I would not call a country of 50 million 'small'.
Mostly homogeneous and without the heavy emphasis we place on the individual over the group.
But it’s still an individual test.
I would not call a country of 50 million 'small'.
Mostly homogeneous and without the heavy emphasis we place on the individual over the group.
Since I am not in admissions I don't know why these schools are moving to using only HS GPA. My point was that it is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT so the dropping of its requirement is not necessarily due to nefarious motives. I do know there was trouble for HS students to take the ACT or SAT since many of the usual test taking sites were shut down. I don't know if that is still true. I would think if the HS GPA is sufficient enough as a predictor, then why ask potential students to spend the money and the effort to take a superfluous test?The OP asked how - the article provides an answer.That’s from 2019. In 2020 the U Cal did a lengthy study and determined no bias, that the SAT was predictive of first year achievement, and recommended keeping the tests.
In 2020, U of Chicago found that HS GPA was a better predictor.
And using both GPA and SAT is an even better predictor. Why limit yourself to just one when both work together to add relevant information to help determine likelihood of successful completion of a program?
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/02/gpa-or-sat-two-measures-are-better-than-one/
The OP asked how - the article provides an answer.That’s from 2019. In 2020 the U Cal did a lengthy study and determined no bias, that the SAT was predictive of first year achievement, and recommended keeping the tests.
In 2020, U of Chicago found that HS GPA was a better predictor.
Your detail is a falsehood. You continue to repeat that misinterpretation. The study indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT when all of the other influences in the study are the same.The OP asked how - the article provides an answer.That’s from 2019. In 2020 the U Cal did a lengthy study and determined no bias, that the SAT was predictive of first year achievement, and recommended keeping the tests.
In 2020, U of Chicago found that HS GPA was a better predictor.
I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.
I am also now remembering the DLAB test, which I took when I joined the army and hit inprocessing. There was a part of it, a listening section, where there was heavy part-of-speech vocabulary usage. Like "what is the participle in this sentence", which I couldn't even begin to answer on the basis of not knowing what the fuck a "participle" was. Of course if you asked me "which action word is being used to describe a thing rather than being used to describe an action?" I would have gotten it just fine. The test was for seeing how fast someone can "solve" a language, and I can guarantee you, the kid who learned four languages growing up in a diverse backstreet neighborhood will be much more likely to fail that part of the DLAB than a white kid who has a decent education on part-of-speech vocabulary.
Ok let me rephrase. The reading section (IIRC) had some materials centered on history. It also tended to use words myself and my homies would never use in our entire lives as well as I've never heard any white people use. This was somewhere between the late 90's early 2000's and based purely on my memory doused with irish whiskey. I'll take my exit.
Shit, it had words and such that I had to figure out as if they were part of a math problem. I remember that myself from 2001. Like some kind of twisted word problem with no actual numbers in it.
What pissed me off is none of those damned words was taught to me in english class. So when they appear in the SAT where said word is crucial to understanding the context I was pissed. Got escorted out of the test area because I simply asked "why yall using new words?".
Your detail is a falsehood. You continue to repeat that misinterpretation. The study indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT when all of the other influences in the study are the same.I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.
You realize your post, as written, makes no sense, let alone mischaracterize the results.Your detail is a falsehood. You continue to repeat that misinterpretation. The study indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT when all of the other influences in the study are the same.I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.
Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.
If you had read the article you'd know your response is dead wrong:Your detail is a falsehood. You continue to repeat that misinterpretation. The study indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT or ACT when all of the other influences in the study are the same.I have been repeatedly pointing out that your study shows it's a better predictor when you control for the school it came from. You conveniently keep omitting this critical detail.
Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.
(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X20902110). So any student who went enrolled on college, regardless of the quality of the school, is in the sample.This study used data from the Chicago Public Schools, a large public school district that contains schools with varying academic composition—extremely high-achieving selective schools that get ranked among the top high schools in the country, heterogeneous schools, and schools with very low average test scores. We included for analysis all students who graduated from neighborhood, magnet, selective, and vocational high schools between the years of 2006 and 2009; enrolled in a 4-year college immediately following graduation
South Korea has standardized tests for its competitive universities. Racial bias? Obviously.
SK is largely mono culture and small.
Despite what others may say, the US is also a monculture. But even if you don't accept that, the argument that standardized tests are bias is bullshit. When the tests are offered to low income people, those who lack wealth but are otherwise talented reveal themselves. Standardized tests are the great equalizer.
Consider the word "ottoman," for example. I am not claiming the word is on the test or has been, but kids that have families who own furniture sets have a greater chance to be exposed to such things. It's just an example of an entire class of words. Material things.
Despite what others may say, the US is also a monculture. But even if you don't accept that, the argument that standardized tests are bias is bullshit. When the tests are offered to low income people, those who lack wealth but are otherwise talented reveal themselves. Standardized tests are the great equalizer.
Wealthy families may offer greater support for their offspring through private tuition and motivation to succeed, hence a better chance of becoming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc. Wealth buys advantage.
It pays to be born rich: Children with wealthy parents are MORE likely to be successful than intellectually gifted kids born to low-income families
''A new study has found a link between intelligence and genetics and used that metric to better understand how it affects outcomes for rich and poor families
The findings challenge traditional notions that America is a place where people succeed or fail based on their inherent merit and, or willingness to work hard
Researchers found that intellectual gifts are fairly evenly distributed among the rich and poor, however eventual success is heavily weighted in favor of the rich
Less than a quarter (24 percent) of high-potential people born to low-income fathers graduated from college, compared to 63 percent born to rich fathers
Researchers said that children raised in wealthy homes may benefit from early education interventions, better diets and parents who read to them regularly.''
Despite what others may say, the US is also a monculture. But even if you don't accept that, the argument that standardized tests are bias is bullshit. When the tests are offered to low income people, those who lack wealth but are otherwise talented reveal themselves. Standardized tests are the great equalizer.
Wealthy families may offer greater support for their offspring through private tuition and motivation to succeed, hence a better chance of becoming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc. Wealth buys advantage.
It pays to be born rich: Children with wealthy parents are MORE likely to be successful than intellectually gifted kids born to low-income families
''A new study has found a link between intelligence and genetics and used that metric to better understand how it affects outcomes for rich and poor families
The findings challenge traditional notions that America is a place where people succeed or fail based on their inherent merit and, or willingness to work hard
Researchers found that intellectual gifts are fairly evenly distributed among the rich and poor, however eventual success is heavily weighted in favor of the rich
Less than a quarter (24 percent) of high-potential people born to low-income fathers graduated from college, compared to 63 percent born to rich fathers
Researchers said that children raised in wealthy homes may benefit from early education interventions, better diets and parents who read to them regularly.''
As the Desperate Housewives actress taught us, money can't make your kid ace the SAT.
As the Desperate Housewives actress taught us, money can't make your kid ace the SAT.
Desperate housewives taught us this?
Consider the word "ottoman," for example. I am not claiming the word is on the test or has been, but kids that have families who own furniture sets have a greater chance to be exposed to such things. It's just an example of an entire class of words. Material things.
How does owning furniture lead to a greater chance of being exposed to information about a pre-Great War empire that spanned modern day Turkey, Arabia, North Africa, Mesopotamia and South East Europe, reaching its greatest geographical extent in the fourteenth century, and collapsing, as did the Austro-Hungarian double monarchy, after their defeat in 1918?
I mean, I am familiar enough with it, and my dad has a huge house full of antique furniture, but I don't think those facts are connected.
As the Desperate Housewives actress taught us, money can't make your kid ace the SAT.
Desperate housewives taught us this?
You realize your post, as written, makes no sense, let alone mischaracterize the results.Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.
Of course, students who do not go to college are not included in a sample for study about success in college. It is moronic to claim that they ought to be included, regardless of the quality of the high school.
Whether or not you accept their results is immaterial to the point that there are institutions of higher learning that understand there is growing research that HS GPA is a better predictor of college success than standardized tests. If their experience is that HS GPA is a sufficient predictor in their experience, it makes sense for them to drop it as a requirement since it reduces the expense and effort for potential students to apply for admission.
In order to have college success or failure in college, one must go college.. In a study about whether HS GPA or the SAT/ACT is a better predictor of college success, it would makes no sense to include people who do not go to college because they will have no success or failure in college regardless of their HS GPA or SAT/ACT score. This is basic reasoning. Hence your claim about bias due to the omission of any students who do not go to college (let alone high GPA from crappy schools) is inane given the purpose of the study.You realize your post, as written, makes no sense, let alone mischaracterize the results.Note the big sampling bias--college success or failure means you got into college in the first place. Thus the high GPA students from the crappy schools aren't in the sample! Even then they found the high school mattered.
Pretending it doesn't make sense doesn't address the point you refuse to deal with.
Despite what others may say, the US is also a monculture. But even if you don't accept that, the argument that standardized tests are bias is bullshit. When the tests are offered to low income people, those who lack wealth but are otherwise talented reveal themselves. Standardized tests are the great equalizer.
Wealthy families may offer greater support for their offspring through private tuition and motivation to succeed, hence a better chance of becoming doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc. Wealth buys advantage.
It pays to be born rich: Children with wealthy parents are MORE likely to be successful than intellectually gifted kids born to low-income families
''A new study has found a link between intelligence and genetics and used that metric to better understand how it affects outcomes for rich and poor families
The findings challenge traditional notions that America is a place where people succeed or fail based on their inherent merit and, or willingness to work hard
Researchers found that intellectual gifts are fairly evenly distributed among the rich and poor, however eventual success is heavily weighted in favor of the rich
Less than a quarter (24 percent) of high-potential people born to low-income fathers graduated from college, compared to 63 percent born to rich fathers
Researchers said that children raised in wealthy homes may benefit from early education interventions, better diets and parents who read to them regularly.''