NCAA Division 1 Qualifier Scale

[Buzzbomb]

Wasn’t sure where to put this. Thought maybe someone might have an interest?

 

[GCdaJuiceMan]

Wasn’t sure where to put this. Thought maybe someone might have an interest?

I am curious - what sections are included in the SAT and ACT sum?

 

[Madison Grant]

Wasn’t sure where to put this. Thought maybe someone might have an interest?

So, basically, high schools can inflate a prospect's grades and make it really easy for him to be NCAA eligible. The kid that goes to the tough academic high school, which will actually prepare him for college better, gets punished if he's a B/C student by having to have a higher SAT. The wisdom of the NCAA.

 

[LibertyTurns]

So, basically, high schools can inflate a prospect's grades and make it really easy for him to be NCAA eligible. The kid that goes to the tough academic high school, which will actually prepare him for college better, gets punished if he's a B/C student by having to have a higher SAT. The wisdom of the NCAA.

Just another reason to abandon HS GPAs from the equation & make eligibility solely on standardized testing. It levels the playing field. If they really wanted to demand student athletes actually be students, they’d institute mandatory annual testing. Let them take tests all year long to pass, but enforce the standards. You should be able to read as a college student, do basic math, have a basic mastery of sciences & know American history to name a few. Don’t pass the Sophomore exam then you don’t play as a Sophomore. Colleges are supposed to educate students after all.

This will never happen because there will be cries of unfairness across the land. Very unfortunate because at the end of the day if you attend college but gain no skills it does not prepare a kid for life once the uniform gets taken off. That’s what it’s supposed to be all about, isn’t it?

 

[bobongo]

Just another reason to abandon HS GPAs from the equation & make eligibility solely on standardized testing.

Some folks say the exact opposite, that standardized test scores should be abandoned because they are inaccurate predictors of academic success. Seems each approach could be misleading, but what else are you going to base admissions standards on? If both are inaccurate, maybe both should be included to balance against the other. I don't know what other measuring sticks than these two would be better or more appropriate. In an imperfect world, maybe using both flawed methods together is the best answer, ironically.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Some folks say the exact opposite, that standardized test scores should be abandoned because they are inaccurate predictors of academic success. Seems each approach could be misleading, but what else are you going to base admissions standards on? If both are inaccurate, maybe both should be included to balance against the other. I don't know what other measuring sticks than these two would be better or more appropriate. In an imperfect world, maybe using both flawed methods together is the best answer, ironically.

This is way outside the topic at hand
so mods feel free to move:

I understand the logic but:
a. Not every GT grad outperforms every other grad. Most do though and that’s why we’re in high demand.
b. Not every 5* athlete outplays every 3* athlete, but most do though that’s why 5*’s are in higher demand than 3*’s
c. Not every hardest working person is successful more than the lazy bastard on the corner. Most of the time it’s the case and that’s why we try to hire hard working people.
d. The honest and ethical person doesn’t always win. The criminal sometimes ends up being the richest.
e. Occasionally an ugly, fat man gets the hot chick but usually that’s not the case.

The smartest guy, the most talented, etc isn’t always the best. I understand there’s intangibles that make someone’s experiences or the road they traveled better than the competition. There’s plenty of life’s examples, however, if you want equal opportunity you have a standard scale and the person that performs best against that standard should be the winner. Takes the bias out of the system. Those people that have to take the hard road will figure out a way to win if the game’s not rigged like it is right now.

We can’t eliminate every aspect of unfairness from everyone’s life, ie parents pass away at an early age, sickness, etc but we can make the test and the grading criteria fair, known and understandable to all and you get your shot.

 

[forensicbuzz]

This is way outside the topic at hand
so mods feel free to move:

I understand the logic but:
a. Not every GT grad outperforms every other grad. Most do though and that’s why we’re in high demand.
b. Not every 5* athlete outplays every 3* athlete, but most do though that’s why 5*’s are in higher demand than 3*’s
c. Not every hardest working person is successful more than the lazy bastard on the corner. Most of the time it’s the case and that’s why we try to hire hard working people.
d. The honest and ethical person doesn’t always win. The criminal sometimes ends up being the richest.
e. Occasionally an ugly, fat man gets the hot chick but usually, that’s not the case.

The smartest guy, the most talented, etc isn’t always the best. I understand there’s intangibles that make someone’s experiences or the road they traveled better than the competition. There’s plenty of life’s examples, however, if you want equal opportunity you have a standard scale and the person that performs best against that standard should be the winner. Takes the bias out of the system. Those people that have to take the hard road will figure out a way to win if the game’s not rigged like it is right now.

We can’t eliminate every aspect of unfairness from everyone’s life, ie parents pass away at an early age, sickness, etc but we can make the test and the grading criteria fair, known and understandable to all and you get your shot.

Therein lies the problem with the current standardized tests, they are inherently biased. There is research (which I'm not going to dig out for anyone) that shows that SAT/ACT tests are inherently biased and are not a good indicator of someone who will be successful in college. I'm not saying GPA is a good indicator either because different schools, teachers, programs, class levels, etc.

 

[Jim Prather]

Actually, the results show that, when all the students have to take the same curriculum (i.e. at a service academy), then standardized tests are an excellent predictor of academic success. In situations where students are are choosing different academic paths, then the standardized tests are no longer predictive because you are no longer comparing apples to apples.

 

[yeti92]

Therein lies the problem with the current standardized tests, they are inherently biased. There is research (which I'm not going to dig out for anyone) that shows that SAT/ACT tests are inherently biased and are not a good indicator of someone who will be successful in college. I'm not saying GPA is a good indicator either because different schools, teachers, programs, class levels, etc.

Inherently biased towards who? Those who are more educated?

 

[gtg391z]

Inherently biased towards who? Those who are more educated?

Right?! Makes no sense. People who say this are trying to make excuses for poor test scores.

 

[orientalnc]

Inherently biased towards who? Those who are more educated?

I will give you an example. My SAT score in Math was near perfect. I was off quite a bit on the rest of the test. I would probably not be someone predicted to be a success, but I have an almost insatiable curiosity that did not get exposed on the SAT. As a result, I retired at 55 with enough money to live very well. Sometimes a 3* recruit has the desire to improve that is missing in a 5* who thinks he doesn't have to work.

 

[Madison Grant]

Therein lies the problem with the current standardized tests, they are inherently biased. There is research (which I'm not going to dig out for anyone) that shows that SAT/ACT tests are inherently biased and are not a good indicator of someone who will be successful in college. I'm not saying GPA is a good indicator either because different schools, teachers, programs, class levels, etc.

Saying the tests are not an indicator of who will be successful in college is not the same as the tests being biased. There is also extensive research showing the tests are not 'biased'. People across all levels of society who score the same miss the same questions with the same frequency. There are no socioeconomically or ethnically 'loaded' questions. This has always been a pop theory that is merely myth.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Inherently biased towards who? Those who are more educated?

Yes, to an extent. Not the student, but the student's parents, specifically the mother. The SAT/ACT questions have been shown to have a bias towards children of affluent and middle-class educated parents. There are tons of research that prove this out. The problem is that there's nothing better to compare students. However, there is a clear move away from standardized testing. Just a couple of examples...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...owing-disenchantment-with-standardized-tests/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/educat...ng-the-sat-and-act-amid-questions-of-fairness

 

[forensicbuzz]

Saying the tests are not an indicator of who will be successful in college is not the same as the tests being biased. There is also extensive research showing the tests are not 'biased'. People across all levels of society who score the same miss the same questions with the same frequency. There are no socioeconomically or ethnically 'loaded' questions. This has always been a pop theory that is merely myth.

Here's a quote from the group that runs the SAT..."The College Board, the $1 billion-a-year nonprofit organization that administers the SAT, is fighting back, including by introducing a dashboard it says will help admission offices compensate for socioeconomic and racial disparities."

 

[forensicbuzz]

My opinion is informed by what I've read, heard, and have been told by people I respect. I'm willing to change my opinion if shown evidence to the contrary. I try to always keep an open mind towards my own opinions.

Standardized testing has always been a lightning rod because it favors certain types of students (not talking ethnicity/race/sex/etc. here). There are students that perform better in long-form essay examinations and those who perform better on multiple-choice examinations. This was what I was actually referring to when I mentioned bias. It's interesting how others went straight to race and socioeconomics. I responded to @Madison Grant and @yeti92 with the information I provided because I think there is also an inherent unfairness associated with socioeconomics too. But that wasn't the bias I was referring to.

 

[yeti92]

I will give you an example. My SAT score in Math was near perfect... I would probably not be someone predicted to be a success

That would be news to me, people who are very good at math tend to be pretty successful.

 

[yeti92]

Yes, to an extent. Not the student, but the student's parents, specifically the mother. The SAT/ACT questions have been shown to have a bias towards children of affluent and middle-class educated parents. There are tons of research that prove this out. The problem is that there's nothing better to compare students. However, there is a clear move away from standardized testing. Just a couple of examples...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educ...owing-disenchantment-with-standardized-tests/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/educat...ng-the-sat-and-act-amid-questions-of-fairness

Got it. The test to measure how educated someone is is biased towards those who are, on average, more educated. Who'da thunk it?

 

[Madison Grant]

Here's a quote from the group that runs the SAT..."The College Board, the $1 billion-a-year nonprofit organization that administers the SAT, is fighting back, including by introducing a dashboard it says will help admission offices compensate for socioeconomic and racial disparities."

What do you expect them to say? When the Woke Social Justice groups target you, the facts cease to matter. We are living in a Post-Truth society where the narrative matters more than objective facts. And facts get censored as 'hate' because the truth might hurt someone's feelings. Here's my prediction: the 'dashboard' won't change discrepancies in test scores (unless it relies on just flat out adding points to scores based on demographic groupings which some college admissions offices already do), but they hope it will get whoever's on their butt off them. It won't.

Why do you think they added the essay portion? Because it can be subjectively graded.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I will give you an example. My SAT score in Math was near perfect. I was off quite a bit on the rest of the test. I would probably not be someone predicted to be a success, but I have an almost insatiable curiosity that did not get exposed on the SAT. As a result, I retired at 55 with enough money to live very well. Sometimes a 3* recruit has the desire to improve that is missing in a 5* who thinks he doesn't have to work.

That’s the way GT’s admission process used to work. Get a good SAT Math score, get A’s & B’s in difficult stem HS classes & you get admitted. Then it was survival of the fittest, most determined, etc. We have generations of extraordinarily successful grads that fit this profile.

What’s yet to be seen is whether or not our “new” admissions criteria & manner of handling undergrads that’s similar to other elite non-Engineering oriented institutions delivers the same, better or worse results. Time will tell.

 

[stech81]

So, basically, high schools can inflate a prospect's grades and make it really easy for him to be NCAA eligible. The kid that goes to the tough academic high school, which will actually prepare him for college better, gets punished if he's a B/C student by having to have a higher SAT. The wisdom of the NCAA.

First I was in high school in the late 60's and 70 . At that time there was no way when I played football you could fail. Most every class I had a coach that was the teacher. Hell I had a 39 avg one year in English and still got a C. Did I care then, no but by the time I got to college I did. I was good at math but sucked at English and still do. I had to go to Southern Tech to get my degree in civil engineering technology. I would have thought the things I got away with back than one would not be able to do now. And yes back then we had face mask on our helmets.