[JustAnotherFan]

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned.  The study clearly said that SATs help predict outcomes.  For some metrics better than GPA and for others about the same.

Not sure why you wouldn't want an admissions office to look at a piece of data that clearly correlates with the thing they are supposed to be doing which is admit the students with the best change of success at their school.  I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned. The study clearly states that SATs are marginal measures, at best, in predicting outcomes. And not helpful in the most important outcomes. Or do you think that first year GPA is more important than UGPA, or college completion?

People see a .4 correlation and they lose it thinking they found something valuable, but when almost all of the benefit of SATs is already accounted for by say ... GPA and class ranking ... it isn't valuable.

You know what else correlates with college completion rate, by the way? Race. Income. Ethnicity. Zip code. Are you advocating that they use those pieces of data? Of course not. That would be highly problematic. But no worries, the SAT is a proxy for all of it, so that way admissions can be "objective" and you get the benefit of keeping poor and Black and brown kids out. Win-win.

Also, admissions offices are not supposed to "admit the students with the best change of success at their school." Admissions offices have many charges and success at school is but a minor one. They need to fill the sports teams with good recruited athletes. They need to make donors happy. They need to have token diversity and geographic representation. They need to meet revenue expectations. They need to accept faculty children. They need to give advantages to legacies. It is ridiculous to believe that admissions officers are merely supposed to "admit the students with the best change of success at their school."

I don't want to look at the "very valid piece of information" because it is only valid in the eyes of people who want to preserve the status quo. The test measures one thing -- ability to take the test. That's why Chicago went test optional along with 1000 other colleges. And it is embarrassing that Stanford still requires it. It is a fabulous example of Stanford not leading, but simply going along for the ride while society evolves. 

Anyway, I have one simple request from you. Please say explicitly what you are getting at with this statement: 

I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

I'd love for you to own it.

[JustAnotherFan]

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned.  The study clearly said that SATs help predict outcomes.  For some metrics better than GPA and for others about the same.

Not sure why you wouldn't want an admissions office to look at a piece of data that clearly correlates with the thing they are supposed to be doing which is admit the students with the best change of success at their school.  I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

I think it is pretty clear from your response that you have decided what your view is and facts be damned. The study clearly states that SATs are marginal measures, at best, in predicting outcomes. And not helpful in the most important outcomes. Or do you think that first year GPA is more important than UGPA, or college completion?

People see a .4 correlation and they lose it thinking they found something valuable, but when almost all of the benefit of SATs is already accounted for by say ... GPA and class ranking ... it isn't valuable.

You know what else correlates with college completion rate, by the way? Race. Income. Ethnicity. Zip code. Are you advocating that they use those pieces of data? Of course not. That would be highly problematic. But no worries, the SAT is a proxy for all of it, so that way admissions can be "objective" and you get the benefit of keeping poor and Black and brown kids out. Win-win.

Also, admissions offices are not supposed to "admit the students with the best change of success at their school." Admissions offices have many charges and success at school is but a minor one. They need to fill the sports teams with good recruited athletes. They need to make donors happy. They need to have token diversity and geographic representation. They need to meet revenue expectations. They need to accept faculty children. They need to give advantages to legacies. It is ridiculous to believe that admissions officers are merely supposed to "admit the students with the best change of success at their school."

I don't want to look at the "very valid piece of information" because it is only valid in the eyes of people who want to preserve the status quo. The test measures one thing -- ability to take the test. That's why Chicago went test optional along with 1000 other colleges. And it is embarrassing that Stanford still requires it. It is a fabulous example of Stanford not leading, but simply going along for the ride while society evolves. 

Anyway, I have one simple request from you. Please say explicitly what you are getting at with this statement: 

I take that back, I know exactly why you don't want them to look at a very valid piece of information.

I'd love for you to own it.