Average/ Below Average

Colleges & Universities United States Naval Academy (USNA)
21

<p>Chessie … Yours is a fair and good question. Let me respond initially by asking you, others a more appropriate question …</p>

<p>In all of our decades of hearing, taking, requiring about SATs, ACTs, and the discourse accompanying them, have you EVER seen any published research telling the adoring public about the validity of using these tests in predicting collegiate success? Of course not. There is none. We simply ASSUME because it’s pervasively with us, that it’s gotta be “true.”</p>

<p>And you may be absolutely certain that if there was any substantial evidence, Princeton and Iowa City would be bombarding the media with confirmation of their keen insight and importance to aiding colleges and universities in sorting out and segmenting those outstanding collegiate prospects from their lesser brethren and sisters. </p>

<p>Furthermore you must ask … why no substantial, widely publicized research findings on something so obviously important? (At least to those candidates and their parents who struggle with them. And the u’s that use them to admit, wait list, reject, and remediate deficiencies.)</p>

<p>Well, who does this kind of research? Yep, 2 groups invest heavily in this kind of thing: 1 - the professoriate and 2 - agencies like the SAT, ACT and others that generate huge revenue from their cottage industries.</p>

<p>Now ask yourself: Who would pay either to really learn the answer to your question? If you come up with an answer and some real $$, let us know. </p>

<p>You see, this is one of those PC questions, that those that COULD find the answer about correlation, predictability, etc. … CANNOT AFFORD to know the answer. Thus there is NO RESEARCH. It’s not unlike studying intelligence among the ethnic or racial groups. Doesn’t happen, and won’t happen. It takes $$ and none will invest in that. </p>

<p>So, back to my origninal premise. Why do so many higher ed institutions continue to use it? Because it gives them a tool that they need not “defend”, helps to level playing fields, assists in gatekeeping (especially among the elite, highly selective institutions), can be useful in determining placement (THIS has been shown in research), assists in ranking kids for scholarships and other financial aid, and more. </p>

<p>But it does NOT give any direction about collegiate success. And even more so, it gives zero indication of professional success. With one major exception. What profession might that be, you may wonder?</p>

<p>You got it. The PROFESSORIATE! And why would that be? Because the test is created and evaluated by THE PROFESSORIATE and reflects much of what is important to them. But not to the Navy, to civil engineers, to accountants, to nurses or doctors, and on and on and on. And this too has been substantially researched, i.e. collegiate success (which cannot be predicted based upon SAT success) is no indicator of professional success, unless you want to be a Ph.D and become a professor or researcher.</p>

<p>One footnote: Many college admissions offices have done proprietary research on this issue. They confirm there is virtually no value in predicting collegiate success. Many aside from the most selective, as we are now seeing are discontinuing requiring these exams. But even knowing what they know, there is risk for them. What is that risk? How students and their parents … like us … will PERCEIVE them. “What kinda college doesn’t require my kid taking the SATs!” For virtually all of the 3,500 colleges and universities (The Carnegie Council has confirmed there are only 30-40 truly selective colleges) perception of prospective students and their parents is EVERYTHING. So they are extremely fearful of doing something so “radical” as eliminating standardized testing for fear of appearing like a trade school, or at least less-than-selective. And rarely, for reasons earlier noted earlier, is this research published or even publishable. It’s not done by math or psych professors developing research for refereed journals.</p>

<p>Now one final thought. Your point of being highly useful of predicting those SAT 800 math students from the 300 scoring students is, probably valid. But that’s all hypothetical. The USNA and every other selective institution is not measuring students who have 800 or 300. They’re measuring students who have 730 or 690 or 640 or 800. It is an ADMISSION tool. Not a predictor of success between the 630 or 800. Both, once admitted have an equal chance of graduating #1. At that point, it’s all about other things.</p>

<p>And on the next level, graduating #1 or #1001 in the class is not a general predictor of who’s gonna make admiral. </p>

<p>ADMISSIONS does not equal GRADUATION success does not equal PROFESSIONAL success.</p>

22

<p>And candidatemom … really I’ve no cynicism about this. It’s just the way it is. And recognizing we must play this game if we want to play. </p>

<p>I understand your point on being an encourager, and that is really terrific. We all benefit from encouragement. </p>

<p>But your implication that a lesser ADMISSION candidate showed 'em how wrong they mighta been by becoming stellar USNA mids is comparing apples to oranges. They do not equate.</p>

<p>Once a candidate becomes a mid, the field is leveled and becomes a function of work, commitment, other forms of intelligence, practice, motivation, etc. The Academy has said … “this candidate is smart enough.”</p>

<p>The real encouragement is knowing with absolute certainty that our future is NOT a function of whether we or our children got 550 or 750 on the SAT math exam. That is merely the qualifying heat.</p>

<p>Hope this edifies my earlier thought.</p>

23

<p>Preach it, brother.</p>

<p>Next time I’m on the Yard, I’ll buy you a beer at the O-Club.</p>

<p>Or a grape juice. Whatever the hell. ;)</p>

24

<p>Even if the SAT were an accurate predictor (and I’m not saying it is), the fact that USNA takes the highest verbal & math means that some people simply get lucky. </p>

<p>For example, a person could take the test 5 times (horrors!!) and score 520, 550, 590, 700 and 570 on math. Guess which score shows up for USNA purposes? The 700. Is that score really reflective of this person’s overall mastery of the math portion of the SAT? Doesn’t matter. Highest score counts.</p>

<p>Whether they should or shouldn’t, SATs do matter with USNA in terms of being considered a candidate and in terms of admission. They aren’t the only thing and arguably aren’t even the most important thing. But they do matter. And, whether they should or shouldn’t, they do matter to citizen committees deciding on nominations. </p>

<p>Bottom line, it IS important to do well on the SAT/ACT for USNA purposes and certain folks should take the test over (and over, if necessary) to get a higher score to improve their chances of admission and/or obtaining a nom. However, the SAT is NOT a predictor of how well you’ll do at USNA (or any other school for that matter) and is NOT a measure of your intelligence.</p>

25

<p>Okay well I just wanted to thank everyone again for taking the time to respond to my post. Thanks again!</p>

26

<p>Whistle Pig You wrote:</p>

<p>“Just some clarification: There is no significant correlation between the standardized test scores, etc. required for admission and potential for successful academic performance…”</p>

<p>I have asked you to substantiate this statement but you did not choose to do so. Yet you challenge me to disprove your assertion… this is not fair. </p>

<p>I have done about 30 minutes of research and I cannot validate your assertion. Your best case perhaps comes from fairtest.org. And even they say that the SAT is weakly correlated with success. (A correlation coefficient of r=.22, or r=.27 depending on the study) The do not use the term insignificant. </p>

<p>In spite of jokes about “Military Intelligence” the military is not stupid. They know what they are doing. According to the book: “The Naval Academy Candidate Handbook: How to Prepare, How to Get In, How to Survive Second Edition”. The Naval Academy uses a scoring system called the “Whole Person Multiple.” The most important selection factor is Class Rank, next most important is Math SAT score, then the Verbal SAT Score. </p>

<p>Q: If SAT scores are not valuable in predicting success why does it rate so highly in the whole person scoring system? If you think the Naval Academy is going by gut feel you would be wrong. The Academies periodically reexamine the makeup and weight given to each component of the scoring system with all the military academies in the country there is no shortage of students willing to do thesis papers on this subject and others. I submit that the Academies would not be using this if their internal studies did not validate it. And they will stop using it when studies determine that it is prudent to do so.</p>

<p>Here is a link to a bunch of published studies that shows the type of things that have been studied. It is probably a small fraction of what it actually out there. I only mention this to show that the military is not bashful about studying itself. <a href=“http://www.stormingmedia.us/search.html?q=naval+academy+sat&search.x=0&search.y=0[/url]”>http://www.stormingmedia.us/search.html?q=naval+academy+sat&search.x=0&search.y=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>One interesting study I skimmed said that when a school admits a broad sprectrum of students (broad spectrum from an SAT score perspective) the SAT is a better predictor of success. This kind of makes sense, if you are MIT and you only take people who score 1500 on the SAT or better, then SAT would not be a very good predictor (because there will always be people who finish last), but if you are a school that admits all types of scorers: students who score highly and lowly and everthing in between the test is a better predictor at those schools. </p>

<p>One final note. I worked at a company that used multiple linear regression to study what factors determine who is more likely to renew their magazine subscription. We would get horrible regression scores among our test groups. Scores of r=.04 vs. r=.02 to a particular trait. I was taught in school that scores such as this were basically useless as predictors, yet experienced proved time and time again that we would make more money if we sent renewal offers to the popluation that scored r=.04 vs. the r=.02 population.</p>

<p>One more final note. Since the Naval Academy uses Class rank as it’s number 1 metric in it’s Whole person multiple it can provide an effective counter weight to the SAT for those that do not do well on the standardized tests. Every college that uses SAT in admission agrees to a set of standards put out by the collegeboard that states in part they they will not use SAT the sole determination in admissions. I think the SAT score has a place in the admissions process.</p>

27

<p>'85 - you nailed it. </p>

<p>It IS very important @ USNA because the institution IS one of those selective few and because it’s national/international in prospects. So the standardized test becomes a common thread to all applicants and it becomes a convenient, credible, much-needed selection hair-splitter that is independently administered and is found useful when an insitution has 10-14K applicants geographically dispersed, virtually all of whom are physically, academically, and medically fit, host a gazillion athletic letters and ECs, and whose parents vote.</p>

<p>And the real bottom line is … it doesn’t matter what we think. Like the tests, hate 'em. Wishful thinking is wasted thinking. The USNA looks at them hard, and keeps close tabs on every one of those 10-14K kiddoes and their scores. So no sense fretting over those things one cannot control.</p>

28

<p>Just one other thought…
some kids need an “extra year” of study- for whatever reason- there are lots of schools that offer a “PG” year of study for kids that are “just not ready”…just another option to consider! </p>

<p>Best of luck! Dreamon86- you still have time- practice with those SATs if you can- with a tutor if at all possible! Keep at it!</p>