>Yes. They do. It's maybe not the answer you were looking for, but if you are better prepared, you'll do better at the task at hand. Seems fairly straightforward.
I think you missed the point of the two questions, which is a question of what scholastic potential issue. What you are measuring is something that I might call scholastic actuality. It is how good they are with the tools they have. Potential is how good they are if we normalize the tools.
Granted, we don't have to go with that definition. If you want to call what I'm calling actuality potential, then that is fine. Just redefining a variable. But then we need a name for what I'm calling potential. Potential potential sounds a bit weird, but naming variables is hard so I'll use it as a placeholder for now.
So now that we have academic potential and academic potential potential, which should a person be ranked based off of when going to college? Given that academic potential is more dependent upon environmental factors that will change and be normalized between all freshmen (to some degree, there is still some differences), then should academic potential potential be a better predictor for success at college?
That isn't the complete answer, and real life is much more complicated than these simple equations. Just like emotional support can lead to a more mature individual that even once the emotional support is gone they have a life long benefit from.
But every metric used by colleges is to measure what you termed "scholastic actuality":
- School grades: if you didn't get the GPA you're already out of the running in many colleges
- Extracurricular Activities: if you didn't actually participate, then no one is going to look at how you might have done if you had participated
- College Essay: if you can't write you're not going to get any points here, no matter the potential you might have to eventually write something amazing
I don't see why the SAT should focus on some ethereal "potential" when everything else is centered on the current reality and not potential. Colleges aren't looking for the completely unrefined ore, they're looking for a diamond in the rough that needs to be cut and polished if you will. Not a bucket of rocks that are very likely to contain a diamond.
This is basically what I was trying to get at with my original comment - I think you did a better job of expressing it.
At some level you have to have to have something to show for your potential - otherwise there's no way to choose between candidates. Every single metric will advantage those who had the time, money, and resources to invest in developing academic aptitude. There are a small group of people who get by on developing musical or athletic aptitude but even those require time, money, energy, resources.
I think you missed the point of the two questions, which is a question of what scholastic potential issue. What you are measuring is something that I might call scholastic actuality. It is how good they are with the tools they have. Potential is how good they are if we normalize the tools.
Granted, we don't have to go with that definition. If you want to call what I'm calling actuality potential, then that is fine. Just redefining a variable. But then we need a name for what I'm calling potential. Potential potential sounds a bit weird, but naming variables is hard so I'll use it as a placeholder for now.
So now that we have academic potential and academic potential potential, which should a person be ranked based off of when going to college? Given that academic potential is more dependent upon environmental factors that will change and be normalized between all freshmen (to some degree, there is still some differences), then should academic potential potential be a better predictor for success at college?
That isn't the complete answer, and real life is much more complicated than these simple equations. Just like emotional support can lead to a more mature individual that even once the emotional support is gone they have a life long benefit from.