The data I've seen says the reverse, that SAT is a better predictor than GPA, but both together contain more information.
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview...
> then more energy should be spent on expanding those same opportunities to a greater number of people, not worrying about the speculative incremental decline in quality that might be incurred when switching from one set of entrance criteria to another.
Making all schools better is a noble goal. But I thought the point of selective magnet schools was largely to gather selected students in one place. It's not so much that you give superior teachers to some, it's that a whole class of kids who are all into math (or whatever) can be taught more, faster, than an average class.
For instance, I attended a HS where GPA was graded on a 4.0 scale, even for advanced placement and college credit classes. The consequence is that you had a bunch of "Valedictorians" with perfect GPAs that attended spitwad classes.
Other schools I've seen grade on a 5.0 (or even a 6.0 I believe) system, to differentiate.
I would also suspect that GPA is more easily influenced by parental involvement than SAT (or just a plain IQ test).
Even if the balance is tilted the other way for this particular magnet school, it's quite inflammatory to claim this initiative is in any way similar the destruction of 1,500 year old religious icons by an extremely violent group of religious extremists.
The people who "rearranged their lives" to try to get their children into the school are also in no way entitled a spot. If this school is doing an excellent job teaching students, and that absolutely appears to be the case, then more energy should be spent on expanding those same opportunities to a greater number of people, not worrying about the speculative incremental decline in quality that might be incurred when switching from one set of entrance criteria to another.