They should "un-bin" the statistics and identify individual outliers -- those who scored poorly on the tests but hold higher GPA, and vice versa, and learn things from these individual students.
That's the "work ethic" part.
Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
21–30 of 451 posts
Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#22this says more (good stuff) about Dartmouth than it does about the standardized tests. If scoring higher on something that is close to an IQ test doesn't predict higher academic performance, what does that say about the coursework?
Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#23this says more (good stuff) about Dartmouth than it does about the standardized tests. If scoring higher on something that is close to an IQ test doesn't predict higher academic performance, what does that say about the coursework?
... is it close to an IQ test? Like, people study very specifically for these standardized tests, and success is also related to how much prep work you put in. I think that may also align with how people study for exams once they're enrolled students, how much work they put into projects/papers/etc.
Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe they do look at other things (EDIT: or at least the study this paper was based on did): "Using detailed admissions data from IvyPlus institutions, Chetty, Deming, and Friedman (2023) show that SAT and ACT scores also predict career success, including high levels of earnings and attendance at elite graduate schools, holding family income constant."
That is referring to another study. This particular one doesn't add anything in that regard, just looks at freshman year GPAs.
Or if you're more cynical, they failed to produce those results.
Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#25this says more (good stuff) about Dartmouth than it does about the standardized tests. If scoring higher on something that is close to an IQ test doesn't predict higher academic performance, what does that say about the coursework?
The fact that SAT scores are directly proportional to how much time, effort and money you have spent in preparation should tell you that it is very different from a general IQ test.
Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#26this says more (good stuff) about Dartmouth than it does about the standardized tests. If scoring higher on something that is close to an IQ test doesn't predict higher academic performance, what does that say about the coursework?
The fact that SAT scores are directly proportional to how much time, effort and money you have spent in preparation should tell you that it is very different from a general IQ test.
Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Every other comment here seems to be like "well duh" and I'm... skeptical. My experience is that the ACT/SAT seem to be good indicators of getting good grades in well-defined spaces. But things like creativity, curiosity, work ethic are much better predictors of other kinds of success that frankly matter much more in the real world. I know some really, really unintelligent people who got good grades in colle…
its an IQ test. G proxy.
Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#28>> Importantly, these test scores better position Admissions to identify high-achieving less-advantaged applicants and high-achieving applicants who attend high schools for which Dartmouth has less information to interpret the transcripts.
Precisely. SATs aren't about hurting the poor or disadvantaged. It's about giving them a chance.
Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#29Re: Report on the role of standardized test scores in undergraduate admissions [pdf]
#30To measure academic achievement they use First Year GPA. It makes sense they're correlated, both require studying known material for a test. But is GPA the best measure, especially first year? I would be interested in other metrics like 3rd-4th year GPA or placements into jobs and such.
Note I am not saying that people who don't do particularly well on SAT/ACT can't also succeed on college and beyond, I had a pretty average score myself and consider myself fairly successful. But all the people I know who had the highest scores on SAT's were also the people most motivated to study and work extremely hard whether it be based on family pressure or just an inherent drive to be better than everyone else, and even to this day these people I knew who had scores in like the top 95+% are for the most part the most successful people I know primarily just due to an inherent drive to succeed at all costs.
Of course this will also depend on what metric you use for success. Also of course there will be people who do extremely poorly in traditional education but become wildly successful.