The Tests are not Strongly Correlated with College Success
It is easy to forget that the purpose of the SAT or ACT is not to issue a judgment on a student's intelligence, but is instead supposed to offer us a prediction of how well the student will perform in college. Throughout the years, ETS and ACT have tried to prove that their tests are great indicators of "college success." They have not been able to do so convincingly. SAT's latest study showed that the New SAT, for example, performs no better at predicting Freshman college grades than the Old SAT and that neither the New or the Old test perform better than...high school GPA.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
From my reading of the literature around the SAT and ACT, neither claims to be "strongly correlated with college success". Both claim a moderate correlation with freshman-year GPA, and have evidence to support that claim. For better or worse, the standardized tests are just that--standardized--in ways that high school experiences, classes, and grades are not. It allows a direct comparison of students, and since colleges are risking their resources on the candidates they admit, the "level playing field" helps them pick the most likely students to make it through and become contributing alumni.
I've never seen anything that claims to relate to "college success" because no one can really define that term. There are a lot of ways one could claim "success" from a college experience, and graduation may not be the sole one.
I am currently a freshman in college and could not agree more with the fact that schools should not base their acceptance on SAT scores. I had a good GPA, was involved in numerous extracurricular activities, and was the captain of two Varsity sports. Starting my Junior year in high school, I took SAT classes several days a week. I knew that I was a poor test taker so I felt that two years of a prep class would prepare me enough. When I got my SAT scores back, I was extremely disappointed to see that they did not meet the requirements of any of my top choices, and although I still applied, I was rejected. I am a great student, and was not accepted to colleges because I am a poor test taker. Is that fair?
i've seen all too often high school athletes, and even now that i'm in college the athletes here that get very close to free rides, because of their sport, and they also seem to have a way to milk the system. If the SAT was your only reason for not getting into your top schools you must have seriously bombed it, and honestly it was probably for the best
Admission is not based solely on SAT/ACT scores. Universities typically have an and/or requirement...that is a certain combination of SAT/ACT and GPA. Don't blame your bitterness on the fact that you were rejected because you did not meet that requirement. You do know you can always appeal the decision, don't you?
ECA's and being captain of two varsity sports should be irrelevant in admission standards. As mentioned, admission standards overall are way too low. Only about the top 1/3 of all graduating seniors should qualify to enter into college, but the fact is we let just anyone in and that's just not right.
Yes, you're right that Colleges don't judge SOLELY on SAT, BUT it is a big part on getting into college . Here are the reasons why this is unfair in my opinion.
a. Language is made up MAINLY to communicate, and to get ideas across, it's not made to be used to determine a person's success in college. (FYI- 2/3 of the SAT grading scale is based on the English language- Writing + Critical Reading)
b. People coming from wealthier parts tend to do better on the SAT and other standard tests. ( My theory is that they got more tutoring opportunity than the less wealthy families).
c. Having a bad memory reduces your chance of getting a good score on the SAT, now Einstein had a pretty bad memory, but that's where mathematics kick in to our aid. Math doesn't require as much memorization as English, so we could excel in that instead of grammar, vocabularies, and writing.
d. People get nervous during tests, or they're naturally a bad test taker, you can't determine someone's success based on how well they could fill in bubbles.
e. The SAT system is "protecting" English language speakers, as you can see from the statistics of the 2007 SAT scores, whites tend to score better than all other races in 2/3 of the english sections, making up for their mathematics score. If you weren't a English speaker, you're at a disadvantage.
There are many more reasons concerning this topic, but this is all I'm going to give. The SAT is amazingly unfair. It's a pity that people have to go through this. Let's say if someone is very good in math and science and here comes this test that is based heavily on Language arts, what does he do? He definitely wants to get in a good college, so he studies. Now, it takes years to build up strong vocabulary fundamentals for the SAT, and he could have been excelling in his true passion/talent. This is the most unfair system I have seen in the 21st century, they should have a reform on this as soon as possible.
You are correct in noting that the process does not rely exclusively on SAT/ACT scores. However, my point (and I think Ismeraldi's point) is that the scores don't match up with any other portion of college success.
And where does your "1/3 of seniors" statistic come from?
But it should be. We let WAY too many idiots into college that have no business in college. So maybe not a percentage but a higher GPA. I'm saying we need much more stringent admission standards.
I'm sorry, but a "C" level high school GPA is not college material. A "B" really isn't either.
I can respect that you feel that college admissions are not stringent enough, but saying "it should be" or "we all know this" is not a substitute for evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
The issue here is the ACT or SAT. Let's leave debates like "Should college be harder to get admitted to?" to other debates.
Does scoring well on the SAT/ACT increase the probability of attending graduate school?
You are correct in noting that the process does not rely exclusively on SAT/ACT scores. However, my point (and I think Ismeraldi's point) is that the scores don't match up with any other portion of college success.
And where does your "1/3 of seniors" statistic come from?