Re: Fw: SAT

[aburke5054@aol.com]

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.