Yes there are. And, no, this data shouldn’t be expected to provide an indication of anything.
1 Like
(e.g., 650 or above in math? You’re good to go. Less than 550? Chances are you will struggle so you will need to take some remedial classes if we admit you)
It’s not that simple. One of the few things that studies on both sides of the debate agree on, is that SAT alone only explains a small minority of variance in outcome, including outcome for a particular class. For example, the previously noted UC task force study found that math SAT explained 7.4% of within course GPA in engineering classes. That 7.4% was statistically significant, but there is a much larger 92.6% of variation in engineering class grades that was not explained by math SAT. it doesn’t suggest anything resembling the strong relationship you describe.
Colleges also don’t consider it a failure, if students start out at different math levels. The colleges that are regularly discussed on this website typically give all freshmen a math placement test to determine appropriate starting point, giving students with weaker backgrounds a chance to to catch up. Large/medium sized colleges typically have a wide variety of starting points. For example, based on placement test, goals, and discussion, a Harvard student might start at any of the following math levels – Math Ma,b; 1a,b; 19a,b; 20; 21a,b; 23a,b; 25a,b; and 55a,b. The lowest level (MA) is a half normal speed calc/pre-calc type class, while Harvard’s website describes math 55 as “probably the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country”.
Does your college base admission on average HS GPA alone, without any context?
3 Likes
With head spinning I come at this with the default attitude that if there’s not a solid case for making something mandatory, then it ought to be a matter of choice for those affected by it - colleges on the one hand, which have a variety of institutional objectives (both within each and as among them all); and would-be students, who have many aptitudes, acquired skills and interests, not all of which can be packaged into excellence in a partiular kind of test-taking.
I have some sympathy for those who advocate mandatory SAT on the basis of its being a good tool to identify that type of bright test-taking youngster who does not have access to good schools or the chance to acquire a raft of ECs. I was that sort of kid myself once, and I have a tenderness for the species. But if the kid has his heart set on a school that happens to be TO, why not take the test without its being required? It will show the desired school something about you that you can’t show in any other way. If you’re a bright kid you’ll seize that opportunity - and think better of yourself, I’d say, because you had the gumption to do it on your own hook.
Sure it does. It indicates that UCB AOs are perfectly capable of evaluating applications without SAT/ACT scores and identifying and admitting students who are academically prepared to succeed, no less than in the past when SAT/ACT were used for admissions. There is no significant rise of failure among students admitted post-test-blind. Despite some complaining, there is little evidence of some kind of crisis of unprepared students which also implies that AOs are pretty good at using other factors to determine who is prepared and who isn’t. So how much added value does an SAT/ACT score add? For some individual students, there may be added value, but across the board, it doesn’t appear to greatly affect academic outcomes.
Well, if I had the time and energy I could control that variable by focusing on classes taught by the same instructor over time. That is available - you just have to dig. There are also sources for syllabi over time - so you could find classes taught by the same instructor pre and post test blind policy, then cross check the syllabi to ensure that the same materials is covered using the same texts, etc…No you can’t control every single variable, but you can certainly find a way to sufficienctly compare apples to apples to see whether or not there is a significant rise in unprepared students post test blind through assessment of change in failure rates in core classes. I don’t really have time to dig through all that, but my suspicion is you are unlikely to find that evidence.
1 Like
Based on just two classes with different professors over two different years? Nope.
I’ll say what I’ve said before - the problem with evaluating TO policies through the prism of elite schools is that most students there succeed. It would be more impactful to know whether TO policies have hurt outcomes at more “normal” or typical colleges where there are a wider range of students. Of course, it would be tough to assess now because of the educational impacts caused by covid.
6 Likes
As I said, you can dig through and find every class taught at UC Berkeley over several years with a breakdown by both instructor and semester/year, you can identify those taught multiple times pre and post testing policy by the same instructor, and you can even find the syllabi over time to cross reference. All of this is available for anyone with the time and energy to do a thorough study. That person is not me. From the evidence I have looked at - and I have skimmed more than these two classes - I just pulled these as examples - I see no evidence indicating that academic achievement has declined in any significant way pre and post test blind policy and I see no indication that students are overall coming in any less prepared than before. If you’d like to dig through the data more closely, be my guest.
1 Like
The broad and sweeping generalizations you are making based on the minimal data you provided are simply not credible. So, no thanks on that offer.
We do have data from DePaul, Ithaca, and Bates showing similar outcomes among TO vs test taking groups. Bowdoin hasn’t published their 50+ years of TO data, but verbally say there is not a significant difference. The DePaul data in particular was instrumental in spurring other schools to go TO (prior to the pandemic), and is how/why Jon Boeckenstedt rose to national prominence. I agree it will be difficult to assess outcomes for TO vs w/ test cohorts at schools that went TO during covid.
2 Likes
Again, there is tons of data available, you just have to dig through it. As I explained, I provided but two examples, Many, many more examples are available, inlcuding those taught over several years by the same instructor, including classes in other core areas, including lower division and upper division classes, including every academic department at Cal. I explained that in my post, but perhaps not clearly enough. There is far more data available to anyone who wants to dig in and take a look, so you are welcome to do that if you really want to see what’s going on. Or not do it, if you don’t. But I want to make sure it is clear that all of this data is available, not just the two examples I pulled from it. You can look at all of it, if that is your desire, and if you doubt my “broad and sweeping generalizes…based on minimal data.” The larger data set is publicly available for anyone who wants it.
The most rejective schools make it very hard to fail, given the rampant grade inflation that seems to be pervasive among them. But just because the kids don’t flunk out doesn’t mean that they don’t struggle to do the work.
SAT is a “general scholastic knowledge” exam that tests logic and recall under the pressure of time constraints. I’m not going to go so far as to say that a kid who scores a 1300 isn’t as intelligent as a kid who scores a 1560, but it can be said that, typically, the 1560 is more knowledgeable in the areas that are tested at the time of the exam.
(There are some kids who simply struggle with the pressure of a timed test, or other causes for testing difficulty; regardless, it is possible to know a whole lot, but be unable to produce/access that knowledge quickly. If such a kid is the 1300, then the test is not a valid measure of scholastic knowledge. That may introduce difficulties down the road, as time is money in many vocations… but that’s a discussion for another day and thread.)
Anyway, if schools have adequate remedial paths to help the less-prepared kids “catch up” – to help the 1300 kid catch up to the 1560 kid – that’s great. On more equal academic footing, they can stretch their academic legs and really take advantage of all the school has to offer.
I hardly ever contribute to SAT/ACT validity discussions because to me, there is no perfect solution: someone will be left out and feel wronged. I see merit in both main sides to this, and if I had to come forth with my own opinion, it would sound like a hybrid. Most folks seem to follow one of the following trains of thought:
- They consider the SAT/ACT a valid part of the formula for deciding which kids should be admitted to a school. There are two groups herein: first, those who believe the K-12 ed system is unfair (due to differences in opportunities/quality of instruction in different ZIP codes), but who still believe that the test is a decent measure for deciding which kids are prepared for college; and, second, the true ACT/SAT champions, who believe the test is a fair judge of knowledge/intelligence (a proxy IQ test) and that the highest scorers are best equipped to succeed at, and most deserving to be admitted to, the most rejective schools. They believe that higher GPA + higher test score = more deserving to be admitted.
This camp tends to believe that the SAT/ACT are helpful in differentiating the 3.8-4.0 GPA students, given the profligate grade inflation in high schools. They also tend to believe that TO obfuscates the decision-making process, making it more difficult to find matches, safeties, and reaches. TO is anti-high achiever!
- They consider the SAT/ACT invalid, unfair, and/or unnecessary, and schools that are TO or test-blind are right to be so. They believe much more in holistic admissions: first, that it is right for a school to put demographics above the hard numbers in an application (GPA/tests) for the purpose of building a diverse class; and second, that it is the right of a school to decide how to fashion its class. Nobody “deserves” to be admitted – the school gets to decide, and rightly so! This group likely does not side with the recent SCOTUS decision to remove race as a factor in admissions, as it makes building a diverse class more difficult on its face.
To this group, scores should be viewed in context: a 1500 is only better than a 1300 if they were achieved in the same ZIP code. And who cares if it points to the preparedness or work ethic of the applicant? Nobody drops out of the Ivies+ anyway.
- They believe in a hybrid of the two: yes, SAT and ACT have some merit – and stats generally have merit (including GPA, APs, etc.) – but TO is okay because it does help to build a more diverse class.
That’s enough of a book. I tried. lol
ETA: I attempted this spur-of-the-moment summary because we are enduring blizzard conditions at the moment, and things are pretty dead here at work.
6 Likes
In the case of Yale, nearly 80% of the class receive A or A- grades. Anecdotally, rigorous schools like U of C and MIT have experienced recent grade inflation, too.
If these Ivy plus schools are trying to identify factors contributing to why some admitted students struggle academically, they only need to focus on the bottom ~5% of the class who do. The factors are probably multifactorial and not just the result of being unprepared. Many of these schools require incoming students to take pre-tests before arriving, so they can be placed in the correct academic lanes. I don’t think it’s necessary or useful for them to use required standardized test scores (specifically SAT/ACT) to help them try to identify this at-risk student population. There are other methods.
As an aside, their graduation rate stats are phenomenal. How much better can they realistically improve it?
1 Like
My and my colleagues’ perception of the importance of SAT math indeed runs counter to the UC study. Factors that may have led to the discrepancy include:
(1) The state I’m in, which supplies an overwhelming majority of applicants to my school, is ranked in the bottom 10 in the 2022 ranking of SAT math scores by states. California is in the middle of the pack, significantly ahead of my state.
(2) Due in part to (1), my school’s 75th percentile SAT score is in the same ballpark as UC Berkeley’s 25th, UC Irvine’s 50th, and UC Merced’s 75th before they went test blind. So we are kinda like the “worst” UC.
(3) SAT is not designed to differentiate students with high math aptitude (everyone good enough gets near 800), but some engineering classes are. Due to (2), compared to students at my school, a higher percentage of UC students are at where SAT math becomes “insensitive.” This may have contributed to the UC study’s conclusion that SAT math scores aren’t that useful, a conclusion that may not hold up for my school or schools in the same tier.
(4) My colleagues and I are in a math-heavy discipline of engineering, whereas the UC study considered students across all engineering disciplines. It is likely our perception of the importance of SAT math has been skewed by our above-average need for good math fundamentals. We may not have developed this bias if we were teaching, say, programming, or were at “better” schools.
It would be interesting to see the result of applying the methodology of the UC study to students at my school or schools in the same tier. Anyone in need of a dissertation topic? 
4 Likes
Just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading your analysis of this.
…it also made me think of a few things (this isn’t directed at you personally though):
- I think it’s a little messed up that a 1300 SAT score now could be considered as ‘remedial.’
- there’s many flavors of ice cream in the Baskin & Robbins 31 flavors of “where should my kid go to college” topic.
- the media focuses a lot on the headliner elite Ivy+ schools because that’s what sells newspapers & gets clicks/reads online.
- the process is frustrating for students & parents who’ve bought into the long-held belief that there’s a specific formula or recipe for getting into an Ivy+ (aka " get above a 4.0 & a 1600 SAT/36 ACT and you can go anywhere"). That frustration can turn into anger & resentment when they learn of classmates or other people they know who go into Prestige U with lower stats than they had.
6 Likes
Such parents are clearly uninformed about selective school admissions 
3 Likes
I’m using the 1300 in the context of the most rejective schools. I chose 1300 arbitrarily, and of course it’s a good score per se: within the 25/75 distribution at many schools, and above it at some.
1 Like
Agreed. From the consumer’s perspective, it sucks. One can argue that there is too much subjectivity with the admissions process. From the perspective of the prestige universities, it’s all part of their plan- which is working very well for them.
2 Likes
Even very talented, high-scoring students who find themselves at elite colleges but who come from average (or below) high schools can feel like they’re scrambling. My husband (who I met at our very mediocre, rural HS) had a 4.0, and scored a 1500+ on his SAT (in the early 90s), plus got two 800s on his math and physics subject tests. He took the only 2 or 3 AP classes our school offered and got 5s. While several kids in our class had 4.0, his test scores were a differentiator and he was admitted to multiple Ivy+ colleges. He attended Harvard and majored in physics. He was shocked at the level of preparedness from his peers who had taken college level math in HS that he simply didn’t have access to. He’s a brilliant man–then and now–and did very well, but he still had to work harder because what was review for some was brand new to him. Had he not been able to keep up, he would have had to change his major, which is likely what many students who are in over their heads do. Was it right to admit them in the first place? Or would they be better off majoring in their chosen field, but in a less competitive environment? Reasonable people can disagree, but I think there’s a strong argument that the “elite” college name isn’t important enough–even for more disadvantaged students–than a good “fit” college that allows them flourish, just perhaps not at Harvard or MIT. My husband is now working alongside many people who didn’t attend elite colleges and are making as much money (or more) and have great careers. Since, by definition, most people don’t attend highly selective (or rejective, depending on the lens), society isn’t set up for only those people to succeed.
What gets you in the door of a school and even the grades once you’re there don’t tell the full story. A student’s level of preparation–not just raw intellectual firepower–makes a difference in how you’re perceived (by yourself and others) relative to your peers. The admissions committee can and should consider context, but peers and professors aren’t as generous. Once you’re there, you either can keep up…or not. Data appears to show the test scores provide valuable information about a student’s likelihood to keep up with the peer group.
I think scores become more relevant in grade-inflated school system; scores act as an “accountability” factor in terms of contextualizing a student’s GPA. I think scores might become more important, not less–and not just to elite schools, but to colleges that admit 30%-60% of applicants but still have very strong student bodies. If everyone has a 4.0 (or close to it), how can a school differentiate? This doesn’t mean scores can’t be considered in context–they are and they should be–but we all know that not every 4.0 is the same.
7 Likes
The transcripts and HS profiles do typically allow admissions readers to differentiate between students from an academic perspective. Then the essays and LoRs give additional refinement, and yes sometimes even test scores. It’s really not that complicated!
2 Likes
Yep. Our school’s counselor said that they send a detailed HS profile to each college that each student applies to and it includes an overview of the HS’s required curriculum for graduation.
I do think that the profile from the counselor, along with the counselor LOR & other non-test score items, made an impact in D24 getting accepted to a college that has about a 45% acceptance rate, even though D24 has a 3.22 UW GPA at the end of 11th grade and some C’s on her transcript. The 2 counselors at our HS have told parents that getting a B at this HS is like getting an A at the local public HS. And the head of admissions at the 45% acceptance rate college told DH & I after an info session last year that they were really familiar with our school’s more difficult curriculum and take that into account when doing the GPA recalculation.
I’m glad that not all colleges are turbo on requiring SAT/ACT. I’m glad that students have options.
Heck, there’s over 2500 4-year colleges & universities in the United States, so there’s certainly a lot of flavors of ice cream out there!
2 Likes