Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One observation: I've noticed that a lot of folks mischaracterize the issue by asking whether test scores are a better predictor of college performance than GPA. But that's not the question we have to answer. It's whether GPA alone is a better predictor than GPA and test scores.
But even if it ever were true that GPA outperforms test scores, it's almost certainly not true now, for the myriad reasons mentioned here. And at no point has GPA alone ever outperformed GPA plus scores.
Colleges are going back because GPA was not a good indicator- grade inflation
We need to be clear on what test we're talking about. As I noted, there is a difference between standardized testing in general and the SAT/ACT in specific.
Since this thread is about the SAT and ACT, obviously I am talking about the SAT and ACT.
Quote:
Again to me that's merely a random noise that everyone deals with. Everyone has a Mr E somewhere along the way. Net result is their impact cancels each other out over the vast majority of college going students.
But that is not true. The premise of this thread is that too many students are getting 4.0's, meaning that too many students never get a Mr. E.
Quote:
Not sure what you mean by that statement? If you let me know how you're interpreting our differences, perhaps I can answer better. We're not that different as far as I know. What I care about for students is that they all get the appropriate education for them as individuals, not one size fits none.
We've discussed that before.
Quote:
Grade inflation is bit of a different issue from Mr E. Grade inflation would water down the impact since everyone gets a Mr E sometime, it will have even less impact on the GPA.
Again, I disagree, since the fact that many students are getting a 4.0 means that they aren't getting Mr. E.
One observation: I've noticed that a lot of folks mischaracterize the issue by asking whether test scores are a better predictor of college performance than GPA. But that's not the question we have to answer. It's whether GPA alone is a better predictor than GPA and test scores.
But even if it ever were true that GPA outperforms test scores, it's almost certainly not true now, for the myriad reasons mentioned here. And at no point has GPA alone ever outperformed GPA plus scores.
That is a very good point. The more factors available to compare students, the better. Removing a method of evaluation does not help anybody. In fact, I would say that the combination of high grades and poor SAT scores, or high SAT scores and poor grades should both be red flags.
Since this thread is about the SAT and ACT, obviously I am talking about the SAT and ACT.
.
You conflated my position on standardized testing in general with my position on SAT/ACT. I was explaining the difference in my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
But that is not true. The premise of this thread is that too many students are getting 4.0's, meaning that too many students never get a Mr. E.
Again, I disagree, since the fact that many students are getting a 4.0 means that they aren't getting Mr. E.
If students aren't getting Mr E, then what's the issue? Your fundamental premise is that your whole future is determined by some random teacher in some random grade in some random subject. I simply reject that premise.
You conflated my position on standardized testing in general with my position on SAT/ACT. I was explaining the difference in my position.
If students aren't getting Mr E, then what's the issue? Your fundamental premise is that your whole future is determined by some random teacher in some random grade in some random subject. I simply reject that premise.
In my case, it meant the difference between a full scholarship to one of the colleges that meets your standards, vs either paying full price (and a lifetime of debt) to go to that school, or (as I chose) a full scholarship to a college that does not meet your standards. If the SAT and ACT are eliminated, then the stakes are even higher.
One observation: I've noticed that a lot of folks mischaracterize the issue by asking whether test scores are a better predictor of college performance than GPA. But that's not the question we have to answer. It's whether GPA alone is a better predictor than GPA and test scores.
But even if it ever were true that GPA outperforms test scores, it's almost certainly not true now, for the myriad reasons mentioned here. And at no point has GPA alone ever outperformed GPA plus scores.
Why do you say that? If SAT / ACT scores are not available, and more and more teachers use grade inflation and give undeserved A's, who gets into college comes down to who gets the few teachers who refuse to partake in grade inflation. In my case, as I keep saying, Mr. G gave everybody an A in AP Bio, Mr. E gave nobody an A. If all other teachers give everybody and A, and there is no SAT or ACT score, the only way to differentiate is between who gets an A in AP Bio (those who were randomly assigned Mr. G) vs those who get a B in AP Bio (those who were randomly assigned Mr. E). At least in my era, there were SAT and ACT scores to differentiate students, and there were presumably other teachers in the school besides Mr. E who didn't practice grade inflation.
I'm sure that somebody here is going to argue that you learned more with Mr. E. Even if that were true, colleges only see your grades, not how much knowledge is in your brain. Also. Mr. E's students and Mr. G's students had similar AP scores, so it seems that their teaching was equal quality.
At least in my day, getting Mr. E would be one of those life isn't fair life lessons, but it would not necessarily be fatal to your future plans. Having Mr. E would mean that an Ivy League college was not an option, but there are plenty of other good schools that are not Ivy League. Having Mr. E would mean that you'd not be eligible for a scholarship at many colleges, but there were still other colleges that would offer you a scholarship.
However, if there is nothing else to differentiate students besides that one grade, that makes the Mr. G vs Mr. E lottery a higher stakes game than it was in my day. So the college admissions process would favor those who would game the system and find a way to game themselves into Mr. G's class rather than Mr. E's class. And, I'm sure the more influential parents would make sure that their kids get Mr. G. In reality, who is likely to be the better student. The student who accepts that life isn't fair and accepts the challenge of having Mr. E, and accepts that the grade won't reflect his/her effort, and gets a B? Or the student whose runs away from his/her challenges, and whose parents go crying to the administration, and insist that they get switched to Mr. G's class, and gets an A. Obviously the former student, but if colleges have nothing else to compare the students, they will accept or give the scholarship to the later student.
A few other things to keep in mind. Having one hard teacher does not mean just one lower grade. It means spending more time on that class, which means less time on other classes, so all of your grades go down (although maybe that's not an issue in schools where almost every teacher gives an A). Also, as I said before, without SAT / ACT sores, the only other factors besides grades are extracurriculars and "leadership". The way Mr. E's class was structured, it was nearly impossible if you had an extracurricular activity that required a significant amount of time on weekends. The way his class was structured, you'd have an outline of the next chapter due every Monday (or first day of the week if Monday was a holiday), and an exam on that chapter every Friday (or last day of the week if Friday was a holiday), and it did not matter how short the week was or how long the chapter was. The outlines would require a very significant amount of time every weekend, so his class was essentially impossible if you had any activity that took up most of your weekends. No, you could not just do the outline during the week, ahead of time, since you'd be studying for the Friday exam on the current chapter!
I think there are 2 types of people who oppose standardized exams. Ironically, they work against each other. One is the people who feel that "soft skills" and "leadership" should be bigger factors in college admissions. Such people would argue that grades favor students with better soft skills, and that maybe schools assign students with better soft skills to the better teachers. But, as I said upthread, focusing heavily on factors such as extracurriculars and "leadership" actually discriminates against poorer students (disproportionately likely to be minorities). The other group is the people who claim that standardized tests somehow discriminate against poor people and minorities. But, this thread shows how eliminating the SAT and ACT actually hurts minorities more than it helps them, since the alternatives work against poorer people more so than the exams do.
Tagged for later. I owe you a much better explanation and just don't have time now.
One observation: I've noticed that a lot of folks mischaracterize the issue by asking whether test scores are a better predictor of college performance than GPA. But that's not the question we have to answer. It's whether GPA alone is a better predictor than GPA and test scores.
But even if it ever were true that GPA outperforms test scores, it's almost certainly not true now, for the myriad reasons mentioned here. And at no point has GPA alone ever outperformed GPA plus scores.
Just thinking about this while talking to someone else. I agree with your points, but would extend them to the whole person concept. It's a combination of grades + SAT/ACT scores + performance in other venues such as sports, JROTC, clubs, Scouts, community, etc. Questions of grit and determination play a part in how well someone does in college as well as afterward.
Just thinking about this while talking to someone else. I agree with your points, but would extend them to the whole person concept. It's a combination of grades + SAT/ACT scores + performance in other venues such as sports, JROTC, clubs, Scouts, community, etc. Questions of grit and determination play a part in how well someone does in college as well as afterward.
Agree with all that. And somebody who drops any class that he/she is getting a B in, or games the system to get easy teachers lacks grit and determination, but they are the people who do the best in college admissions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
