SAT/ACT unfair?!

[4wildberrys]

Well, I've certainly ranted enough here about how I feel about these ridiculous tests that 'determine' college readiness and/or admission altogether. But I found this site today and thought I would share it here. And YES----I signed the petition! The simple fact that one can purchase 'study materials' or tutors etc. to raise scores of these tests and/or take the tests repeatedly in order to raise scores is kind of like the Big Pink Elephant in the room that screams the unfairness----that everyone seems to ignore.

:rant:

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.actoutagainstsat.com/

[creekland]

While no test is perfect for everyone, I know based on what I see at our local public school I personally think the tests do a good job for what they test (generally math and English + reasoning). There are very few scores that surprise me when kids share (and they share low and high).

 

They do not test aptitude in other things (not even science really) nor do they test work ethic (which is a big deal in success), but I honestly can't come up with much better for colleges to go on to test "readiness." One can somewhat argue that they do test work ethic in that those taking the test multiple times to better their score "care" enough to put in the effort. Those getting a good score on one sitting aren't tested with that, of course, but still, in general...

[Excelsior! Academy]

I can't access the video on my ipad.

[asta]

While no test is perfect for everyone, I know based on what I see at our local public school I personally think the tests do a good job for what they test (generally math and English + reasoning). There are very few scores that surprise me when kids share (and they share low and high).

 

They do not test aptitude in other things (not even science really) nor do they test work ethic (which is a big deal in success), but I honestly can't come up with much better for colleges to go on to test "readiness." One can somewhat argue that they do test work ethic in that those taking the test multiple times to better their score "care" enough to put in the effort. Those getting a good score on one sitting aren't tested with that, of course, but still, in general...

 

Unless they don't have the money for extensive "how to take the SAT" programs (or even books or computers, for that matter), the access to the test (some live in places where it is offered only once a year, for example).

 

There are some really bright kids out there who are going to high school, going to WORK, coming home, doing homework all night and doing the same thing all over again. Not because they want a cell phone, but because that is the financial reality for their family.

 

How are they to compete with kids who have access (and time for) specific SAT studying? I've mentioned this one before? How are they to compete with kids whose schools incorporate SAT "study skills" into their curriculum?

 

At that point, it has gone beyond testing for intelligence or for those who put in that "extra" effort; it has become one big game of "who has been taught to the test best".

 

My latest anecdata: My niece. (yes, I have a LOT of nieces, and yes, they're flipping brilliant). Autistic savant. Across the board for math, English, history, science, foreign language - yes, one of THOSE kind of brains. Just got her SATs back a couple of days ago - don't know what her total score was, just percentages: 85% math and 95% verbal. Why? No big-@ss prep for starters. Sure, they're not bad scores at all. But her cousin, who can't touch her intelligence wise, maxed the test out. The cousin whose school starts prepping kids in 8th grade.

 

NO ONE can convince me that that test isn't a test about testing.

 

 

a

 

 

ETA: I wrote this BEFORE watching the video

Edited June 25, 2011 by asta

[Ester Maria]

There are three basic ways you can take a test of this kind.

One, you can arm yourself with most information you can possibly get about the format of the test, types of questions and typical tricks that may appear, and so forth. This approach includes conscious practicing, A LOT, in an attempt to outsmart the test.

Two, you can generally familiarize yourself with the format of the test, not to be surprised by it, and then trust yourself enough that you will find your way around it - so, no excessive conscious prep, but also not really bluffing and knowing nothing about what expects you there.

Three, you can ignore the fact you are going to take the test until the day you take it and rely on bluffing through their own intelligence.

 

Now, the fact is that the tests were originally probably designed to be type three tests, but, heck it, what normally happens in those circumstances is that some types one and types two of people started reasoning the way that they want to secure themselves the greatest possible leg up before they get faced with the test, so you get the current craze about the tests and from tests which test general reasoning skills you got tests which can be gamed, like any other test.

 

My problems with the video are the following:

 

#1 - There is an assumption that, in order to take the first approach, you need expensive prep classes. The fact is, however, the actual correlation exists between time spent on studying the format of the test and previous tests and high scores, rather than on doing so specifically in a $2k environment of private prepping. What they tell you in prep classes for tests is essentially what you can still do on your own by, well, studying the format of the test and previous tests. I understand that it is a lot more comfortable have somebody else do half of the thinking for you and present it nicely, but theoretically, if you want a solid conscious prep, you do not need $2k classes, you need a $20 prep test book from Amazon, time dedicated to it and self-discipline.

 

So, you can make a conscious choice of blufffing your way through and seeing what SAT is on the day you take it, but you cannot prevent others from taking an approach which will prepare them. That is your choice and you get to live with it - retake the test if you are not satisfied. Personally, I find the second approch to be the ideal one for your average bright kid, with basic familiarization with what SAT is before actually getting there, but not losing much sleep over prepping for it if one notices one will do fairly well on it. I understand that other people may opt for other approaches, but IF there is a definite causation here, it is between studying the format and examples and then greater scores, not between doing so for $2k.

 

 

#2: None of the SAT-abolishers are so far, wherever I came across them on the internet, suggesting any CONCRETE (not wishy washy, but concrete and doable) possible alternatives to a test of this kind.

GPA alone? An A in one school is a C in another school, even in courses which have the same title.

Transcripts with more course descriptions, more individualized ones, essay-ish, and so forth? Yeah, but anyone can claim anything they wish in such circumstances and you have no time nor tools to check it. Do not count with academic honesty of all people, the padding up of transcripts would still be happening... only not with standardized tests scores (which, however idiotic, are still common criteria for all), but with flowery descriptions, essays written by somebody else, claims something was done when it was not, etc.

Additional activities? Right, because everybody had a chance of performing in theatre, traveling the world, volunteering abroad, being a gymnast and so forth. Not. Taking non-academic criteria into account is possibly the worst discrimination so far I have come across, for an entrance into an academic institution. Plus you have that subjective component.

Entrance exams that are university-based? Hardly practical, for most of those universities, based on how many potential applicants they can get. Can we really empty a whole little town for those few hours of an entrance exam? LOL.

European-style Bac or maturita'? Possibly a lot better choice, but still a standardized test, with all problems it carries, and possibly a lot less functional for an enormous country like the USA. Plus the additional cost, exam cost and impracticalities of oral part of the exam, thesis defense, and so forth.

Abolishing numerus clausus? Dream on, it would take a reset of the whole system.

 

What I am trying to say, I guess, is that I GET the frustration about an arbitrary test being decisive and the possibilities of gaming it - but WHAT do you guys want as an alternative? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, in spite of the idiocy of standardized testing (which I do not deny), it is one of the least bad options? Not good per se, but maybe still one of the lesser evils we can pick from to academically stratify the student population?

 

 

#3 - The correlation with parental wealth is an obvious one. And it is wrong on so many levels. However, homeschoolers are the last group that should complain about it, because do you know what people are saying about homeschoolers and how THEY put OTHERS on disadvantage in many cases because they had one-on-one instruction? I mean, just HOW FAR are you willing to go to block out ALL factors except for one's "brain", if we can even abstract that from the wholeness of their educational experience? And why would it even be fair to focus on intelligence alone (hey - is THAT not also a discrimination? would it not be better to test content knowledge, rather than something as general as "readiness" or "scholastic aptitude"?), on capacity alone, when that is only one part of the picture?

Should we abolish private schools and homschooling because, ooops, not all people can afford them nor afford to stay home with kids? Go back to one-size-fits-all schools with zero tolerance for educational and upbringing differences, prescribing everyone to get the exact same educational opportunities? Outlaw extracurriculars because one district might be able to afford more than the next one? How far are you willing to go to block out accidents of birth and upbringing? And why would we even set the system the way to account for them so much? What about the idea that people can rise above those accidents, even if life is not fair and even if it means that somebody will get a $2k prep, and somebody else will have to work a few hours to be able to afford a prep book and then go through it alone at night?

 

Wealth will always be a concern, just like living in a good district will be, being healthy, being neurotypical, being from an educated family, having an access to extracurriculars, being "invested in" and in one's education, being a cultural and a linguistic majority, and so forth. Two people will NEVER be in the same situation when taking the same test. But is it a reason good enough to abolish acceptance at least partly based on something remotely objective where participants are faced with the same types of challenges?

 

Anglo-American school tradition is probably the most stratified academic system in the developed world, stratified based on parental wealth (due to the tradition of private education and an almost complete "buying" of the greatest quality into the private system), rather than academic aptitude and concrete school results (and then Ester gets a bad name on these boards for voting for a German system which is based on the latter, not on parental wealth, because as much as problematic, it is still less problematic in my eyes than wealth-based systems). It IS wrong on so many levels (just like there are deep problems with other systems too, in that they still inadequately serve huge populations of different children), but at the end of the day, you have the choice between crying about how bad and evil the system is, and... gaming the system, like everybody else. If you cannot fight them (and is it even realistic to fight?), join them. If you cannot change the system, manipulate it to turn it to your advantage. It is irritating, but rather simple: if you know so many things depend on stupid bureaucracy and a highly problematic test, the best thing you can do is actually prepare for that highly problematic test. It is sad, but c'est la vie. I am still interested in hearing other possible DOABLE options, which do not sink into utter subjectivity, but are somehow better than these tests.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Ester Maria

[creekland]

 

#2: None of the SAT-abolishers are so far, wherever I came across them on the internet, suggesting any CONCRETE (not wishy washy, but concrete and doable) possible alternatives to a test of this kind.

GPA alone? An A in one school is a C in another school, even in courses which have the same title.

Transcripts with more course descriptions, more individualized ones, essay-ish, and so forth? Yeah, but anyone can claim anything they wish in such circumstances and you have no time nor tools to check it. Do not count with academic honesty of all people, the padding up of transcripts would still be happening... only not with standardized tests scores (which, however idiotic, are still common criteria for all), but with flowery descriptions, essays written by somebody else, claims something was done when it was not, etc.

Additional activities? Right, because everybody had a chance of performing in theatre, traveling the world, volunteering abroad, being a gymnast and so forth. Not. Taking non-academic criteria into account is possibly the worst discrimination so far I have come across, for an entrance into an academic institution. Plus you have that subjective component.

Entrance exams that are university-based? Hardly practical, for most of those universities, based on how many potential applicants they can get. Can we really empty a whole little town for those few hours of an entrance exam? LOL.

European-style Bac or maturita'? Possibly a lot better choice, but still a standardized test, with all problems it carries, and possibly a lot less functional for an enormous country like the USA. Plus the additional cost, exam cost and impracticalities of oral part of the exam, thesis defense, and so forth.

Abolishing numerus clausus? Dream on, it would take a reset of the whole system.

 

What I am trying to say, I guess, is that I GET the frustration about an arbitrary test being decisive and the possibilities of gaming it - but WHAT do you guys want as an alternative? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, in spite of the idiocy of standardized testing (which I do not deny), it is one of the least bad options? Not good per se, but maybe still one of the lesser evils we can pick from to academically stratify the student population?

 

 

 

I agree with your whole post, but especially the point I quoted.

 

I've been working in our public high school for 11 school years now. For math purposes, I'll figure we averaged 300 grads per year (actual number is slightly more, but... -->3300). 65% of those (again, on average) go on to post college education (2145). About 1/3rd of those choose trade schools or go directly into cc without taking a test (down to 1430). I've heard maybe half of their scores (probably more, but we'll say half --> 715). While not a huge population sample, I can say I can only recall ONCE when I was surprised by the score being low. There are other low scores, of course, (plenty of them) but either the student's classwork or talents coupled with our school's curricula make the score reasonable in my mind.

 

I suppose there might be some that keep it a secret, but I don't know of any who pay $2000 for test prep. Several, but I don't think it's a majority, "supposedly" use our school's free test prep class (or nearly free - they have to buy the book - if on free lunch I believe the book is provided). Supposedly is in quotes because the work they put into the class is generally minimal at best. (There are a couple of exceptions, but not many.)

 

Therefore, based solely on my experiences, I still say the test SOMEWHAT tests work ethic for those who take the test multiple times. For those who don't, you can't tell.

 

Oldest took each test once with no test prep (in spite of buying a book for him and suggesting he spend time with it). He got good and really good scores, but not tippy top (pending test). And you know what? He's very academically intelligent, but somewhat lazy - just what I would predict.

 

Middle son stuck with the ACT and has taken it 3 times to finally end up with a top 1% score. His first score pretty much matched oldest brother's really good score. By the third test he was putting significant time into studying with books (no course at all - no prodding needed from me). He's smart WITH a good work ethic.

 

Youngest hasn't taken any tests yet. He's superb with English, average or somewhat better in math but slower to process it, and lazy like his oldest brother. I can practically predict his future scores and they will be accurate for what he can do on this if he doesn't change in the next year or so. It won't test his biological science ability (where he shines). For that we are coming up with other thoughts - nothing concrete yet - but it'll probably include some cc classes starting junior year.

 

One can argue the smarter kids shouldn't be "punished" by our school's curricula. I disagree. I've seen a few top kids with lower scores from our school get accepted in higher level colleges. The majority drop out coming back and telling me THEY WEREN'T PREPARED. Some do manage to learn quickly. The vast majority take a hit on their GPA freshman year. Actually, I'm pretty sure ALL with lower scores take a hit and most drop out. The few successes I was thinking about had higher scores (thinking as I type). This, alone, is the reason we chose to homeschool our own. I do feel for those kids whose parents just assume the school will do a good job. I really do. But colleges can't take the blame for it and shouldn't keep out prepared kids in favor of those who get shunted by their school district. That wouldn't be fair at all to the prepared kids. Or, should they change their classes in order to fit all in the same way that "everyone wins" in some sports leagues now? Not IMO.

 

In the end, there are colleges for every level of score and schools out there who are more forgiving of scores - esp for those in non math/English heavy fields or those who have legitimate excuses for low scores. It's also well known that people in "lesser" areas get more of a break on scores than those in top prep schools. But that doesn't mean they can have low scores. That's setting them up for failure in classes.

 

The system (ANY system) will not be fair to 100% of students, but it's not as awful as many would like to portray.

[kiana]

What Ester Maria and Creekland said.

 

There really isn't a good alternative. The SAT was intended to be a fairer option for students, as before that each university would have their own entrance tests, and it was even more unfair for the students who didn't go to private prep schools.

 

There's a fuss every year or so in the UK about how students from the elite prep schools do better in interviews at universities because they've been coached for them. Anything based on examinations is preppable. Anything based on extracurriculars is hugely unfair to people who have a broke or indifferent family or most likely both. Anything based solely on transcripts is easy to lie about.

[4wildberrys]

 

 

 

Oldest took each test once with no test prep (in spite of buying a book for him and suggesting he spend time with it). He got good and really good scores, but not tippy top (pending test). And you know what? He's very academically intelligent, but somewhat lazy - just what I would predict.

 

Middle son stuck with the ACT and has taken it 3 times to finally end up with a top 1% score. His first score pretty much matched oldest brother's really good score. By the third test he was putting significant time into studying with books (no course at all - no prodding needed from me). He's smart WITH a good work ethic.

 

 

 

 

My 'unfairness' point exactly! Taking the test ONCE----and only ONCE----with no coaching or studying is my suggestion. It levels the playing field. And another suggestion by me is that each college have its very own entrance exam. You apply, your application with transcript is looked over---and then the student takes that individual entrance exam whose score then determines whether that prospective student is right for the school. Or use a different type of standardized test that really TESTS knowledge with straightforward questions instead of the sneaky tricks used by the College Board. What's wrong with everyone taking the GED? Are we looking for high IQ or knowledge of certain topics?

[calandalsmom]

I think, 4wildberries, you are reacting to the same thing I find repellant in public ed- there is a game, the rules are somewhat arbitrary, and success depends not on intelligence necessarily, but whether or not you play the game.

 

Its certainly a depressing state of affairs. I had thought if we skipped the early years of schooling we'd avoid the silly games, but apparently not- witness the AP thread. Unfortunately it may be typical of life for most of us. We all have to play the games at some point.

[4wildberrys]

I think, 4wildberries, you are reacting to the same thing I find repellant in public ed- there is a game, the rules are somewhat arbitrary, and success depends not on intelligence necessarily, but whether or not you play the game.

 

Its certainly a depressing state of affairs. I had thought if we skipped the early years of schooling we'd avoid the silly games, but apparently not- witness the AP thread. Unfortunately it may be typical of life for most of us. We all have to play the games at some point.

 

I know--you're absolutely right! Tricky games irritate me. And the tricks to get to college, especially the local state colleges and universities here, just infuriate me. My dd has been reduced to her ACT score. Period. All these years of hard work reduced to 2 digits. :glare: If someone WANTS to attend college for a degree, and of course they do pay for it, they should be able to attend without all the crummy hoops. Once they enroll, if the work is too hard, so what? Find another direction. Why the darn high stakes standardized tests that test really NO standards but how to take a standardized test well?

[calandalsmom]

I know--you're absolutely right! Tricky games irritate me. And the tricks to get to college, especially the local state colleges and universities here, just infuriate me. My dd has been reduced to her ACT score. Period. All these years of hard work reduced to 2 digits. :glare: If someone WANTS to attend college for a degree, and of course they do pay for it, they should be able to attend without all the crummy hoops. Once they enroll, if the work is too hard, so what? Find another direction. Why the darn high stakes standardized tests that test really NO standards but how to take a standardized test well?

 

I wonder if we can look at that as a plus?

 

I am teaching a rising 8th grader. Does that mean I can do whatever he wants for HS and help him get as high an ACT score as possible?

 

Bc he has a passion right now for PVC pipe engineering and nerf guns. And if all that really matters is a decent ACT score I can quit wasting my time worrying about a lot of stuff I am obsessing over.

 

Im nt a fan of games but if I have to play can I find a way to do it and maximize his interests?

[regentrude]

If someone WANTS to attend college for a degree, and of course they do pay for it, they should be able to attend without all the crummy hoops. Once they enroll, if the work is too hard, so what? Find another direction.

 

It is not that easy. Not until it is accepted that colleges have large numbers of unprepared students simply drop out.

Instead, currently there is a huge push towards retention, colleges must jump through hoops to work with unprepared and unqualified students, classes are filled and have wait lists ... so a student who find himself unable to do the work is taking up the space a qualified student could fill. (More students does not mean that public universities get to hire more instructors.) Alternatively, the classes get dumbed down and the really god students get a mediocre education because a big part of the class is unable to do challenging course work.

 

There must be a way for universities to select their students. The ACT-SAT is clearly not ideal, but simply admitting everybody regardless of qualification is not going to work.

[calandalsmom]

Don't be silly. We already admit hundreds or thousands of unqualified people every year. In Mass its now the law that daycare workers need a degree. We require a degree in the US for everything.

 

We created an untenable system and now we have to sustain it and work within the system we created.

 

We have hundreds of small colleges which are nothing but glorified high schools and holding pens for people who shouldnt be focusing on academic pursuits.

 

In VA we had Longwood, Radford, ODU and several other colleges which would take anyone who applied.

[4wildberrys]

I wonder if we can look at that as a plus?

 

I am teaching a rising 8th grader. Does that mean I can do whatever he wants for HS and help him get as high an ACT score as possible?

 

Bc he has a passion right now for PVC pipe engineering and nerf guns. And if all that really matters is a decent ACT score I can quit wasting my time worrying about a lot of stuff I am obsessing over.

 

Im nt a fan of games but if I have to play can I find a way to do it and maximize his interests?

 

Apparently in my state you could do this! All that time spent over these last 4 years working SO hard----when we could have done what the local public school does :tongue_smilie:

 

It is not that easy. Not until it is accepted that colleges have large numbers of unprepared students simply drop out.

Instead, currently there is a huge push towards retention, colleges must jump through hoops to work with unprepared and unqualified students, classes are filled and have wait lists ... so a student who find himself unable to do the work is taking up the space a qualified student could fill. (More students does not mean that public universities get to hire more instructors.) Alternatively, the classes get dumbed down and the really god students get a mediocre education because a big part of the class is unable to do challenging course work.

 

There must be a way for universities to select their students. The ACT-SAT is clearly not ideal, but simply admitting everybody regardless of qualification is not going to work.

 

Individual entrance exams! It takes the extreme focus on these darn tests out of the classroom and probably would leave more time for actual learning. Not everyone can or should go to college! This makes college entrance more personalized----if a kid wants to apply to certain colleges, it's between them and the school. To me, this increases personal incentive too instead of the now blanket testing.

[calandalsmom]

I think your bigotry is overriding your common sense. That certainly is not the case where I live or in any place I have lived.

[Ester Maria]

Individual entrance exams! It takes the extreme focus on these darn tests out of the classroom and probably would leave more time for actual learning. Not everyone can or should go to college! This makes college entrance more personalized----if a kid wants to apply to certain colleges, it's between them and the school. To me, this increases personal incentive too instead of the now blanket testing.

I agree with you that "it is between you and the school" is the most neat solution; but how doable is it for popular, first-choice universities? Even if we somehow get past the difficulties regarding testing a huge number of people at the same time organized and supervised by the institution (which costs, is highly impractical, etc.), we are still left with the problem of the format of the test... and guess which one is the most practical? Right, bubble tests - exactly that which we are trying to get rid of.

 

I am not sure how practical more "real", open-ended content tests are for big universities, as such a thing is barely practical on the level of a whole state (it is like that in many European countries, but then the graduation / exit exams of that format are a state thing and a huge state organization and cost). Then what about multiple universities? Multiple entrance exams? Flying all over the country for entrance exams? What if they happen to be on the same day (and they WILL happen with the amount of universities in the US)?

 

Ideally, you would have all components - you would have written exams which test concrete knowledge, but are not about "bubbling" and estimation / guesswork; you would have an oral exam; you would have a long written work and a defense; and you would probably have some kind of an interview after that, a more personal one, about your academic achievements / goals / interests, and so forth - but how realistic is it to expect all of the components to be there, in the current system?

Maybe the exit exams which function that way on the level of the state would be a solution, and universities could only specify which subjects and what scores they wish from the exit exams? But then you will have problems regarding "standardization", people will complain that that takes away educational freedom, if you have remotely normal criteria you will have a situation with Bac in that in some years a third of candidates fail and then people will be angry, etc. It may seem like a neat solution, but it is also a can of worms...

 

However you look at it, it cannot be perfect. :glare:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I remember many of the legal challenges to fire service exams. Even when departments worked hard to write exams and create physical assessments that related to job performance, there are challenges if the outcomes don't reflect someone's idea of fairness or parity.

 

I doubt that most colleges would have an interest in opening up the can of worms that having their own tests would create. Nor would it alter the situation that some people will put a lot of effort into preparing for the test and others will joy (for whatever reason).

 

My goal is simply to make sure my kids have the beat education and best package for college possible, knowing sometimes those two goals will be at some odds with each other.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Sebastian (a lady)

[Ester Maria]

Creekland, thank you for writing your impressions, interesting information.

Taking the test ONCE----and only ONCE----with no coaching or studying is my suggestion. It levels the playing field.

I get your frustration, I really do, but this is simply not realistic.

How can you outlaw coaching or studying? Even if you attempt, it will not disappear - it will only go underground. People will still do anything, anything they can for a leg up, if within their means. The classes will still exist, in some form, somewhere, based on some information that is crackable about that type of tests.

 

Regarding once - what if somebody has a bad day, and their whole future is determined by it, as they cannot retake the exam? Who gets to decide what are the parameters of "a bad day"? A student? A doctor? In which time period? etc.

 

It is just highly impractical. Ideally, it would be that way, but the reality is that you either play their game or fall behind...

[regentrude]

Don't be silly. We already admit hundreds or thousands of unqualified people every year...

 

In VA we had Longwood, Radford, ODU and several other colleges which would take anyone who applied.

 

Yes - and if you want to go to a school like this, ACT score probably does not matter either.

OTOH, there are selective schools for which it does matter, and which do not take anyone- the whole discussion about standardized test scores only makes sense if you talk about these schools.

I agree, we admit too many - but some cutoffs need to be in place.

[creekland]

I know--you're absolutely right! Tricky games irritate me. And the tricks to get to college, especially the local state colleges and universities here, just infuriate me. My dd has been reduced to her ACT score. Period. All these years of hard work reduced to 2 digits. :glare: If someone WANTS to attend college for a degree, and of course they do pay for it, they should be able to attend without all the crummy hoops. Once they enroll, if the work is too hard, so what? Find another direction. Why the darn high stakes standardized tests that test really NO standards but how to take a standardized test well?

 

State Colleges are well known for mostly caring about scores. To do otherwise often leads to discrimination issues they don't want.

 

Private schools are well known for mostly caring about the whole application. They still want scores in their range, but care about a bit more.

 

Community colleges accept all who want to attend and don't require any scores once a person hits age 18. If the student wants a 4 year education, they can transfer after a year or two without needing ACT/SAT scores. Perhaps this is the choice that fits your family the best?

 

I have a REALLY difficult time believing individual college tests would do any better at selecting students deemed most likely to succeed. Plus, it would be really difficult for anyone who is without some sort of wealth to travel to take multiple tests with the hope that they might be accepted. It's not like the tests could be taken online - not without oodles of options for getting around the system anyway. And, talk about the charges of discrimination that each college would endure from each test! Even if college reps were to give the test when they visited schools, what's to stop Johnny from school A from texting some advice to cousin Susie at school B? Kids do that now just with tests given on the same school day, but in different periods!

[creekland]

 

Bc he has a passion right now for PVC pipe engineering and nerf guns. And if all that really matters is a decent ACT score I can quit wasting my time worrying about a lot of stuff I am obsessing over.

 

 

 

Remember that every 4 year school I've seen has minimum credit requirements in various subjects too. More highly selective schools expect to see more than the minimum from the majority of the students.

[asta]

I don't know - maybe having to take tests only at schools you really, really, REALLY want to attend would stop some of the madness of the application process.

 

I mean, how many kids blanket app essentially the entire "oooo THAT's a good school" market just because they CAN? I've seen news shows where parents talk about their kid having sent off 35 applications!

 

WHAT?

 

Your kid is an "excellent" or "very good" or even "good" fit at 35 schools? How well did you research schools? Are you taking the shotgun approach and hoping someone will bite in the scholarship lottery? Have you read the statistics on that?

 

I honestly don't see how anyone could possibly be surprised that they didn't get into Yale/Harvard/Princeton/Swarthmore/Brown/et al if they didn't have stellar academics/credentials and/or legacy - they could try to argue discrimination of a test given by one of those schools, but who would believe it? Look at the student body of any one of them! Look at MIT, Stanford, Caltech - who on earth is going to claim racial discrimination?

 

If the non-Ivies are concerned, well, use the same rubrics, but adjusted for their own school population. The Colorado School of the Mines obviously doesn't need the same rubric as the University of Washington.

 

Is it more difficult? Sure. Will everyone end up going to college? Probably not. But will the ones who go end up going somewhere they might actually fit academically (vs the uni having to pour money and resources into remedial courses)? Yes.

 

But yeah - it will never work. Because college isn't about learning any longer. It is a commodity. Whichever uni makes the most money wins. Heigh, ho, Capitalism.

 

 

a

[creekland]

Because college isn't about learning any longer. It is a commodity. Whichever uni makes the most money wins. Heigh, ho, Capitalism.

 

a

 

I disagree, but to each our own.

 

I know I'm thankful for my college education and use parts of it daily when at work.

 

Oldest is thankful for the knowledge he has gained just in his first year of college and often shares with us. Since he's taking business and accounting courses and hubby owns his own business, oldest has been quite useful with some of his thoughts. Some of his professors could probably be earning more outside the field of education.

 

College is not for everyone and many go who probably are better suited for other things, but I certainly disagree that it's all about the money for everyone. Many profs I've talked with on our visits have enjoyed sharing their knowledge with students. Many I've known in person do too - esp when they have students who want to learn.

 

But again, to each our own. College doesn't have to be the path for everyone. Stats show less than 40% of Americans today get 4 year college degrees. I just couldn't let a "blanket" statement like yours stand without letting folks know it's not necessarily something we all agree with. ;)

[4wildberrys]

I don't know - maybe having to take tests only at schools you really, really, REALLY want to attend would stop some of the madness of the application process.

 

I mean, how many kids blanket app essentially the entire "oooo THAT's a good school" market just because they CAN? I've seen news shows where parents talk about their kid having sent off 35 applications!

 

WHAT?

 

Your kid is an "excellent" or "very good" or even "good" fit at 35 schools? How well did you research schools? Are you taking the shotgun approach and hoping someone will bite in the scholarship lottery? Have you read the statistics on that?

 

I honestly don't see how anyone could possibly be surprised that they didn't get into Yale/Harvard/Princeton/Swarthmore/Brown/et al if they didn't have stellar academics/credentials and/or legacy - they could try to argue discrimination of a test given by one of those schools, but who would believe it? Look at the student body of any one of them! Look at MIT, Stanford, Caltech - who on earth is going to claim racial discrimination?

 

If the non-Ivies are concerned, well, use the same rubrics, but adjusted for their own school population. The Colorado School of the Mines obviously doesn't need the same rubric as the University of Washington.

 

Is it more difficult? Sure. Will everyone end up going to college? Probably not. But will the ones who go end up going somewhere they might actually fit academically (vs the uni having to pour money and resources into remedial courses)? Yes.

 

But yeah - it will never work. Because college isn't about learning any longer. It is a commodity. Whichever uni makes the most money wins. Heigh, ho, Capitalism.

 

 

a

 

And .... :iagree:....completely! It IS a commodity today. Just take a look at the online schools. Fill out ONE 'I'm Interested' form----and get phone calls for 6 months straight!! College is all about the $$$ these days. If it wasn't---then ANY credit for a particular class would count IMO.

[kiana]

And .... :iagree:....completely! It IS a commodity today. Just take a look at the online schools. Fill out ONE 'I'm Interested' form----and get phone calls for 6 months straight!! College is all about the $$$ these days. If it wasn't---then ANY credit for a particular class would count IMO.

 

Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no.

 

At my current university, for example, we have a linear algebra class. It is taught in a heavily theoretical manner. Most of the transfer schools teach the course in a computational manner; as such, students who have taken the course will need to retake it because they have not had ALL of the course material. The course material that they have not had is a prerequisite for upper-division courses.

[Dana]

And .... :iagree:....completely! It IS a commodity today. Just take a look at the online schools. Fill out ONE 'I'm Interested' form----and get phone calls for 6 months straight!! College is all about the $$$ these days. If it wasn't---then ANY credit for a particular class would count IMO.

 

There is quite a difference between brick and mortar schools and online only ones. Check out loan and completion rates...

[silliness7]

Creekland, thank you for writing your impressions, interesting information.

 

I get your frustration, I really do, but this is simply not realistic.

How can you outlaw coaching or studying? Even if you attempt, it will not disappear - it will only go underground. People will still do anything, anything they can for a leg up, if within their means. The classes will still exist, in some form, somewhere, based on some information that is crackable about that type of tests.

 

Regarding once - what if somebody has a bad day, and their whole future is determined by it, as they cannot retake the exam? Who gets to decide what are the parameters of "a bad day"? A student? A doctor? In which time period? etc.

 

It is just highly impractical. Ideally, it would be that way, but the reality is that you either play their game or fall behind...

 

If one did not have to pay to take the tests that would solve the unfairness between those who can afford to take it half a dozen times and those who can only afford to take it once.

[creekland]

If one did not have to pay to take the tests that would solve the unfairness between those who can afford to take it half a dozen times and those who can only afford to take it once.

 

About one quarter of the students at our high school do not pay to take the tests. Guidance gives them fee waivers. If they are on free or reduced lunch, they can get the waiver.

[creekland]

There is quite a difference between brick and mortar schools and online only ones. Check out loan and completion rates...

 

:iagree:

 

Employers in our circle won't even interview someone with an online only degree UNLESS they have significant work experience in their job (essentially, got the degree after years on the job).

 

Course content differs significantly among some colleges just as it does among high schools and homeschools. The names may be the same, but a college can't trust that College B covered everything they wanted covered in Class 101. Outside of a chosen major, it might not matter. Inside a major, it certainly can count.

 

We've had several threads talking about the differences from people who have been there, seen that. It's not ALWAYS different, but often different.

[8filltheheart]

 

Because college isn't about learning any longer. It is a commodity. Whichever uni makes the most money wins.

a

 

This is not our experience with our oldest at all. His university experience has been great.

[regentrude]

Because college isn't about learning any longer. It is a commodity. Whichever uni makes the most money wins.

 

I am another one who disagrees.

Our students come for the education, and they are hired because of their education. Employers do not pay for a name - they pay for the expertise our graduates acquire at the university.

 

And as for the university "making money"- what is that even supposed to mean? Our university does not build any fortune, nor do the professors make a lot of money (in fact, salaries in academia are much lower than they would be in industry for the same level of education.) Our buildings are in bad shape because funds are lacking (54F in the office because of heating malfunction are not fun working conditions). But our graduates manage to earn the top salaries in the Midwest.

[asta]

Whichever uni makes the most money wins. Heigh, ho, Capitalism.

 

 

a

 

I'm not talking about dedicated professors. I'm not talking about salaries. I'm not talking about whether or not the French department has been painted in the last 30 years. I'm talking about business - the marketing end of university education in the US, which actually has bubkus to do with educating:

 

Endowments. (getting a building named after your dead husband)

 

Nationally ranked Sports Programs.

 

Recruitment of national food chains to "round out" food service plans (eg: Starbucks, Taco Bell, Sweet Tomatoes, et all).

 

Mini-mini-mall styling of book stores with Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Adobe, etc. "stores" within them as well as required texts. (which, admittedly, can be bought elsewhere, but it's so easy with the student discounts and it's all right. there.)

 

Reformulation of dormitories from the spartan rooms of the 60s-80s into apartment style suites with cable, internet, and sometimes even kitchenettes - conveniently managed by a leasing company.

 

Do people honestly think the money from these things goes into the ether? That Apple, Dell, Adobe and Microsoft aren't paying those universities for the privilege of having prime access to their students? Or that the food chains aren't doing the same? Sports are BIG, BIG, BIG business - governors of states tout the teams of even private universities when promoting their states for business.

 

Now, does this happen at every college or university? Of course not. But to behave as if the "hallowed halls of academia" are just that is absurd. A good third of my family is in academia (uni profs, researchers, etc.) and even they aren't wearing glasses that rosy.

 

Find me a university president who, given the choice between highlighting a "gender studies" department or the regional champ ___ sport team as a "hook" for new students in the glossy brochure - and chooses the former - and I'll show you a president who is about to be fired by the board of regents.

 

JMO

 

 

a

[creekland]

I'm not talking about dedicated professors. I'm not talking about salaries. I'm not talking about whether or not the French department has been painted in the last 30 years. I'm talking about business - the marketing end of university education in the US, which actually has bubkus to do with educating:

 

Endowments. (getting a building named after your dead husband)

 

Nationally ranked Sports Programs.

 

Recruitment of national food chains to "round out" food service plans (eg: Starbucks, Taco Bell, Sweet Tomatoes, et all).

 

Mini-mini-mall styling of book stores with Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Adobe, etc. "stores" within them as well as required texts. (which, admittedly, can be bought elsewhere, but it's so easy with the student discounts and it's all right. there.)

 

Reformulation of dormitories from the spartan rooms of the 60s-80s into apartment style suites with cable, internet, and sometimes even kitchenettes - conveniently managed by a leasing company.

 

Do people honestly think the money from these things goes into the ether? That Apple, Dell, Adobe and Microsoft aren't paying those universities for the privilege of having prime access to their students? Or that the food chains aren't doing the same? Sports are BIG, BIG, BIG business - governors of states tout the teams of even private universities when promoting their states for business.

 

Now, does this happen at every college or university? Of course not. But to behave as if the "hallowed halls of academia" are just that is absurd. A good third of my family is in academia (uni profs, researchers, etc.) and even they aren't wearing glasses that rosy.

 

Find me a university president who, given the choice between highlighting a "gender studies" department or the regional champ ___ sport team as a "hook" for new students in the glossy brochure - and chooses the former - and I'll show you a president who is about to be fired by the board of regents.

 

JMO

 

 

a

 

Actually, I'm rather ok with all of what you've posted. Colleges today with those extra perks sort of make ME wish I were back in college. ;)

 

And I, personally, don't see the interest in "gender studies," so I'm ok with that last part too.

 

Of course, sports aren't a draw at our house either, but living in a place where a school is only as good as its sports team according to the populace, I can fully understand it.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

 

For what it's worth, I have no desire to go back to the horse and buggy days of transportation either. ;);)

 

And IMO none of the above diminishes the education. When my Alma mater became good at football (top 10) the money that poured in was amazing and the school put it to very good use. Sure, some of it went back into sports, but a good deal went into more really updated educational facilities. The tour one can give now vs the tours I gave are really substantial. The cutting edge research education one can get now is also quite a bit better. It's probably even paid for the French department getting repainted. ;)

 

Private and sports related money isn't all bad. Being a fiscal conservative, it suits me just fine as a win-win for pretty much everyone.

[Nan in Mass]

I think may colleges are looking for high IQ, not knowledge. They want knowledge, yes, but they are willing to rely on the transcript for that. The SAT test shows them the other piece - the IQ.

 

(I haven't read any of the rest of this thread, so maybe this has been addressed already. I'm in a flying hurry this morning. Hope I haven't misposted.)

-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

I think the US has a college system that is working.

Ok, I can hear the gasps!

Grin!

(I've only scanned the responses because I am in a hurry this morning, so if I'm way off base here, forgive me.)

There are some things that are out of whack (like the expense) and the lower public school system leaves much to be desired, but there is something to be said for the US college system. We have many, many colleges. They all are only very loosely linked. We have subsidized public AND private ones. We have so many more options than other countries! (At least as far as I know, which admittedly isn't very far.)

We have something for everyone. We have financial aid and scholarships. We have work colleges. We have free colleges. We have colleges that cost as much as a big house. We have colleges that depend on standardized testing and colleges that require no testing. We have colleges that teach only only one thing and colleges that teach many things. We have colleges that are career oriented and colleges that are liberal arts oriented. We have colleges with majors in astrophysics and ones with majors in horse barn management. We have colleges that almost anyone in to and expect many to flunk out and colleges that accept only those that are sure to graduate. We have many many colleges. And almost anyone is allowed to apply to almost any college. They aren't free and you have to be able to read and write. Would you rather live in a place where college is free but only a few get to go? Or would you rather live in a place where you have to pay for your own education but everyone who can pay is allowed to try? Would you rather live in a place where only the few who test the highest on a standardized test or a standardized education (national curriculum) get to go to college? Or would you rather live in a place where there are enough colleges that everyone who can pay can go? I know. I know. There are many exceptions to all of this and as homeschoolers, we hit a number of those. There are people with great intelligence trapped in bodies which can't function in a college environment. There are people who grow up in places where the lower education is so bad that they can't read and write. And there are many places where the students don't know their options. But overall, I think the US system is working fairly well.

But maybe I am totally naive and this is stupid post. It isn't something that I have researched extensively, or even a little.

-Nan

[regentrude]

Do people honestly think the money from these things goes into the ether? That Apple, Dell, Adobe and Microsoft aren't paying those universities for the privilege of having prime access to their students? Or that the food chains aren't doing the same?

 

 

I see no problem with this. The question is: what does the university DO with the money it receives from those contracts? It probably spends it on something it would otherwise have to make students pay for. Not sure why it is a BAD thing to use other sources of revenue - isn't everybody constantly complaining about costs?

The students WANT to eat the Taco bell. They CHOOSE to buy at the university bookstore and not from cheaper Amazon.

[Nan in Mass]

Asta - It is about education where my sons are at college. Perhaps it isn't as bad as the media is painting it? My sons both applied to one college and got in. Their education is expensive, but the college is making every effort to find them scholarships and loans and work study jobs, and they have every expectation of being able to pay off those loans in a reasonable time. We saved for their college education but we didn't sacrifice to the extent that we didn't have some nice things and have some fun as well. We are a one-income family. My husband is an engineer. We live in an expensive part of the country. The media tends to advertise the extremes. They are partly in the entertainment business.

Yes, I agree that colleges are a business and that leads to problems, but in general, I think they DO have the purpose of education. They just also have to fund that education somehow. I'd still rather see lots of private colleges around than have only public ones that didn't have to think about how to stay in business.

Optimistically,

Nan

Edited June 26, 2011 by Nan in Mass