College performance predictions and the SAT

Journal of Econometrics

Volumn 121, Issue 1-2, 2004, Pages 297-317

  Rothstein, Jesse M ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

College admissions; Omitted variables; Sample selection; SAT validity

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ECONOMICS; EDUCATION; PUBLIC POLICY; SAMPLING;

COLLEGE ADMISSIONS; OMITTED VARIABLES; SAMPLE SELECTION; SAT VALIDITY;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

EID: 2342616726     PISSN: 03044076     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Altonji, J.G., Elder, T.E., Taber, C.R., 2000. Selection on observed and unobserved variables: assessing the effectiveness of Catholic schools. NBER Working Paper 7831.
2. Angrist J.D., Imbens G.W., Rubin D.B. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 91:1996;444-455.
3. Atkinson, R.C., 2001. Standardized tests and access to American universities. Atwell Lecture at 83rd Annual meeting of the American Council of Education, Washington, DC.
4. Barro, R.J., 2001. Economic viewpoint: why colleges shouldn't dump the SAT. Business Week, April 9, 20.
5. Bowen W.G., Bok D. The Shape of the River: Long-term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. 1998;Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
6. Breland H.M. Population validity and college entrance measures. 1979;College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
7. Bridgeman B., McCamley-Jenkins L., Ervin N. Predictions of freshman grade-point average from the revised and recentered SAT I: Reasoning test, Research Report 2000-1. 2000;College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
8. Camara W.J. There is no mystery when it comes to the SAT I. 2001;College Board News.
9. Camara, W.J., Echternacht, G., 2000. The SAT I and high school grades: utility in predicting success in college. Research Report RN-10, College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
10. Caperton G. Toward a holistic definition of merit: a response to the UC proposal. 2001;College Board News.
11. College Board College Bound Seniors 2001. 2001;College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
12. Crouse J., Trusheim D. The Case Against the SAT. 1988;University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
13. Elliot R., Strenta A.C. Effects of improving the reliability of the GPA on prediction generally and on comparative predictions for gender and race particularly. Journal of Educational Measurement. 25:1988;333-347.
14. Geiser, S., Studley, R., 2001. UC and the SAT: predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Manuscript, UC Office of the President.
15. Goldman R.D., Widawski M.H. A within-subjects technique for comparing college grading standards. implications in the validity of the evaluation of college achievement Educational and Psychological Measurement. 36:1976;381-390.
16. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis. 4th Edition:2000;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
17. Heckman J. Varieties of selection bias. American Economic Review. 80:1990;313-318.
18. Hernandez M.A. A Is For Admission: The Insider's Guide to Getting Into The Ivy League And Other Top Colleges. 1997;Warner Books, New York.
19. Leonard D.K., Jiang J. Gender bias and the college predictions of the SATs. a cry of despair Research in Higher Education. 40:1999;375-407.
20. McWhorter, J.H., 2001. Eliminating the SAT could derail the progress of minority students. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9, B11-B12.
21. Rothstein, J., 2002. College performance predictions and the SAT. Working Paper #45, UC Berkeley Center for Labor Economics.
22. Stricker L.J. Current validity of 1975 and 1985 SATs. implications for validity trends since the mid-1970s Journal of Educational Measurement. 28:1991;93-98.
23. Studley, R., 2001. Inequality and college admissions. Unpublished Manuscript.
24. United States Commission on Civil Rights, 2000. Toward an understanding of percentage plans in higher education: are they effective substitutes for affirmative action? Washington, DC.
25. University of California Office of the President, 1993. Introducing the University of California: information for prospective students.
26. Willingham W.W. Success in college: the role of personal qualities and academic ability. 1985;College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
27. Willingham W.W., Breland H.M. Personal qualities and college admissions. 1982;College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
28. Willingham W.W., Lewis C., Morgan R., Ramist L. Predicting college grades: an analysis of institutional trends over two decades. 1990;Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
29. Wilson K.M. A review of research on the prediction of academic performance after the freshman year. 1983;College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
30. Young J.W. Grade adjustment methods. Review of Educational Research. 63:1993;151-165.
31. Young, J.W., 2001. Differential validity, differential prediction, and college admissions testing. Presentation at Rethinking the SAT in University Admissions Conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.