New test competing with ACT and SAT

[KarenC]

This is interesting.  I like the emphasis on good literature.  It would be nice to see students reading whole books again rather than just excerpts.

 

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31219/

[Ailaena]

Tate said the SAT and ACT’s promotion of globalization has eroded loyalty to any particular cultural or intellectual tradition. The CLT counters that.

So for years, people have been trying to make tests that are not culturally biased, and this guy thinks that's bad and I just don't want to waste the energy to be disgusted.

 

"Tests teach, they don't just evaluate.... And it doesn't necessarily belong to a Cnristian worldview. " Yes, yes, God forbid your child run across a science passage on carbon dating or a literature passage that mentions Hinduism. I cannot roll my eyes any harder for fear of a seizure.

 

He developed a test for white, conservative Christians, not necessarily students with a classical education. And while I have some issues with the changes they have made to standardized testing, apparently they were minor in comparison with the fact of how bad the tests could be.

[regentrude]

"“And I thought what was being taught on the SAT and ACT didn’t necessarily correspond to a Christian or Catholic worldview and in some ways, it seemed to undermine that.â€"

 

:confused:  How does the ACT undermine Christian worldview??? Because a science passage may mention evolution?

[Serenade]

Nothing wrong with having an alternative test.

 

I'd love to see more options, frankly. 

[bettyandbob]

I identify myself as a Christian. I'm of the opinion that higher education should be secular. (Thomas Jefferson thought that as well when he founded UVA.)

 

One ought to be able to study and fully evaluate information whether or not such information is in conflict with their beliefs. I think this is especially true for persons who argue viewpoints that are specifically Christian worldview. If you don't understand both sides you can't explain it. Also, if one is striving to be a better Christian it really helps to fully understand the cultures and beliefs of others.

 

If Christian colleges want to go with a different test, that is fine. I don't like the idea of state supported institutions accepting such a test. It would be better to evaluate applications without testing.

[Bambam]

I've seen this a couple of times. I checked it out because it looked interesting.

But so few colleges accept it - and mostly ones I've never heard of (look like private possibly religious affiliated). 

And I couldn't figure out anywhere the test was being offered. 

So, possibly neat idea, but it simply isn't feasible right now. Practically they aren't competing. They are not even in the same ball field.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Bambam

[Corraleno]

That test is really not "competing" with the SAT or ACT. It may be useful to a small number of students who are exclusively applying to the three dozen or so conservative Christian colleges that accept it, but the vast majority of students will still take the SAT or ACT — including students applying to Christian colleges who also want to keep their options open for other schools.

 

As for the "emphasis on good literature" and reading whole books... this test has nothing to do with that. On the CLT website, they say that students do not even need a classical education to pass the test, and there is no specific curriculum to follow. The sample test questions use passages from a Christian worldview, but do not require having read any particular works beforehand (and the questions are not particularly challenging).

 

 

[Mergath]

How nice that homeschooling parents can shield their children from dangerous secular views from birth straight up through the end of college now, without even so much as a two hour test to expose them to science or any kind of secular thinking.

 

</sarcasm>

[FaithManor]

"“And I thought what was being taught on the SAT and ACT didn’t necessarily correspond to a Christian or Catholic worldview and in some ways, it seemed to undermine that.â€"

 

:confused:  How does the ACT undermine Christian worldview??? Because a science passage may mention evolution?

I know. I agree!

 

:banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

 

The dominionist crazy in this nation just keeps growing!

[Crimson Wife]

I do think there is a market for a more rigorous college admissions test, especially now that the SAT has been "dumbed down". The current tests don't do a good job distinguishing among high scoring students.

 

This particular test doesn't sound like it has that goal.

[Xahm]

So many problems with this. One of the smaller, but to me more interesting, ones is that the developers seem to think that the reason many small liberal arts colleges are struggling is that the traditional tests undervalue the liberal arts. Not that there's a proliferation of these colleges and costs have spiraled out of control.  It doesn't give me great confidence in the developers' ability to test critical thinking, to put it mildly.

[Corraleno]

The sample from the "Science" section is an excerpt from an article titled "Wonder & Love: How Scientists Neglect God and Man," which discusses the "impoverished perceptual life" of animals and ends with this conclusion: "Without human beings, the universe would be a drama played before an empty theater and thus would be pointless. Nature, without human beings, would be like a superb book with no reader. Remove humankind from nature and you erase the perception of all its wonder, its beauty, and its mystery—the world becomes meaningless."

 

Here are some questions for that passage:

 

The author most likely views nature as

A.  a ruthless and mechanical creation, despite some redeeming qualities.

B.  a volatile but predictable system that is worthy of academic study.

C.  a stunning and moving entity when viewed through human eyes.

D.  an enormous world impenetrable to human perception.

 

Animal perception : human perception ::

A.  clear glass : dirty window

B.  house : apartment

C.  empty lot : stadium field

D.  dog : cat

 

That analogy doesn't even make sense, although the answer is obviously supposed to be C.  :blink:

[teachermom2834]

A local college is pushing the test.  Another local Christian college (one who accepts pretty much anyone and has very few admissions requirements) will not even take it.

 

I have been hearing alot about it and our homeschool community is definitely the target demographic and I still don't see it being taken very seriously.  

 

The sample from the "Science" section is an excerpt from an article titled "Wonder & Love: How Scientists Neglect God and Man," which discusses the "impoverished perceptual life" of animals and ends with this conclusion: "Without human beings, the universe would be a drama played before an empty theater and thus would be pointless. Nature, without human beings, would be like a superb book with no reader. Remove humankind from nature and you erase the perception of all its wonder, its beauty, and its mystery—the world becomes meaningless."

 

Here are some questions for that passage:

 

Animal perception : human perception ::

A.  clear glass : dirty window

B.  house : apartment

C.  empty lot : stadium field

D.  dog : cat

 

That analogy doesn't even make sense, although the answer is obviously supposed to be C.  :blink:

 

 

 

Can someone explain to me the analogy, because I certainly don't get it.  And there are holes in the logic of the article big enough to drive a truck through.

Edited February 22, 2017 by GGardner

[Farrar]

Can someone explain to me the analogy, because I certainly don't get it.  And there are holes in the logic of the article big enough to drive a truck through.

 

I assume it's trying to drive home that humans (as God's special creation) are superior to animals, and, of course, not animals ourselves or descended from animals or anything like that.

 

Sigh. Because this is what we need - for the Christian colleges to become even more detached from the rest of academia. 

 

I do think there's a market for competition, but not this.

[Corraleno]

Can someone explain to me the analogy, because I certainly don't get it.  And there are holes in the logic of the article big enough to drive a truck through.

 

I think what they are trying to imply in C is that there's a lot more to perceive in a stadium versus an empty lot, but that assumes the stadium is full of people and action, which is not at all clear. But even with that assumption, it still doesn't make any sense! It's basically comparing animal perception to staring at nothing and human perception to watching a football game. Not to mention the problem of equating the perceptual abilities of frogs and gorillas. 

 

The other analogy in that section is just as bad:

 

Nature : beauty ::

A. water : thirst

B. actions : morality

C. trees : forest

D. music : instruments

 

:confused1:

 

All of the questions in the practice section are either extremely easy/obvious or so badly written as to make no sense. The fact that the developers of the test are holding themselves up as paragons of rigorous classical education, when the test they developed is so embarrassingly badly written is pretty absurd.

[G5052]

I identify myself as a Christian. I'm of the opinion that higher education should be secular. (Thomas Jefferson thought that as well when he founded UVA.)

 

One ought to be able to study and fully evaluate information whether or not such information is in conflict with their beliefs. I think this is especially true for persons who argue viewpoints that are specifically Christian worldview. If you don't understand both sides you can't explain it. Also, if one is striving to be a better Christian it really helps to fully understand the cultures and beliefs of others.

 

If Christian colleges want to go with a different test, that is fine. I don't like the idea of state supported institutions accepting such a test. It would be better to evaluate applications without testing.

 

You and me both.

 

I can guarantee that the state college I work for would laugh at this test.

 

My daughter took the ACT this month and commented that there were all of two questions that didn't line up with our beliefs, but I drill mine in secular thinking so they know all sides, and she felt like she answered them correctly. She found it mildly amusing, and no, it didn't shake her faith at all.

 

I had a similar discussion with my teens on the way home from church. Both have friends that don't go to church at all and have different viewpoints. And it really isn't a big deal, but someone in my church cornered my oldest and called him down on this. He's a sophomore in a state college, works for someone that doesn't go to church, and works out and does Aikido with people who don't go to church. So he knows a variety of people that aren't like him. And he maintains his beliefs. What a concept!

[teachermom2834]

I suspect this is marketing to aimed to promote the schools pushing the test.  It doesn't seem to be primarily aimed at measuring achievement or aptitude but rather aimed at making a point.  Perhaps it will connect some of those that would seek out this test with schools that appeal to them.  But it is not going to compete with the ACT/SAT. 

[Frances]

So many problems with this. One of the smaller, but to me more interesting, ones is that the developers seem to think that the reason many small liberal arts colleges are struggling is that the traditional tests undervalue the liberal arts. Not that there's a proliferation of these colleges and costs have spiraled out of control. It doesn't give me great confidence in the developers' ability to test critical thinking, to put it mildly.

Not to mention the fact that you can get a very strong science/technology and liberal arts education at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. My husband, son, and I got both. Two of us at a small LAC and one in the honors program at a large state U.

 

I think what they are trying to imply in C is that there's a lot more to perceive in a stadium versus an empty lot, but that assumes the stadium is full of people and action, which is not at all clear. But even with that assumption, it still doesn't make any sense!

 

 

Uh, I guess.  It didn't occur to me that a stadium field would be full of people and action, and not to get all literary on them, but anyone who thinks there's nothing to perceive in an empty lot hasn't read Walden.

[LucyStoner]

I'm not sure if I should laugh, roll my eyes, cry or kick some shins.

 

So imma gonna leave it at that.

[LucyStoner]

The other analogy in that section is just as bad:

 

Nature : beauty ::

A. water : thirst

B. actions : morality

C. trees : forest

D. music : instruments

Uh, I got every single analogy right on the SAT nearly 20 years ago. And I have no stinking idea WHAT the correct answer to this would be. 🙄😂

[Corraleno]

Uh, I got every single analogy right on the SAT nearly 20 years ago. And I have no stinking idea WHAT the correct answer to this would be. 🙄😂

 

At least with the first analogy, you can tell it's supposed to be C because A and B make the opposite point, and D is meaningless; with the second one, the only answer you can eliminate is C — and none of the others make sense! 

 

I really wonder if any of the colleges that agreed to accept the test have actually seen it.  :blink:

[eternalsummer]

That is pretty hilarious.

 

I am super conservative, suspicious of the liberal leanings of the vast majority of academia, esp. in large state schools, and supportive of a classical education. A test that reflected the value of that education (which for us does not include religion, as we are not religious) and that was as rigorous as the ACT/SAT or more so would be great.

 

This test does Not Seem Like That Test. It reads like it was written by high school psych students, or something, as a parody.

[SarahW]

At least with the first analogy, you can tell it's supposed to be C because A and B make the opposite point, and D is meaningless; with the second one, the only answer you can eliminate is C — and none of the others make sense! 

 

I really wonder if any of the colleges that agreed to accept the test have actually seen it.  :blink:

 

I actually think it's supposed to be C.

 

I'm conjecturing that the test makers are Romanticists, so you read the analogy as Nature causes Beauty. Similarly(! yeah, work with me here) trees cause forests. None of the others make sense.

 

 

When I heard about this, I was hoping it would be something good for students who had read Cicero and were ready to show their grasp of philosophy, Big Ideas, and viewpoints other than Modernism. But it seems that the test makers have no idea what they're doing. How frustrating.

[eternalsummer]

it's B

 

actions: morality

 

nature is like the physical embodiment of beauty, the way God made the world to exemplify beauty

 

our actions are, ideally, the incarnation of the abstract idea of morality

 

 

okay it made less sense when I wrote it out than when I was thinking about it

[LucyStoner]

it's B

 

actions: morality

 

nature is like the physical embodiment of beauty, the way God made the world to exemplify beauty

 

our actions are, ideally, the incarnation of the abstract idea of morality

 

 

okay it made less sense when I wrote it out than when I was thinking about it

This assumes that nature is the physical embodiment of beauty. It assumes that they are using one definition of nature.

[eternalsummer]

well, sure, I had to assume something that wasn't obvious, because otherwise the question makes no sense.  It seems like something that would come from a Christian worldview, though.

 

Or maybe, rereading the passage, nature is only beautiful with humans to process it, just like actions are only moral if humans do them?

 

I don't know, now I am confused again.  What a dumb test.

[Dmmetler]

I assumed "nature is a subset of beauty, trees are a subset of forests".

 

Our cover school is offering this in the Spring. I admit that if the test site weren't 2 hours, away, I mighf consider having DD do it, just to compare it with the ACT and SAT, and to see if the actual test is as ludicrous as the practice questions.

[Xahm]

I'm almost certain the answer is supposed to be A. The thinking being that water fills the need implied by thirst and nature fills the need implied by beauty. The grammar of the whole thing is really off, but that fits with the other examples shown. Of course, since the whole thing is kooky I'd be fine with being wrong.

[ktgrok]

Uh, I got every single analogy right on the SAT nearly 20 years ago. And I have no stinking idea WHAT the correct answer to this would be. 🙄😂

 

Yeah, I'm REALLY good at analogies, and um, WTF? 

 

Closest I can come is nature is full of beauty and music is full of instruments, which still makes no sense. 

[Mergath]

Yeah, I'm REALLY good at analogies, and um, WTF? 

 

Closest I can come is nature is full of beauty and music is full of instruments, which still makes no sense. 

 

Same here. I aced all the verbal stuff when I took the ACT (and bombed the math section, so it balanced out, lol) and I have no clue. There doesn't seem to be one correct answer.

 

Maybe this testing company wants to make the students who take their test look really good, so they're ALL correct.

 

[Xahm]

it's B

 

actions: morality

 

nature is like the physical embodiment of beauty, the way God made the world to exemplify beauty

 

our actions are, ideally, the incarnation of the abstract idea of morality

 

 

okay it made less sense when I wrote it out than when I was thinking about it

Out of curiosity I checked and this is right (I didn't do the whole test, though. Not that curious). What an exam!

[Crimson Wife]

I was thinking B, because Nature SHOULD have beauty and our actions SHOULD have morality (at least if one holds the worldview that the test designers are trying to promote). But it's a poorly designed question, as is the first one.

I don't remember much from the SAT analogies, but, isn't is also odd that this test presents analogies in the context of a reading -- didn't the SAT analogies just stand on their own, ostensibly as vocabulary tests?