I read the whole of the 2011 paper. Two comments on the Half Sigma criticism:
(a) It was written with reference to the 2002 paper, not the 2011 paper.
(b) Regarding
But what it really says is that the average SAT score of a school is unimportant, what’s important is how highly “ranked” it is. I suspect that in many cases, when a student attended a school with a lower average SAT score, they did so because the school with the lower score was actually the more prestigious school.
The authors didn’t just look at average SAT scores, they also looked at selectivity (as measured by the Barron’s selectivity index). In the 2002 paper, they even matched students based on the exact schools they had been accepted to.
I read the whole of the 2011 paper. Two comments on the Half Sigma criticism:
(a) It was written with reference to the 2002 paper, not the 2011 paper. (b) Regarding
The authors didn’t just look at average SAT scores, they also looked at selectivity (as measured by the Barron’s selectivity index). In the 2002 paper, they even matched students based on the exact schools they had been accepted to.