Re: Fw: SAT

["GERALD BRACEY" <gbracey1@verizon.net>]

If the SAT's power varies with university, why does the College Board even
bother to put out national data?  It's a sham.  The SAT is mostly useful for
recruiting high school students by showing them how wonderful their peers
will be, for easing the workload on lazy admissions committees, and for
liberating money from alumni.  And remember, these correlations are only
with FRESHMAN grades.  After that...forget it.

JB

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <aburke5054@aol.com>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: SAT


> An increase of 0.08 in predictive power could have significant
> implications for the quality of the student body, the workforce, or
> whatever - Taylor and Russell showed that around 1940.
>
> Note too that these relationships could be different at different
> institutions that attract different student bodies.  Some institutions may
> find that SAT adds even more to HS grades.  You want to argue that the
> only reason schools use SAT is that they have been conned into it, more
> power to you.
>
> Art
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GERALD BRACEY <gbracey1@verizon.net>
> To: arn-l@interversity.org
> Sent: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 2:24 pm
> Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: SAT
>
> Loos to me like the table shows that the three parts of the SAT are
> incredibly correlated.  You get .48, .47, and .51 from each part alone and
> only .53 for all three taken together.  Whether or not and increase of .08
> in predictive power (.54 vs .62) is worthwhile probably depends on whether
> or not you're making a lot of money from the test.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <aburke5054@aol.com>
> To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: SAT
>
>
> > I don't know how amusing this is, but the following is Table 5 from
> the
> > recent CB validity study:
> >
> > Unadjusted and Adjusted Correlations of Predictors with FYGPA
> >
> > 1. HSGPA                                            0.36     0.54
> > 2. SAT-CR                                            0.29     0.48
> > 3. SAT-M                                              0.26     0.47
> > 4. SAT-W                                             0.33     0.51
> > 5. SAT-M, SAT-CR                                0.32     0.51
> > 6. HSGPA, SAT-M, SAT-CR                  0.44      0.61
> > 7. SAT-CR, SAT-M, SAT-W                   0.35     0.53
> > 8. HSGPA, SAT-CR, SAT-M, SAT-W      0.46    0.62
> >
> > Clearly, HSGPA and SAT together have more predictive punch than
> either
> > alone.  Note too that if A and B have equal correlation with C is
> does not
> > follow that A and B are redundant in predicting C.  The ability of A
> and B
> > together to predict C is, other things equal, a function of the
> overlap
> > between A and B.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George K Cunningham <gkc@louisville.edu>
> > To: arn-l@interversity.org
> > Sent: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 1:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: SAT
> >
> > Historically, the SAT was a slightly better predictor of first year
> in
> > college GPA than High School GPA.  In the latest research they appear
> to
> > be equal predictors, but the two combined is a much better predictor
> than
> > either by themselves.
> >
> > George K. Cunningham
> > Professor, Ret.
> >
> > > > > "GERALD BRACEY" <gbracey1@verizon.net> 7/15/2008 1:56 PM >>>
> > This letter appears in today's Washington Post.  Monty, Bob and some
> other
> > ARNers will recognize this as the same argument that engendered a
> > long-running, acrimonious dispute between George Hanford, then
> President
> > of the College Board, and SAT critic, Jim Crouse (The Case Against
> the
> > SAT, 1988, with Dale Trusheim).  It will be amusing to see what, if
> > anything, the Board has to say this time around.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: GERALD BRACEY
> > To: letters@washpost.com
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:04 AM
> > Subject: SAT
> >
> >
> > Laurence Bunin of the College Board inadvertently gives the game away
> in
> > his letter defending the SAT.  He wrote "Recent data compiled by the
> > College Board show that the SAT...is almost precisely as predictive
> of
> > college success as are four full years of high school."  In other
> words,
> > the SAT is redundant with grades and useless.  As long as you've got
> the
> > high school record, you don't need the SAT.
> >
> > Carl Campbell Brigham, the principal developer of the SAT, saw it a
> > "merely as a supplementary record" and the question has always been,
> "When
> > the SAT is added to the high school record, does it increase the
> accuracy
> > of predictions about college success."  It does not.
> >
> > Gerald W. Bracey
> > 1797 Duffield Lane
> > Alexandria, VA 22307
> > 703-317-1716
> >
> > The writer is a former Director of Research, Evaluation, and Testing
> for
> > the Virginia Department of Education and author of Put to the Test:
> An
> > Educator's and Consumer's Guide to Standardized Testing.