re: The NCAA has removed all SAT and ACT scores as part of athlete's eligibility requirements

quote:

---

To be honest, those tests are very poor predictors of academic performance.

---

Not true

The issue is they are dumbing down the test and removing hard answers for soft ones. Bigger issue is dumbing down K-12 education and the removal of critical thinking over whatever passes for education now.

Baltimore Polytech was a leading high school for feeding the top tech colleges in the USA. They had probably the finest high school breadboarding class in the US. Used to fish with a former teacher there who said they got rid of the actual breadboarding (designing the actual circuits) with designing the breadboards with pasta (I am not making it up) and the person was retiring in their 50's than trying to fight the idiots running the school board.

JetDawg

The NCAA has removed all SAT and ACT scores as part of athlete's eligibility requirements
in order to be eligible for D1.

Now, in order to be eligible is a high school diploma and a 2.3 GPA.

The dumbing down of America continues (sort of reminds one of what's happening here on tRant).

Sad.

So very sad.

--------------------------------------

Indeed so. Most great empires and nations are destroyed from within, not without. This is a by-product of the process...

So ultimately it's the eligibility requirements of the college itself, plus a 2.3 GPA if that's higher than what the college requires.

Sheesh.

quote:

---

Link??

---

I don’t need a link. I understand test construction and statistics. I’m sure you can find the info if you look, though.

quote:

---

tRant has always been a place for the intellectuals

---

I think you have all kinds here.

Sports and the military, only 2 places I know where barriers are broken down easier

I think the ACT min score was either 19 or 21 and you had to have a 3.0 GPA

This shite came out in the 80's as to create the more true "student athlete". You could prop 48 a certain number of guys.
I've always said the higher guidelines that were introduced were to help Notre Dame become relevant again as they had fallen off in the early 80's.

quote:

---

Umm. Yeah. What's your point?
They will base it on GPA where entire school systems in the state are built around passing kids along because it is easier to deal with happy parents when there is not rigor in k-12.

---

You think schools don't know where there's rigor and there isn't?

Also, standardized tests like the SAT and ACT were created to predict college success. They don't do a good job of that. Never have. So then what is the point in having them?

If the argument is that a kid with a low ACT score won't hack it at a college, you can easily find that out after a semester enrolled.

quote:

---

I don't see you making any point in your favor. My exact point is that kids are graduating (high school and college) without the rigor that was in schools 50 years ago.

---

In some schools? Sure. But overall that's not a true statement at all. The issue is moreso teaching to a test instead of creating a well-rounded student who can function outside of school like a productive adult.

quote:

---

You think schools don't know where there's rigor and there isn't?

---

Sure. If they use ACT and SAT.
Remove those benchmarks and the schools won't know anymore going forward.

quote:

---

Also, standardized tests like the SAT and ACT were created to predict college success. They don't do a good job of that. Never have. So then what is the point in having them?

---

Lol. If I type slower, it still doesn't help you understand.
Remove rigor from colleges and then the ACT/SAT scores will not be good predictors for success.
You tell me that they are not good predictors for success and I agree with you for the above reason.

There are too many diploma mills in the country.
We pump out 2M bachelor's per year.
That number goes up about 15% per year (10 year trend).

Are college graduates smarter, less smart, or the same as the past?
I see zero evidence that graduates today are more prepared for the economy than 40 years ago. Social media has eroded any faith in that.

quote:

---

If the argument is that a kid with a low ACT score won't hack it at a college, you can easily find that out after a semester enrolled.

---

It depends on what the purpose of the college is.
If the college is there to graduate kids, then you are absolutely correct.
Graduating kids ensures tuition and fees. Graduating kids enables funding tied to grad rates. Graduating kids encourages the next level of high school students to want to attend that college.
None of that has anything to do with the quality of the student or quality of the education.

If the college is there to set a standard of achievement which is a struggle to obtain, then the college will have students lose scholarships. Students will flunk out. Gen pop will be discouraged to enroll at a university with lower levels of Graduating success. Federal funding will suffer with lower levels of Graduating success.

quote:

---

The issue is moreso teaching to a test instead of creating a well-rounded student who can function outside of school like a productive adult.

---

Agree to disagree. The issue is creating nancies that can't handle adversity, require safe spaces, and need constant nurturing and encouragement to do what people had been doing for hundreds of years.

I've seen Jessie Waters ask students who fought in the Revolutionary War and who we fought against "in the Vietnam War" and they couldn't get the correct answers.