This answer is going to be disjointed, mainly because so is your question(s).
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters
Why does someone who maxes out the SAT score think they should be admitted before someone else who scored well enough to get admitted and was a marching band standout?
|
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Those who are good at standardized tests think that the SAT should be weighted more heavily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters
But lets say that 100% bookworms should be admitted to college first; after I admit a percentage of them can I then start admitting students with visible/physical talent?
|
You're getting closer. Now what about those with creative talents that are not physical and cannot be quantified on a standardized test? (See Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters
Simply put; at a certain point can I stop making the SAT score the most important factor?
|
You don't need to, because it typically isn't. There's a correlation between SAT scores and how well a freshman does their first semester - when they take the general "weed out" courses - after that, their curriculum is going to become increasingly specific to their interest and possible career goals, and the SAT scores become less relevant. Therefore, universities want to make reasonably sure students can get past that point by having a minimum SAT requirement, but after that they want students with strong aptitude towards what the school has to offer.
You mention marching band - typically very important to 'black colleges' and those that go to bowl games. All else being equal, a "marching band standout" would therefore be a better candidate for Alabama than say Harvard. Now suppose instead that rather than being a marching band standout, they are now captain of their school's 4-year-running tri-state-area championship debate team. Their chances of getting into Harvard just went up dramatically.