An Ultra-Selective University Just Dropped the ACT/SAT. So What?
chronicle.com
chronicle.com
They are one of the most background-blind ways of establishing student intelligence and creativity, as they have been shown in studies to measure the ephemeral 'g' value representing general intelligence very well.
Now, critics say that impoverished students do worse on the SAT than students from wealthy families, but the fact is that study resources for the SAT exist for free on the internet as well as for low cost in the form of study manuals. Poor students from certain communities probably don't have the same encouragement to study for the SAT as other groups, especially wealthy families. Fortunately, cultivating a culture which encourages study for standardized tests in theory costs nothing.
This puts poor students on a much more level playing field than if we base elite college admissions on things like high school quality, which is already a huge determinant of admissions at top colleges. Unfortunately students can't use free online resources to get into top private high schools. Doing so requires their parents to be well off enough to afford the high cost.
Judging students based on grades is also very difficult because of grade inflation, which obscures things.
We will never be able to fully eliminate the influence of wealth on college admissions, but standardized tests offer the best conceivable way to fairly judge students of all backgrounds.
Since you agree that SAT test prep improves one's SAT, and you argue that SAT is predictive of creativity, does that mean that SAT test prep makes one more creative? Or am I misinterpreting?
When you write "Poor students from certain communities", which 'certain communities' do you mean?
Because I think you mean the community I was brought up in.
I grew up the 3rd or 4th generation descendant of northern European emigrants to North American. By the US census definition I am "white". My parents were working class, with no college education, and my mother stayed at home.
My sister, on the other hand, has a Master's degree and is middle management in a large international organization. Her husband has a MA, and husband's father was a college professor.
Her kids are approaching college age. I am astonished at the difference in the amount of specific support those kids get from having parents who have gone through the system, compared to the support my sister and I got from parents with no college experience.
Don't get me wrong, we had plenty of encouragement to study ... for grades. But the SAT? How were my parents supposed to know that they should ease off on getting us to do homework and instead spend time preparing for the SAT?
So when you write "cultivating a culture which encourages study for standardized tests in theory costs nothing", I don't believe you. That time doesn't come for free. It must be taken from something else.
Going back to my question, which "certain communities" are you talking about, and what should they be doing less of in order to study for a test which seems less predictive of success than getting good high school grades from rigorous courses?
> For instance, a student with a high SAT score (above 1100) but a middling high school GPA (between 2.67 and 3.0) has an expected graduation rate of 39%. But students with the opposite credentials—mediocre SAT scores but high GPAs—graduate from college at a 62% rate.
> Put another way, the expected graduation rate of a student with a given GPA doesn’t change very much depending on her SAT score. But the expected graduation rate of a student with a given SAT score varies tremendously depending on her GPA.