NCAA Division 1 Qualifier Scale

[TheFlyest]

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

That’s not always (rarely) the kids fault.

 

[LibertyTurns]

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.

He’s a good statistical analysis. In a nutshell, SAT is highly correlated to success at institutions which are highly selective. It’s also highly correlated to college performance for minority students. You drop down to community colleges & others that are less selective, GPA is a better predictor. Across all groups the highest college performers are highly correlated to high SAT scores.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563073.pdf

 

[awbuzz]

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.

Am I reading it correctly, a B/C student with a 2.5 GPA only needs a 900 on the SAT?

That's weak sauce... Almost like being able to fog a mirror makes one eligible.

 

[stech81]

Am I reading it correctly, a B/C student with a 2.5 GPA only needs a 900 on the SAT?

That's weak sauce... Almost like being able to fog a mirror makes one eligible.

Well depending on the temperature that may not be easy.

 

[awbuzz]

Well depending on the temperature that may not be easy.

Just mean some have to work a little bit harder to fog it up.

 

[iceeater1969]

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?

In Andy Macs last year we had a rb recruit that was behind the curve on grades and previous ACT score. (I was and am on football booster club) Kid was saying he had gt offer (false) when Andy had told him to get a proper ACT. Never took it and we moved on. He went to d2.


THIS CHART IS NICE- I am making a ollege Recruiting Brochure for our team. This is way better than the B&W one I have Thanks!

 

[forensicbuzz]

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

No. That's not it at all. But you don't seem to be open to someone else's opinion, so go ahead and think what you want. It's not supposed to be a test of how educated someone is, but an assessment of one's aptitude. With that, it's shown to be a poor assessment. The only reason it still exists is there's nothing better. 40% of colleges no longer require a standardized test to apply, and the numbers are trending up, not down.

 

[forensicbuzz]

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.

Right, they added the essay and then in 2015 stopped requiring it, because it was too subjective. I understand why it's there. There's nothing better. But as I said earlier, more and more colleges are moving away from it as a quantitative assessment because it's a flawed assessment. As an engineer, I like numbers. The problem is that numbers don't necessarily represent a true assessment of the student.

 

[takethepoints]

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.

Yesssss. Here's the score: standardized tests don't predict college performance very well; high school GPA does. So why use test scores at all?

The main reason is to allow the schools to have a way to wash certain applications out. This didn't used to be such a problem. Then someone thought of the Standard Application. That lowered the barrier to application to curb size. Students today don't think anything of applying to 8 - 10 schools, depending on how much cash their parental units will shell out. Schools love this because it means they can reject students and their ratings for admission standards go up. So keep the tests and use a floor on them to reject applications. Then it comes down to how well the student did in school and if their test scores meet the admittance ceiling. (Caveat: if the school isn't meeting projections for new students both standards can, shall we say, slide.)

This may look like a con, but it isn't. There is a correlation between test scores and GPA, albeit not a strong one. Consequently, there is a reason to use both, even if the tests don't predict college performance well. I know that may seem a bit crazy, but there really is a difference in how well the two predict college grades and whether a kid sticks, despite a low correlation between them on an individual level. So the Bong is right; this sure as <the nether region> isn't a perfect way to decide who you let in. Oth, nobody has much of an incentive to change it.

 

[White_Gold]

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.

You win with achievers, you lose with potential.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Yesssss. Here's the score: standardized tests don't predict college performance very well; high school GPA does. So why use test scores at all?

This may look like a con, but it isn't. There is a correlation between test scores and GPA, albeit not a strong one.

As the study I linked suggested, SAT is highly correlated to performance at upper tier schools and with minority applicants at all levels. It’s also very highly correlated to very high performance at all levels.

GPA is highly correlated to college performance at less elective schools.

There’s a myth that the SATs/ACTs are not correlated to college performance because it’s not damn near perfect and people can cite instances of individuals that don’t fit the mold achieving at a high level. Because there’s a low percentage of such cases does not make it the rule, it’s the exception.

 

[RonJohn]

As the study I linked suggested, SAT is highly correlated to performance at upper tier schools and with minority applicants at all levels. It’s also very highly correlated to very high performance at all levels.

GPA is highly correlated to college performance at less elective schools.

There’s a myth that the SATs/ACTs are not correlated to college performance because it’s not damn near perfect and people can cite instances of individuals that don’t fit the mold achieving at a high level. Because there’s a low percentage of such cases does not make it the rule, it’s the exception.

That study is from the College Board, which happens to be the company that is in charge of the SAT. That report was written shortly(a few years) after the SAT was criticized as being biased by a former employee of ETS, the company that administers SAT tests. He submitted a report to ETS supervisors with statistical analysis eleven times that suggested socioeconomic and cultural bias on the test. After he left ETS he submitted a summary report to the Harvard Educational Review which was published. College Board keeps all of the raw data as proprietary information and most of the testing questions as an attempt to prevent cheating. It is incredibly difficult for anyone outside of ETS or College Board to get access to enough information to determine if there is (or isn't) any bias built into the test.

After the report was published, the SAT removed the analogy questions. There was one that was published widely: runner:marathon -- correct answer -- oarsman:regatta: that was questioned because upper income students are likely to have access to crew/yachting events while lower income students are unlikely to have access to such events. The upper income students would understand the words from life experience, while the lower income students would have to have literary access to those words. Another that wasn't published as much was related to colors. I don't remember the sample, but it was something like sky is to blue as lemon is to: answer yellow. Hispanic students chose green at a very high rate. That was related to cultural issues as some Hispanic communities regularly eat green lemons. So, it has been proven that there have been socioeconomic and cultural issues in the SAT before.

TLDR: The link you posted was to a "study" by the company that makes the SAT test. They do not publish and do not allow access to raw data and/or full access to questions on the test. I don't know if there is current bias built into the test. I do know that there has been at least some level of bias before and I don't trust College Board to self-diagnose and regulate themselves.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@RonJohn I understand your argument, but why would a company trying to peddle a product admit that for “most colleges” the high school GPA was either an equivalent or better predictor of success if it was so biased? They purposefully were intending to undermine their own business?

 

[takethepoints]

As the study I linked suggested, SAT is highly correlated to performance at upper tier schools and with minority applicants at all levels. It’s also very highly correlated to very high performance at all levels.

GPA is highly correlated to college performance at less elective schools.

There’s a myth that the SATs/ACTs are not correlated to college performance because it’s not damn near perfect and people can cite instances of individuals that don’t fit the mold achieving at a high level. Because there’s a low percentage of such cases does not make it the rule, it’s the exception.

The problem here is that the correlations are over-determined. As I pointed out, tests are used to determine a floor for applicants. It isn't surprising that it works as a predictor for highly selective colleges; those schools get students with high HSGPA (handy abbreviation) and high test scores. And, as the graphs show, the differences in predictions for both stats is negligible in highly selective schools. I'm not surprised that HSGPA works better in less selective colleges; they have more variation in both test scores and HSGPA among accepted students.

But I shouldn't have said that tests don't predict "very well"; as the study shows, that depends. I was using my own experience - my college was "very selective", not "highly selective". My bad.

Minor quibbles = the data is pretty old and the study was conducted by the ETS. There have been some drastic changes in college student bodies since 1995. But I doubt curing these would lead to much different conclusions.

 

[RonJohn]

@RonJohn I understand your argument, but why would a company trying to peddle a product admit that for “most colleges” the high school GPA was either an equivalent or better predictor of success if it was so biased? They purposefully were intending to undermine their own business?

I think they were trying to show some correlation. They were under attack at that point as having no correlation and were attempting to prove to colleges that the test did in fact have some value. They don't explain the models used, but the data of HSGPA vs SAT vs Combined don't really appear to follow any trends, except between very selective and non-selective as described below. Since that time, many colleges have either stopped using or reduced reliance on the SAT, so they weren't entirely successful in that attempt.

I agree with @takethepoints . A very selective college in the 90s would have had very little variation in HSGPA. If every student at GT in the mid 90s had a 3.8-4.0 HSGPA, the HSGPA isn't going to predict very much. In a college that admits 95% plus of all applicants, there is going to be a very large variation in HSGPA, so it will probably be a better predictor.

 

[g0lftime]

When I was a senior in HS nobody took a SAT prep course. Both my son's did. They performed at least 100+ points higher than me. Neither did as well in college with their GPA.
I am trying to rationalize how the math portion is socially biased. Math is math. Some kids may be more fortunate with more exposure in HS to higher math. Otherwise I don't see it.
Bet some of the younger posters that took AP calculus and opted out of 1st semester got a rude awakening in GT calc 2.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@takethepoints @RonJohn You’ve got some good points.

@g0lftime The claim of racial bias is because richer students have more access to good schooling and support than others.

Shouldn’t that be the fix to the racial disparity though? Let’s give the disadvantaged better schools and more resources. If you use my opinion: use the resources better and quit wasting them on dumb BS.

Damn why isn’t the solution to our racial woes apparent to everyone? Fix the problem not the symptom.

 

[Jim Prather]

@takethepoints @RonJohn You’ve got some good points.

@g0lftime The claim of racial bias is because richer students have more access to good schooling and support than others.

Shouldn’t that be the fix to the racial disparity though? Let’s give the disadvantaged better schools and more resources. If you use my opinion: use the resources better and quit wasting them on dumb BS.

Damn why isn’t the solution to our racial woes apparent to everyone? Fix the problem not the symptom.

To begin with, let's make certain we are using the same terms. Differences in socioeconomic status is not a racial bias. You see the exact same discrepancies in scores between rich and poor within the same ethnic groups as you see across ethnic groups.

Regarding your point about giving disadvantaged schools more resources - it seems easy in theory. In reality, there is something far more subtle which that idea does not address. The single biggest factor in predicting educational success is the amount of emphasis that the parents put on the value of education. You can spend all the money in the world on a school, but it won't matter until the parents make education a top priority and take an active role in ensuring their children are learning.

 

[takethepoints]

Shouldn’t that be the fix to the racial disparity though? Let’s give the disadvantaged better schools and more resources. If you use my opinion: use the resources better and quit wasting them on dumb BS.

Damn why isn’t the solution to our racial woes apparent to everyone? Fix the problem not the symptom.

Amen. One of our problems is that actual solutions cost money. And, since these are usually for public goods, that means higher taxes. As I've pointed out before, Americans continue to call for Swedish-level social services for Mississippi-level taxes.

The usual excuse for not ponying up is that there is plenty of "fraud and waste" in government and, if we cleared that up, the cash would be there. Really? I mean, really!?! This particular hobby-horse has been ridden by conservative pols for over four decades now. And we all know what it means: not campaigns against "fraud and waste", but an excuse for reducing government services. Including those connected with education; arguably, the most important function of government in modern times. But the Sweden for Mississippi equation continues to have its charms, particularly in this part of the country. So we find our governments continuing to reduce necessary educational expenses and hoping that "something will turn up." (The Mr. Micawber reference is intentional.)

This, to be frank, is no way to run a railroad. What we should do is make a concerted effort to copy the educations systems in Massachusetts or Connecticut throughout the whole country. Given the variation across the nation in resources, this would take a considerable national effort. But that is what other countries (Poland, for instance) are doing. We need to do it or we will end up competing with Brazil. And losing.

Source: https://www.epi.org/publication/bri...or-improving-u-s-education-policy/#epi-toc-23

Mods: if you want to move this, go ahead. If you can think of a place for it, that is.

 

[RonJohn]

Back to the sliding scale chart. Basically if a student athlete has a 3.55 HSGPA, he could score the absolute minimum on the SAT and still qualify. If he has a 2.0 HSGPA and an 1100 SAT, he could qualify after one year of college. Those extremes seem to be very extreme. Unless there is a learning disability(dyslexia or the like), I don't see how a student with a 3.55 GPA couldn't get better than a 400: or how a student with a 2.0 GPA could score 1100. The middle of the scale is probably OK, but I would think there should be a minimum score and GPA that are above the absolute minimum numbers achievable.