and do not submit high SAT scores, and are not "connected", then you will not be considered.
If you are black and submit a recommendation from somebody "connected" in the Democrat Party, then you are in.
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.