<p>
</p>
<p>All the reasons included in this quote simply allude to some changes, but there’s no indication of how those factors defend your enduring mindset that test scores hold no significant importance beyond a certain mark. You’re simply scattershotting some changes to the SAT since this study was completed, with no actual attempt to reason (even erroneously) why these might a) affect the study’s reliability, and b) support your argument. I can’t think of one credible reason why an increase in test preparation, super-scoring, score choice, and, most ridiculously, applicant pool increases would support the notion of philosophical changes in SAT score-use, where a unique cutoff or diminishing sensitivity is placed on the high-end of the scale (the opposite of reality). Increased takings and an increased scale don’t have any effect on the validity of the data. Supporting any effects from increased preparation, super-scoring, and score choice, even in a very tenuous sense, requires providing evidence that schools (or at least the ones under question in the RPR) are obtaining inflated score sets and becoming less able to objectively discriminate among students given the SAT (or ACT) credential is yielding more homogenous high-end results. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, for whatever a verbal survey statement is worth, the percentage of colleges which give “considerable performance” to admission test scores has increased from 46% in 1993 to 60% in 2006 (Source: National Association for College Admission Counseling via Espenshade’s 2009 SAT-themed paper). </p>
<p>You can also find the exact same trend in each year’s website statistics (for all RPR-studied schools) and is concurrently supported through Espenshade’s standardized testing work. It’s not this evolving process where test scores are becoming more immaterial. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your charge that super-scoring has a confounding effect on admissions data interpretation is incorrect. Just one data set (consisting of three section scores) belongs to each individual student, not two or more. </p>
<p>Super-scoring entails that the highest section marks are taken for evaluation across relevant sittings. In your above hypothetical, evaluation would consist solely of a combined total of 800/800/750. The two 750’s achieved in the first slots would be discarded from evaluation since they were superseded by higher scores (the 800’s). Therefore, those 750’s would not count toward the data set because they weren’t evaluated per Brown’s score-use policy. If that student were to be accepted, the 800 echelon for the first two sections would receive admit tallies, while the corresponding 750-790 categories would not because the student wasn’t evaluated at that score level in light of higher section totals through the super-score. The 750-790 category would also receive an admit tally for the third section. </p>
<p><a href=“There%20is%20no%20info%20on%20dual-takers%20that%20I%20can%20easily%20find.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Each institution has a standardized testing page on its College Board profile, showing relative percentages of those who took the SAT and those who took the ACT. Finding overlap percentage is as simple as adding up the percentages of both and subtracting that from 100. </p>
<p>According to what most admissions offices say, the college takes the score most favorable to the student for purposes of evaluation. Yet, both scores (best composite for ACT, best section scores for SAT) are included in the data sets released as public information. </p>
<p>It seems to me that your criticisms stem from how you, personally, would like the SAT to be treated in admissions employing very selective criteria, and not how it genuinely does affect admissions.</p>