(05-07-2021 12:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 11:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-07-2021 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If we recruit more 4*s and 3*s, and less 2*s, we are likely to do better on the field and on the court and send more players to the pros.

Holds true for academia, too.

I'm not sure about that comparison.

For football players you have game film and measurables. A 40 time is an even playing field.

SAT scores are not nearly as objective.

Sort of a quibble, but a universal standardized test is about as objective as you can get. It is analogous to the 40-yard sprint at a scouting combine: the score measures how you well you did at the assigned task under the assigned conditions, without taking into account how much healthy nutrition, specialized coaching, mental health, or other assets you might have had in the weeks and years leading up to it, or whether your background gave you opportunities to polish the particular skill.

The question is not whether it is objective, but what does it measure -- or really, what does it predict.

Agree. Objective was a poor choice of words.

A 40 time will tell you what you something about the ability of a DE to get to the QB.

An SAT score will tell you... what?