[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fw: SAT

Maybe the College Board figures that colleges are responsible enough to do their own work.

Big schools get many thousands of applications more than they can admit. Is it only because admissions committees are lazy that they use SAT?

Is SAT necessary? Surely not Is it useful? For many schools, definitely.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: GERALD BRACEY <gbracey1@verizon.net>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: SAT


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 th
at 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 o
f 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

=0
A
------------------------------------------------ 

Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net 






Post a Message to arn-l:

Your name:

Your email address: (use the exact address you are subscribed with)

Subject line:

Message: