Interesting, I got smarter when I sat down with a free tutor who coached me on how to take the SAT.
Also, let's do a quick SAT style problem
A. CPA exam:Practicing accounting
B. Engineering licence exam/multiple years of engineering school:Practicing engineering
C. Three years of medical school:Practicing medicine
D. SAT:College
Which of these isn't like the others?
Three are testing practical skills that are going to be applied. One is not. Three are taken by adults with college degrees or more under their belt. One is taken by high school kids.
Now, on average, I won't deny that kids with better scores have better outcomes (even factoring out the causality in that, I'd bet on it). But I imagine there's enough grey. It's sort of the same way teams that recruit better tend to be good, but Brady Hoke still existed at Michigan.
What I originally was thinking about was more that the quality of SAT scores might not translate to the rigor of classes per say. I suppose if you're building in that big a gap, sure. (I'll also agree, the vast majority of athletes are not ready for college classes for a variety of reasons. That some do as well as they do frankly amazes me sometimes)
I had a similar experience of "getting smarter" when I took a class for the LSAT. However, there are definite limitations. The first day of the LSAT course we took a sample exam. The purpose was to create a baseline. When we showed up for the second class the instructor went over the scores and then gave us an idea of what we could expect. My baseline was high enough that they offered me my money back if I didn't want to stay because they had found that they were not able to significantly improve high scores.
I share that story because my guess is that the same thing applies to SAT prep courses. If a kid starts out with average scores the prep course can probably get that kid around a one standard deviation improvement. However, if you start out much above the 75th percentile my guess is that the prep course will not help you very much.
WRT the LSAT, the course did help me but only for reasons of time management. I have always been a fast test taker. Until the LSAT I had literally never run out of time while taking a test. When I took the CPA exam I got done with the morning sections so quickly that I had time to go have a beer and lunch before heading back for the afternoon sessions.
The LSAT was different for me. They had four logic puzzles on each exam. Typically one was fairly easy, two were moderate and one was nearly impossibly difficult. The main thing I gained from the prep course was sufficient experience with their logic puzzles to be able to quickly recognize the most difficult question and put it off until last. This was a significant benefit because the questions were not weighted. Spending a ridiculous amount of time solving the difficult logic puzzle would get you maybe 10 correct answers if you got it right. You could get the same 10 points by solving the easy logic puzzle.
There was one other benefit to the LSAT prep course. When I started I was doing the logic puzzles in my head. I learned that this was a bad idea. I could usually do the easy one in my head, but even with that one, there was a risk of getting confused somewhere along the way. The moderate puzzles were extremely difficult for me to do in my head and the difficult puzzle was impossible for me to do in my head. Drawing a chart or graph made the easy puzzles extremely easy and it made the moderate puzzles reasonably easy.
After the prep course I knew how to approach the LSAT. In the puzzle section I skipped the difficult one and quickly solved the other three. Only then did I return to the difficult puzzle. That way, if I couldn't finish it I would be guessing on difficult questions rather than easy ones.
Back to the SAT:
Fundamentally, the SAT is an IQ test. You are correct that it is unlike the other exams I listed because it is a test of aptitude rather than a test of knowledge. That said, IQ tests work. I know that they are frequently criticized but when studies compare large enough groups the results show that IQ does matter.
Those average non-athlete Michigan freshmen with their 1400+ SAT scores are smart cookies. The Michigan football players with their <1000 SAT scores aren't. Back to
prepscholar:
Nationally:
- 1450 is 98th percentile: Only 2% of SAT takers score 1450+ and this is Michigan's average incoming score.
- 1330 is 90th percentile: 10% of SAT takers score 1330+
- 1230 is 80th percentile: 20% of SAT takers score 1280+
- 1170 is 71st percentile: 29% of SAT takers score 1170+
- 1110 is 61st percentile: 39% of SAT takers score 1110+
- 1060 is 51st percentile: 49% of SAT takers score 1060+
- 1000 is 40th percentile: 60% of SAT takers score 1000+
- 950 is 31st percentile: 69% of SAT takers score 950+
- 890 is 21st percentile: 79% of SAT takers score 890+
- 810 is 11th percentile: 89% of SAT takers score 810+
My guess is that roughly the bottom half of SAT takers are simply not college material. Ie, a score of <1000 probably does not belong in ANY college let alone a highly selective one. Then remember that Michigan's average is 997 and they are one of the highest in the nation. Also remember that I believe that Michigan's (and everybody else's) athlete scores are inflated by the inclusion of walk-ons. If you eliminated the walk-ons my guess is the Michigan's recruited scholarship football players probably have average scores around the Florida level of about 890 or 20th percentile.
Now think about your HS class for a minute. Can you honestly say that you think the least smart 20% (one out of five) were smart enough to compete academically with the smartest 2% (one out of 50)? Then remember that the SAT is national. The variation within your HS was not nearly as large as the variation across the entire nation where we include high-end elite prep school students and low-end terrible school students.
There is no way for academically challenged 20th percentile students to keep up with elite 98th percentile students academically. Thus, the schools have to find a work-around or else give up on competing athletically.