SAT scores flat in Georgia, nation. Too few kids taking higher-level courses? (middle school, college)

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

Honestly, I don't see why so many focus primarily on SAT. Many studies have shown that it is not an end all predictor of college success. GPA is more of a predictor than SAT.

Also children of parents who make more money do better on SAT, this is a fact so if you want your kid to do well on it, it would be better just to make a higher than average income and send them to a good SAT Prep course.

I'm sure all of the schools above me are find schools, but really it is disheartening that so many people focus on these test as if they will be the primary factor in college admissions. Students have many strengths and weaknesses that cannot be measured by any standardized test and even though I am a proponent of being proficient in core subjects - especially math, reading and writing, I just do not get the obsession of people in regards to this test.

I took it in high school, along with ACT and did above average. And now-a-days most top colleges do not even put a lot of weight into it since the study by UC Berkley a few years ago that showed it had no correlation to college success. I have younger, high school aged family members, about 3 are looking at college right now and we have been to college fairs and one of them is interested in Ivy leagues. When we spoke to a Harvard admission rep, they said that they look for students who score in the top 10% of their class in regards to academic readiness and that SAT or ACT is looked at but that the top 10% are the students who have the work ethic to be successful in college. They have the drive to work hard and want to achieve over a longer period of time versus students who do test prep then cram for SAT or ACT.

Also essays are of primary importance and community service/activities. Basically - well rounded candidates and not test freaks (like myself I might add as I am a weirdo and actually love standardized test because I just find them fascinating and very easy to crack once you take a good prep course). So if GA students are scoring in the "average" range, I don't really see a problem with that. If they were severely below average, it would be an issue, but average is average and even though it took me a long time to come to this mindset (I am a test freak and was a crazy academic in school and obsessive about getting good grades - I was a TAG student though and most of my classmates were weirdos like me lol) about my own kids - that they don't have to be crazy academics like I was, that if they know the basic stuff and can get a "B" average, then it is okay.

This post a thousand times.

Awesome. Well said.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

There was a study done by UC Berkeley, which I mentioned in my post, that showed that SAT is not a sole determinant in college success, which is what I am referencing - that SAT by itself is not a predictor of college success, you evidently agree with me so don't understand the eye rolls.

Also, many top schools are going the 10% route due to GPA combined with a decent SAT score is a good predictor of success in college.

The information you mentioned in your first paragraph is the reason that a lot of schools do not put SAT as the primary factor for admission. Different students in different districts can be taught at varying levels. I actually do believe SAT is a good reflection of what a student has learned thus far in his/her academic career, but IMO if a student scores low, that often means that their education from K-12 was lacking, not that they cannot learn or do well on a college level so it is a correlation moreso between the educational system in our state as a whole versus being proof that an individual student should not go to a particular college.

Smart kids in all schools do smart things. They are dedicated in learning and getting the most from their schools as they can. I don't see the difference in a smart kid in your school being better than a smart kid in a school that underperforms. If anything, due to the culture at the underperforming school, I would see that smart kid as "better" since they don't have the benefit of focusing primarily on academics. They have more distractions and stresses in their school environments. Many of them may not have educated parents who know the importance of doing well in school - yet the kid with the 4.5 at the "bad school" still strives for the 4.5 and to many college admissions counselors, that stands for something. You cannot teach a child focus, determination, drive, or character and smart kids in challenging environments probably have more of all of those than a similarly situated smart kid in a more academically rigorous environment.

[residinghere2007]

Originally Posted by tandons2374

ok. From middle school onwards there is no class as such. All the students take different classes/ courses like regular or advanced placement in all the subjects and so is in high school So do they see how many students have taken that subject & calculate it for each subject. I would be thankful if you could explain it to me.

Usually class rank isn't as much of a factor until the high school level. I only know my son's because we have a very small school.

A lot of times on report cards in high school they will tell you your child's rank and percentage. They did at my high school in the 90s. The class rank is not about one or two classes, but about cumulative GPA. Schools then compare the individual student's GPA to others to determine their rank. You get the percentage by dividing that rank by the total number of students in her graduating class. If your daughter is in 7th grade, all the students in 7th grade at her school are her "graduating class."

The rank is based solely on cumulative GPA - meaning in high school the GPA for all years that you child is in high school, not the quarter/semester GPA. All the kids in your daughter's graduating class have a cumulative GPA. The children with the best cumulative GPAs are in the top of the rank. The kids with the worst are in the bottom. You can find the percentage that your child is in by dividing her rank by the total number of children in her graduating class.

Say her cumulative GPA is the 12th best out of 100 students that would be 12 (position)/100(total number of students) = 12%. That would be her rank and percentage.

More weight is given for AP courses when calculating GPAs. They usually are one point higher than a "regular" class. So if someone gets an A in AP English, they could exceed the 4.00 scale because an AP "A" counts at 5.00 points. AP has and still causes a lot of controversy being that many people do not like that it inflates the GPA and class rank of a student as many feel that AP courses at particular schools are not as rigorous as AP courses at other schools, which is true IMO. So one could do a whole thread about AP and the controversies people have about it.

[tandons2374]

Thank you residinghere2007 I appreciate your time. Got it now.

[SAAN]

I dont think you can get a real accurate rating on SAT scores at times. Lets compare a N Dekalb School with a S Dekalb school. Redan High school area tends to have more trouble makers in it that than will do nothing with their life after they graduate vs Dunwoody or Chamblee area, simply based off location. So when these trouble makers in Redan take these tests and get a very low score as expected, it will make Redan look bad, even though their good kids scores are right on par with someone in N Dekalb. The same thing with City of Atlanta, if you have a higher percentage of kids that will do nothing after they graduate vs N Fulton, the N Fulton scores will generally be higher because they have less of those types of kids to bring their test scores down. So the end is the usual unfair comparison of N Dekalb scores better than S Dekalb, but not factoring in the less distractions in N Dekalb schools. Same comparison can be made nation wide just about anywhere.

[SKB007]

Surprising results..

[ChefRamsey]

Originally Posted by SKB007

Surprising results..

How so? Was that sarcasm?

[arjay57]

Very well said, residinghere. I heard a piece on NPR just a couple of days ago about the SAT fighting for survival.

Bob Schaeffer, head of FairTest, a longtime opponent of standardized testing, says the College Board is intent on hitching the future of the SATs to the Common Core, which the board's Coleman helped write. It's a business decision to try to keep the SAT relevant, says Schaeffer.

"The number of SAT test takers actually declined from 2012-2013," Schaeffer says. "You need to do something to preserve your market share for financial survival."

More students take the ACT than the SAT, but the biggest reason the SAT is fighting for its survival, says Schaeffer, is that it's not the predictor of college success it claims to be.

"Look, the strongest correlation between SAT scores and virtually anything is family income: The higher your family income, the higher your scores. It's one of the major reasons so many campuses are populated by upper-income kids and not the needy kids who need the opportunity," Schaeffer says.

As for the College Board's push to help more minority kids have greater access to honors and Advanced Placement courses, Schaeffer says that, too, is a marketing ploy.

More...College Board 'Concerned' About Low SAT Scores : NPR

[lastminutemom]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Very well said, residinghere. I heard a piece on NPR just a couple of days ago about the SAT fighting for survival.

That may be the case, but for now, the SAT (or ACT) is an important tool used in college evaluations.

There is simply no clear way for colleges to evaluate the transcripts of 10s of thousands of applicants (yes some schools get that many) and know for certain that the rigor of the courses are the same.

As some one who has been very active in DeKalb, for example, I can tell you that there are students coming out of Lakeside high school with a 3.0 average who are far better students and have worked harder than students with a 3.5 from say Towers or McNair. The SAT score can tell a picture.

What has changed, over the years, is this. When I applied to college back in the dark ages (30 years ago or so), a student with an "eh" GPA and good to great SAT/ACT scores could get into many competitive colleges. Not so much today. Colleges have figured out that an "eh" GPA and high test scores often indicates a slacker.

As to the point about Harvard, they may look at GPA first, but trust me they are still looking at test scores. From their own data, the middle 50 percent of applicant who were accepted and attending had scores in SAT reading between 690-790 and Math 700-800. 800 is a perfect score. This means that the upper 25 of accepted students had perfect scores. Writing had the same range as Reading. So, they can say it doesn't matter, but it does. (For the record, 91 percent had GPAs above 3.75. Smart kids.

A great tool to use when researching colleges is their own data -- simply google Common Data Set and the colleges name and you should get several years worth of data on any school. They are required to have the data.

[MattCW]

Don't forget that Georgia pushes everyone to take the SAT while it's selective in the northern states. So they're only comparing their higher-end students anyways, while we compare everyone.