articles on today's announcement about coming changes to SAT (spring 2016)

[FaithManor]

 

I understand this sentiment, I really do. I think where the income thing comes into play is in urban, public schools. Take Highland School district in Detroit. Since property taxes by in large fund the schools and this is a virtual ghetto area, well...you can see how that plays out in availability of higher end coursework, etc. Most of what the school offers is remedial only. After all, the kindergarten teachers report that the average child enters K with the working vocabulary of a 2.5 year old child. No joke. They take children of normal intelligence every.single.day who still pretty much point and grunt when they want something. Most of the kids are not going to be capable of truly high school level work at the typical high school age and so the bulk of the resources go to remediation and special education. There is very little leftover for the student who can do more. Thus, the statistics showing that income disparity leads to lower scores. A few pull themselves up by their boot straps, many can't. It costs money to take these exams, money for the prep books, etc. and the school is not sacrificing that money to these kids when they have the bulk of the 9th grade class still only reading at a 3rd grade level. The poverty of the families means that faced with buying groceries or paying for a $30.00 ACT prep book...groceries win. The schools aren't providing the things that other middle class schools offer. You don't even want to know what the library looks like....just don't want to know. It would scare the daylights out of you!

 

So, I think that there is a difference (which doesn't show up in the statistics) between low income BUT with access to resources to help motivated students and parents get a leg up, and low income without access to these resources. My guess is that the statistics reveal more about low income and kids in poverty who are locked into systems and environments in which they just simply don't know how to forge ahead or lack access to what is needed to do so. If one could break down the statistics between say, urban desolate areas such as some places in Philadelphia, Wayne County MI, inner city schools in Miami where many kids are going to be ESL...a situation that follows them very much through high school and even with achievement can skew their reading and vocabulary sections (think about being a native English speaker that say began learning French in maybe 5th or 6th grade and then taking he French version of the ACT as a junior....even if you have become proficient with the language, you aren't going to be good at the subtleties of the language which can really throw you off on a test like this), etc. and then compare that to say just lower income students in rural, low COL areas with high schools that still offer college preparatory classes. It would probably be very startling with the lower income students outside of poverty stricken inner city schools topping out kids with the same income levels in oh, Hamtramack school district in Detroit by a fair amount.

[Corraleno]

Right, so the fundamental question is, "Why is the ACT gaining market share?"  Seems like most colleges accept either.

 

One reason is that 13 states currently use the ACT as a state-mandated standardized test for all 11th graders, whether they plan to attend college or not. Several additional states have signed up as well. Since the ACT is a more accurate measure of what a student has learned than the SAT (which is more a measure of IQ and test prep), it can serve double-duty as both a college entrance exam and an end-of-year state standardized test.

 

The CB does not want ACT to have a monopoly in that potentially very lucrative market. Hence, they hired the architect of the Common Core to redesign the SAT, so the new version will closely match CC standards and can serve as state-mandated end-of-year tests as well as entrance exams.

[Crimson Wife]

Right, so the fundamental question is, "Why is the ACT gaining market share?"  Seems like most colleges accept either.

20 years ago, many of the top colleges either did not accept the ACT at all, or they expressed a preference for the SAT but said they'd accept ACT scores from applicants who hadn't taken the SAT (just like some private high schools express a preference for either the ISEE or the SSAT but say they'll consider scores from the other test). I'm not even sure there were any ACT test sites anywhere close to where I grew up in New England at the time.

 

Today it seems like everyone aiming for selective colleges takes both in 11th and then re-takes whichever test they scored higher on in 12th. I have heard through the grapevine that the ACT math section is more straightforward, more like the math taught in high school and less like math contest problems. So many kids who are bright but not "mathy" do better on the ACT math section than on the SAT.

[Corraleno]

One thing I'm curious about is whether the new SAT will in any way sub for the old SAT + subject tests. Many colleges seem to ask for either the ACT or the SAT + 2-3 subject tests. Is the new SAT similar enough to the ACT that colleges won't ask for extra tests? If so, that would reduce the number of kids taking SAT2s — and the CB's profit. I wonder if that's the reason they incorporated the science reading into the "verbal" section instead of making it a separate section, like the ACT does? Maybe that was their way of making it similar enough to the ACT to claim back market-share, but not so similar as to reduce demand for the SAT2s?

[Muttichen]

I understand this sentiment, I really do. I think where the income thing comes into play is in urban, public schools. Take Highland School district in Detroit. Since property taxes by in large fund the schools and this is a virtual ghetto area, well...you can see how that plays out in availability of higher end coursework, etc. Most of what the school offers is remedial only. After all, the kindergarten teachers report that the average child enters K with the working vocabulary of a 2.5 year old child. No joke. They take children of normal intelligence every.single.day who still pretty much point and grunt when they want something. Most of the kids are not going to be capable of truly high school level work at the typical high school age and so the bulk of the resources go to remediation and special education. There is very little leftover for the student who can do more. Thus, the statistics showing that income disparity leads to lower scores. A few pull themselves up by their boot straps, many can't. It costs money to take these exams, money for the prep books, etc. and the school is not sacrificing that money to these kids when they have the bulk of the 9th grade class still only reading at a 3rd grade level. The poverty of the families means that faced with buying groceries or paying for a $30.00 ACT prep book...groceries win. The schools aren't providing the things that other middle class schools offer. You don't even want to know what the library looks like....just don't want to know. It would scare the daylights out of you!

 

 

 

This is true -- BUT -- there are many, many programs aimed at reaching out to low-income students in an attempt to level the playing field.  For example, my oldest dd volunteered for a program in which Harvard students go into troubled Boston schools to provide free, weekly, one-on-one SAT tutoring for any student who wants it.  I just don't believe the difference in scores is due to a lack of access to expensive test prep services.

 

FWIW, my older four all scored above 2300 and we never spent a dime on prep classes or tutoring.

[Corraleno]

I think it is an attempt to get business back from the ACT - and one that is likely to backfire in a huge way. Would not anybody who has a student scheduled for testing when the new test is rolled out make sure the student takes the ACT instead? I know that this will be a very strong incentive for us to prioritize the ACT over the SAT for DS. I don't need him to be a guinea pig.

The only students who are stuck with the SAT are the ones who have a reasonable chance of making National Merit Scholar and must have the SAT. For anybody else, I don't see a reason to subject them to an untested test. I wonder what numbers will be like.

 

I think there will probably be a dip in numbers in the first year or two, but I would also expect the CB to be very aggressive in going after the state-wide mandatory test market, which ACT now controls completely. Depending on the package they can offer the states, the CB may be able to more than make up for any short-term losses with long-term gains in that area. And I would think that once a state mandates use of either the SAT or ACT for end-of-yr testing, students in that state will be much more likely to take the same test in 12th grade — especially now that there will be little difference between them, so it's less likely that a student would score much better on one than the other.

 

My gut feeling is that the CB's long-range goals are much more focused on state standardized testing than on college entrance exams, especially now with Common Core. I can see them putting a lot of money into developing standardized tests for K12 — a potential market which reaches every child in America, not just college-bound high schoolers.

[Haiku]

Income is not a true indicator of success or failure.

 

 

No one has stated that it is. 

 

 

 According to the chart my kids should have scored much lower than they did.

 

That's not true at all. The chart is not predictive. It's descriptive. It tells what actually happens, which is that in general, students from lower-income families have lower scores on the SAT than students from higher income families. I am not sure why this is hard for people to understand or why people keep insisting that since it doesn't apply to them or their kids, it's not true.

 

 

 

 

Have these people, putting out these reports, ever heard of hard work?  Taking responsibility?  Maybe not blaming the wealthy?

 

These reports are not value judgments, and no one is blaming the wealthy. They simply report facts. It is a fact that lower-income students (in general, again, not necessarily specific to each individual student) have lower scores than higher-income students. If this is a concern to you (as it is to me), then you would want to find out why this is and address the issue, would you not? Do you believe that lower-income students are simply less intelligent and less hard-working than higher-income students? Or could there be other reasons?

 

I'm not sure why people are taking this so personally.

 

Edited by request of the person I quoted; I removed the poster's name from the quoted material.

[MBM]

One reason is that 13 states currently use the ACT as a state-mandated standardized test for all 11th graders, whether they plan to attend college or not. Several additional states have signed up as well. Since the ACT is a more accurate measure of what a student has learned than the SAT (which is more a measure of IQ and test prep), it can serve double-duty as both a college entrance exam and an end-of-year state standardized test.

 

The CB does not want ACT to have a monopoly in that potentially very lucrative market. Hence, they hired the architect of the Common Core to redesign the SAT, so the new version will closely match CC standards and can serve as state-mandated end-of-year tests as well as entrance exams.

 

This is true in Illinois. My son is a junior and will be taking the Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE), a two-day test, in April. On the first day, students take the ACT including the writing portion. On the second day, they take something called WorkKeys which covers applied math and reading comprehension.

 

The PSAE is a state graduation requirement in Illinois. All scores from this test are recorded on the final high school transcript. My son did well on his first ACT but if he does much worse on the PSAE, there it is for all of his prospective colleges to see. I'm going to have to ask his college adviser about that. Eh, one more thing for him to stress about. 

 

:tongue_smilie:

[MBM]

The low scores probably align more accurately with a high ACE (Adverse Childhood Experience) score than income.

 

Nadine Burke Harris is a doctor who began studying how early trauma affected individuals. This is from Paul Tough's book How Children Succeed:

​

…these forces [early trauma and unmanaged stress] had an equally serious impact in other aspects of her patients' lives. When she used a modified version of the Felitti-Anda ACE questionnaire with more than seven hundred patients at her clinic, she found a disturbingly powerful correlation between ACE scores and problems in school. Among her patients with an ACE score of 0, just 3 percent had been identified as having learning or behavioral problems. Among patients with an ACE score of 4 or higher, the figure was 51 percent.

 

 

 

The part of the brain most affected by early stress is the prefrontal cortex, which is critical in self-regulatory activities of all kinds, both emotional and cognitive. As a result, children who grow up in stressful environments generally find it harder to concentrate, harder to sit still, harder to rebound from disappointments, and harder to follow directions. And that has a direct effect on their performance in school.

 

 

 

It's not impossible to help these kids but dumbing down a test does not get to the root of the problem.

 

[Azalea]

 

This is true -- BUT -- there are many, many programs aimed at reaching out to low-income students in an attempt to level the playing field.  For example, my oldest dd volunteered for a program in which Harvard students go into troubled Boston schools to provide free, weekly, one-on-one SAT tutoring for any student who wants it.  I just don't believe the difference in scores is due to a lack of access to expensive test prep services.

 

FWIW, my older four all scored above 2300 and we never spent a dime on prep classes or tutoring.

 

 

Then what do you believe accounts for the difference in scores?

[8filltheheart]

Plum Crazy posted this link on the GB.   Thought I would post it here since it is quite informative.

 

http://www.edweek.org/media/24satchart.pdf

[Haiku]

It's not impossible to help these kids but dumbing down a test does not get to the root of the problem.

 

I don't think it is dumbing down to change a test that has been shown to have low predictive value for its intended purpose (success in college). I mean, sure, you can give students a hard test and see who scores best, but what does that really prove? That some kids did better on a hard test? Does that help them in the long run? Studies have shown that it doesn't.

 

To me, spending a lot of time prepping for a test that doesn't actually mean anything is a lot of wasted time that could be more fruitfully devoted to something more useful.

[Haiku]

dp

 

[snowbeltmom]

Plum Crazy posted this link on the GB.   Thought I would post it here since it is quite informative.

 

http://www.edweek.org/media/24satchart.pdf

 

I found this statement about the current SAT Math from the link 8 posted interesting:

"Math section samples content from a wide range of high school-level math. There are often only one or two questions on each topic and students need to cover a great deal of math  to be prepared for all topics"

 

I don't think this statement it true for a strong math student.  Imo, the math section of the SAT is too easy and is unable to distinguish the top math students, and it looks like the new SAT will make this situation worse. 

 

[Muttichen]

Then what do you believe accounts for the difference in scores?

Lots of things -- poor educational background, no one encouraged them to read, parents weren't involved, whatever.  If they're less prepared for college, they're less prepared for college.  Yes, we should try to do something about it, but what's wrong with a standardized test picking up that lack of preparation?  Isn't that what it's supposed to do?

[regentrude]

Then what do you believe accounts for the difference in scores?

 

This like the 30 million words gap:

http://centerforeducation.rice.edu/slc/LS/30MillionWordGap.html

 

The differences arise even before formal schooling begins. No amount of "vocab programs" is going to compensate for the lack of a language rich home environment from the early years on.

 

[Haiku]

Isn't that what it's supposed to do?

 

No, actually, it's not. The SAT was supposed to be an aptitude test that measures intelligence. It was specifically NOT supposed to test for college preparation based on educational background. In fact, the president of Harvard pushed to use the test as a one determiner for low-income scholarship applicants because he "thought it measured pure intelligence, regardless of the quality of the taker's high school education." Originally, the test was an army test. It was never intended to be a college readiness test. It has been misused as one. The test is not used for its intended purpose and does not measure what it purports to measure as it is currently used.

[G5052]

Yes, it bears watching.  

 

My #1 always tests beautifully, and did extremely well on the PSAT.  The college mail is pouring in.  Most of the merit scholarships want SAT scores, so that's the road we're on.  I expect good scores from Saturday's SAT, but we'll probably repeat in the fall before the final college applications.

 

My #2 kid will take the PSAT next October for practice.  My motherly instincts say that the scores will be good, but not stellar.  More of a creative, off-track thinker.  With that information, we'll weigh what to do.  I'm thinking that the ACT is going to be better in the long run both in terms of content and stability.  We may skip the PSAT in 2015 if I don't see the value there.  I just don't know.  A lot depends on what the colleges say in the next few years about all of this.

 

Or they may delay it yet another year, but I'm guessing they want to get it to market ASAP.

[Jane in NC]

20 years ago, many of the top colleges either did not accept the ACT at all, or they expressed a preference for the SAT but said they'd accept ACT scores from applicants who hadn't taken the SAT (just like some private high schools express a preference for either the ISEE or the SSAT but say they'll consider scores from the other test). I'm not even sure there were any ACT test sites anywhere close to where I grew up in New England at the time.

 

Today it seems like everyone aiming for selective colleges takes both in 11th and then re-takes whichever test they scored higher on in 12th. I have heard through the grapevine that the ACT math section is more straightforward, more like the math taught in high school and less like math contest problems. So many kids who are bright but not "mathy" do better on the ACT math section than on the SAT.

Growing up in the Midwest many decades ago, everyone took the ACT not the SAT.  I guess we were all doomed not to attend "the top colleges". 

[FaithManor]

This like the 30 million words gap:

http//centerforeducation.rice.edu/slc/LS/30MillionWordGap.html

 

The differences arise even before formal schooling begins. No amount of "vocab programs" is going to compensate for the lack of a language rich home environment from the early years on.

 

Yes, and in the two districts that I mentioned, literacy amongst the parents is quite low thus the kindy children who are developmentally delayed in language skills. In some of the kindly classes, more than 50% have working vocabularies of less than 50 words. Think about that for a second. Just mull it over. This is not something that is going to be overcome by the time SAT time rolls around. That is just a gargantuan deficit for teachers to overcome at a time when children are supposed to be learning to read.

 

That said, in my area, parents have a pretty much status quo attitude coupled with "it's the school's job to know what my kid needs". So they are going to be unaware of the changes. Then again since there aren't enough seats, by a long margin for the SAT, most will not be taking it anyway. Such is life out here in my rural neck of the woods.

[MBM]

I don't think it is dumbing down to change a test that has been shown to have low predictive value for its intended purpose (success in college). I mean, sure, you can give students a hard test and see who scores best, but what does that really prove? That some kids did better on a hard test? Does that help them in the long run? Studies have shown that it doesn't.

 

To me, spending a lot of time prepping for a test that doesn't actually mean anything is a lot of wasted time that could be more fruitfully devoted to something more useful.

 

FWIW, I do not like how college admissions is handled here in the US. I think it is becoming more maniacal each year.

 

I am not sure, though, how universities could fairly choose a student body without using, at least partly, some sort of universal measurement to compare students. Are there any alternatives that have worked well? Non-cognitive skills like perseverance are probably more important than doing well on an exam. I can only think of Angela Duckworth's Grit Test as a possible source for measuring that.

 

I agree with you about doing more fruitful activities than testing. I know some kids who've spent a lot of time prepping and some who haven't. My kids practiced taking some of the sections at home but with a great deal of resistance. When I was in high school, I don't remember any sort of prepping whatsoever. I took the SAT one time only and on the day of the test woke up late and had to run there with one pencil in my hand! LOL. It was not such a big deal like it is today.

[In The Great White North]

 

One reason is that 13 states currently use the ACT as a state-mandated standardized test for all 11th graders, whether they plan to attend college or not. Several additional states have signed up as well. Since the ACT is a more accurate measure of what a student has learned than the SAT (which is more a measure of IQ and test prep), it can serve double-duty as both a college entrance exam and an end-of-year state standardized test.

 

The CB does not want ACT to have a monopoly in that potentially very lucrative market. Hence, they hired the architect of the Common Core to redesign the SAT, so the new version will closely match CC standards and can serve as state-mandated end-of-year tests as well as entrance exams.

My state doesn't accept either the SAT or the ACT alone as adequate end of year testing for homeschoolers because all subjects aren't covered.

 

 

One thing I'm curious about is whether the new SAT will in any way sub for the old SAT + subject tests. Many colleges seem to ask for either the ACT or the SAT + 2-3 subject tests. Is the new SAT similar enough to the ACT that colleges won't ask for extra tests? If so, that would reduce the number of kids taking SAT2s — and the CB's profit. I wonder if that's the reason they incorporated the science reading into the "verbal" section instead of making it a separate section, like the ACT does? Maybe that was their way of making it similar enough to the ACT to claim back market-share, but not so similar as to reduce demand for the SAT2s?

 

 

If they do, it will fail.  Without a separate score for other subjects, all it tests is reading comprehension.  I really doubt if my state will start accepting it.

[In The Great White North]

 

 

No, actually, it's not. The SAT was supposed to be an aptitude test that measures intelligence. It was specifically NOT supposed to test for college preparation based on educational background. In fact, the president of Harvard pushed to use the test as a one determiner for low-income scholarship applicants because he "thought it measured pure intelligence, regardless of the quality of the taker's high school education." Originally, the test was an army test. It was never intended to be a college readiness test. It has been misused as one. The test is not used for its intended purpose and does not measure what it purports to measure as it is currently used.

 

 

The SAT abandoned that years ago.  MENSA quit accepting SAT scores for admission in 1994 and said that they "no longer correlate with an IQ test."

 

http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testscores/qualifyingscores/

[Haiku]

I know, but my point was that the SAT has never been an accurate predictor of college success. It has never been used as intended or measured what it purports to measure ... At any time in its history.

[FaithManor]

Growing up in the Midwest many decades ago, everyone took the ACT not the SAT. I guess we were all doomed not to attend "the top colleges". 

Yes, I was wondering about Crimson's comment as well....way back in the "dark ages"  :D  I was admitted to Oberlin, Curtis, Eastman, Wheaton, Cincinnati School of Music, and U of MI on ACT's. Does she mean ivies?

 

These were top schools then and top schools now.

[creekland]

I think it is an attempt to get business back from the ACT - and one that is likely to backfire in a huge way. Would not anybody who has a student scheduled for testing when the new test is rolled out make sure the student takes the ACT instead? I know that this will be a very strong incentive for us to prioritize the ACT over the SAT for DS. I don't need him to be a guinea pig.

The only students who are stuck with the SAT are the ones who have a reasonable chance of making National Merit Scholar and must have the SAT. For anybody else, I don't see a reason to subject them to an untested test. I wonder what numbers will be like.

 

A)  I'm REALLY glad all of my offspring are done with this type of testing.  Of course, middle son hits the "change year" for the MCAT, but...

 

B  )  I've always liked the ACT better anyway and two of my three guys did too.  The ONLY correlations I ever saw between scores and doing well in college came from the ACT and showed a correlation between high math scores and math heavy majors and an MCAT score generally within 2 points of a high school ACT score.  I've never seen any from the SAT.  I doubt we'll see any from the new variety either.

 

I think most people/parents just do whatever the majority of people around them and their kids are doing. IME most  people don't pay as much attention to such things as does the average poster on WTM ;-)

 

:iagree:   At our school, they'll just give the test and kids will take it. There are only a couple of schools around that offer the ACT and only twice a year (we're rural and in an SAT dominant area).  People might complain, but they'll go with the flow.

 

Growing up in the Midwest many decades ago, everyone took the ACT not the SAT.  I guess we were all doomed not to attend "the top colleges". 

 

I grew up in NY and graduated in the mid 80s.  Our high school had college bound students take both tests even back then - and use their best score for admissions.  Many schools (not all) even back then accepted either score.  My best score was on the ACT and I got accepted into places like Duke and Boston University.

 

I find myself wondering if colleges might start preferring the ACT if the SAT ends up dumbed down as it sounds like it will.  Too many with high scores will make it worthless.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't think it is dumbing down to change a test that has been shown to have low predictive value for its intended purpose (success in college). I mean, sure, you can give students a hard test and see who scores best, but what does that really prove? That some kids did better on a hard test? Does that help them in the long run? Studies have shown that it doesn't.

 

To me, spending a lot of time prepping for a test that doesn't actually mean anything is a lot of wasted time that could be more fruitfully devoted to something more useful.

The SAT was originally developed as an admissions test for the Ivy League. I think the CB needs to develop a more challenging exam in addition to the regular SAT that better distinguishes among high achievers. Call it the SAT+ or whatever.

[Jane in NC]

Yes, I was wondering about Crimson's comment as well....way back in the "dark ages"  :D  I was admitted to Oberlin, Curtis, Eastman, Wheaton, Cincinnati School of Music, and U of MI on ACT's. Does she mean ivies?

 

These were top schools then and top schools now.

 

Back in the dark ages, we also took the ACT once without any test prep (let alone a class in how to take the standardized exam). 

 

Perhaps that is part of the problem here as well.  Students are focusing on how to take these exams as though that is more important than reading Shakespeare or doing trigonometry.

 

But I am not a fan of the bubble sheet. Shrug.

[MBM]

Some issues that come to mind.  Universities don't always know what they are getting.  Two students from two different schools with the same GPAs are not necessarily comparable.  High school diplomas are not respected as preparation for college.  Those two factors should be changed.

 

I think the first part goes without saying, but at this point, a high school diploma is still respected. Granted, high schools can vary widely in what they offer and levels of difficulty, but universities know which ones tend to have the kinds of students who historically have done well at their university. The college reps I've met and listened to usually have been reading applications for many years from the same schools. They have a pretty good idea what they want, but it's not a perfect process and not a guarantee that each and every student will do well. 

 

Now, if they were to get rid of the high school diploma, which I don't think will happen anytime soon, what would universities use to decide their student body? A national test or portfolio?

[Heather in WI]

No, actually, it's not. The SAT was supposed to be an aptitude test that measures intelligence. It was specifically NOT supposed to test for college preparation based on educational background. In fact, the president of Harvard pushed to use the test as a one determiner for low-income scholarship applicants because he "thought it measured pure intelligence, regardless of the quality of the taker's high school education." 

 

I had never heard this before! Interesting!

 

The link on the PBS page doesn't work anymore, but I just found The Original SAT posted online. 

 

I do wonder if all of this educational testing just goes in circles. Awhile back, we talked about the old Naval Academy Entrance Exams. Those tests were really hard! But, they were measuring attainment of certain knowledge. 

 

I would love to do a study that administers 1) the original SAT, 2) a Naval Academy Entrance test, and 3) a modern SAT/ACT test to a group and then follow the group for 10 years. (Sorry; I'm a research nerd!)

[freesia]

The SAT was originally developed as an admissions test for the Ivy League. I think the CB needs to develop a more challenging exam in addition to the regular SAT that better distinguishes among high achievers. Call it the SAT+ or whatever.

But all that will do is distinguish between the better test takers among the high achievers. It wouldn't give the colleges any more information. They know that most of the folks who apply to their schools will do well there. The scores don't predict college performance very well. My sil got honors at Yale, but scored below 1400 (on the old SAT). I scored below 1300 and got honors at a Seven Sisters school. I was admitted based on grades, as was my SIL (well, and the fact she went to an agricultural high school in Queens probably helped :-) ).

[Corraleno]

 

FWIW, my older four all scored above 2300 and we never spent a dime on prep classes or tutoring.

 

Yeah, but you've also posted that your kids start doing SAT test prep 3 days/wk in middle school, that your DH offers a $2400 cash reward for a perfect score and a $1000 reward for 3 scores above 750, and that at least one of your kids significantly raised his score between the PSAT & SAT via intensive prep. 

 

I wonder how many poor parents whose kids are in crummy PS districts are in a position to have their kids start prepping for the SAT in 7th grade? Or can motivate their kids by offering huge cash bonuses for top scores? 

 

 

Lots of things -- poor educational background, no one encouraged them to read, parents weren't involved, whatever.  If they're less prepared for college, they're less prepared for college.  Yes, we should try to do something about it, but what's wrong with a standardized test picking up that lack of preparation?  Isn't that what it's supposed to do?

 

But the SAT is actually a very poor predictor of success in college. A few months of intensive prep, learning the specific tips, tricks, and techniques needed to do well on that one test, can raise a student's score by quite a lot. That does not make them "better prepared for college"; it just makes them better prepared for taking the SAT.

[FaithManor]

Jane, yep we did that as well...one time right out of the gate! LOL no one worried about that. It was the admissions essays and grades, but in my day, grade inflation had not caught on yet so when I was Salutatorian of my class, it meant something.  

 

As the dean of the biology department at U of Minn said to me, "What exactly does an A mean anymore at the high school level? We don't know what to make of it!" Thus, more emphasis on high stakes testing.

[Corraleno]

The SAT was originally developed as an admissions test for the Ivy League. I think the CB needs to develop a more challenging exam in addition to the regular SAT that better distinguishes among high achievers. Call it the SAT+ or whatever.

 

AP and SAT2 exams already serve that function to some extent. If the percentage of applicants getting 800 on the SAT math section is too high to distinguish among them, then colleges can look for 5s on Calc BC, 800s on Math II, various math competitions, etc.

 

However, I don't think that most colleges, including Ivies, are really looking for a way to tease out the top 1/2 of 1% in terms of test scores. If that's what mattered to them, then they would be accepting all the kids with 2400 SATs and passing on the kids with 2200s. But they're not — as long as kids are scoring in the mid-700s or so, the Ivies are then looking for interesting kids from which to build a diverse freshman class. I see no evidence that they're looking for ways to select only the very very top fractional percentage of test takers.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Edited by Tibbie to remove oversharing. :hat:

 

[In The Great White North]

 

 

Call it the SAT+ or whatever.

Like, maybe, the GRE?

[In The Great White North]

 

 

Growing up in the Midwest many decades ago, everyone took the ACT not the SAT.  I guess we were all doomed not to attend "the top colleges". 

 

I grew up in Michigan, many decades ago, and took both the ACT and the SAT.

 

 

In our tri-county area, only ONE school proctors the SAT. There are never enough seats for the demand since the east coast schools prefer it and so do some west coast schools. It's been a problem since I took the exam in the mid-80's and nothing has been done to alleviate the issue. SAT II's aren't even offered in the tri-county area. We have a two hour commute to get just to a trig/pre-calc SAT II testing site and again, more demand than supply so one sits up until midnight the day you can register and HOPE you get a spot if you really need it which means a lot of schools and parents guide their kids away from the College Board tests. For us it is 1.5 hrs. to the testing site for the SAT so if we get a seat and given the size of the line, are in line well before 8:00 a.m., means we were up at 4:00 a.m. to get ready. If the colleges on your short list accept the ACT, there isn't much incentive to jump this hoop.

 

The ACT however has at least one testing site in nearly every county here in the lower peninsula and sometimes many in densely populated areas. That means seats are available, and without the long commute. Additionally, since the ACT is used as part of the high school evaluation process for schools in Michigan, the students are more prepared for that exam anyway. ACT makes a lot of money in Michigan because the state board of education changed from the MEAP to the ACT. I do not think we are the only Midwestern state that went this route.

 

 

We have to search for the ACT. The local high school doesn't offer it at all.  It really is totally geographic.

[quark]

I had never heard this before! Interesting!

 

The link on the PBS page doesn't work anymore, but I just found The Original SAT posted online. 

 

I do wonder if all of this educational testing just goes in circles. Awhile back, we talked about the old Naval Academy Entrance Exams. Those tests were really hard! But, they were measuring attainment of certain knowledge. 

 

I would love to do a study that administers 1) the original SAT, 2) a Naval Academy Entrance test, and 3) a modern SAT/ACT test to a group and then follow the group for 10 years. (Sorry; I'm a research nerd!)

 

Loving these links, thank you for sharing them! Really cool to see these older tests!

[G5052]

I grew up in Michigan, many decades ago, and took both the ACT and the SAT.

 

 

 

We have to search for the ACT. The local high school doesn't offer it at all.  It really is totally geographic.

 

Yes, I took both too.  The SAT got me the scholarships though.  If I remember correctly, I took the ACT and PSAT in the fall of my junior year, and then the SAT in the spring of my junior year, and again in the fall of my senior year.

 

I just looked and the ACT is offered locally, but only at one high school (thankfully the one mine would attend).  The next nearest place is an hour away.

[FaithManor]

Its amazing to me just how geographical the access is! It's something that both companies really should consider remedying if they want to compete with each other.

[In The Great White North]

 

 

Its amazing to me just how geographical the access is! It's something that both companies really should consider remedying if they want to compete with each other.

 

And the AP tests too, if they really want to eliminate socio-economic inequities.  Nothing is quite so limiting as not being ALLOWED to take the test because your school doesn't offer it.

[quark]

Apologies if this has already been shared.

ACT to Move Toward Computer-Based Testing

 

In spring 2015! A year before the new SAT.

[regentrude]

Apologies if this has already been shared.

ACT to Move Toward Computer-Based Testing

 

In spring 2015! A year before the new SAT.

 

Groan.

So what about schools that do not have the technology available? You need massive numbers of computers. I would imagine only very few high schools to have enough.

 

 

 

with some optional items in which students perform virtual tasks to reach their answer. For example, Mr. Erickson said, one science question shows four beakers of chemicals, and lets students manipulate the items, pouring one beaker into another to monitor changes in density. Students might then be asked to predict the order of the layers if all four chemicals were poured into the same beaker. “We think these constructed-response items will allow students to get much more engaged and enthusiastic about what they’re doing,†he said.

 

That guy is full of it. This generation of students who has grown up with video games will hardly be enthusiastic about having to manipulate virtual beakers under time pressure on a standardized test. This is ridiculous.

I can't imagine anything that could be done to make students enthusiastic about the ACT. Well, donuts might make it palatable...

 

[In The Great White North]

 

 

That guy is full of it. This generation of students who has grown up with video games will hardly be enthusiastic about having to manipulate virtual beakers under time pressure on a standardized test. This is ridiculous.

 

:iagree:   

[snowbeltmom]

Apologies if this has already been shared.

ACT to Move Toward Computer-Based Testing

 

In spring 2015! A year before the new SAT.

 

:svengo:

 

I know that my kids prefer taking a paper test because they are able to underline important phrases as they read in the Reading section which is not possible to do on a computer screen. 

 

[JenneinCA]

But doing the test on a computer should eliminate the 'bubbled in on the wrong item' problem. That will be helpful for my son too. The going from the question sheet to the answer sheet is hard for some kids.

[creekland]

Groan.

So what about schools that do not have the technology available? You need massive numbers of computers. I would imagine only very few high schools to have enough.

 

 

Perhaps it's just around here, but our school has quite a few computers - definitely enough for the average number testing - and some schools (in our area) ensure every student has one.  Ensuring the internet works without a hitch could be problematic though.  It can sometimes get VERY slow - or even go offline.

 

[Crimson Wife]

If the percentage of applicants getting 800 on the SAT math section is too high to distinguish among them, then colleges can look for 5s on Calc BC, 800s on Math II, various math competitions, etc.

That just benefits students who attend schools that offer Calc BC and give students the chance to take the AMC and other math competition exams. A SAT+ would be fairer because anyone could sign up to take it.

 

There are some definite downsides to the Asian style killer university admissions exam, but I think in general it is a fairer way to select students for top colleges. The highest scorers get in, plain and simple.

[quark]

:svengo:

 

I know that my kids prefer taking a paper test because they are able to underline important phrases as they read in the Reading section which is not possible to do on a computer screen. 

 

 

But doing the test on a computer should eliminate the 'bubbled in on the wrong item' problem. That will be helpful for my son too. The going from the question sheet to the answer sheet is hard for some kids.

 

You guys beat me to it. I am in a situation where both are true.

[Dmmetler]

I could see my DD playing with all the combinations of that density problem and forgetting that she's timed. She's been known to do that with virtual (and real, for that matter, but usually the materials are a limited commodity, while you can reset a virtual one as many times as you want) labs.