Thoughts on Standardized Tests / Prep

[katilac]

46 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

 You want a fair system, go to a country with merit-based college admission and universal, socialized testing and single-payer health care so you don't have to quit college when your mom gets cancer. That's not our system.

 

 

What countries would you consider to have merit-based college admissions? How does standardized testing work against that? 

It's my impression that America actually does consider achievements above and beyond the test score much more than many other countries. If I recall correctly from another thread, schools in the United Kingdom do not care a whit if you demonstrate leadership and talent outside of the classroom, it's all about the exams and test scores. In the states, outstanding extracurriculars can give the student a tremendous boost, and admittance into schools and programs where they would have been denied otherwise. South Korea, China, and others have very high stakes exams with far fewer options for students that don't score well. Anyone in America who gets minimal college-ready scores can find a school that will accept them. Of course, this can be more or less expensive depending on where you live, but it is at least an option. 

 

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I did not say it was unethical for students to prep in this environment that both rewards prepping and punishes the decision not to prep.

But does anyone else think that if a test prep course can get many kids tens of thousands of tuition waived, the tuition itself is totally jacked up?  Upon what is said tuition propped?  Does it really cost $40K more to educate a kid who scored a few points lower on one generic test?  No it does not.  Not at any school.

Well it doesn't cost any less to educate a student with a perfect GPA, or the best essay, or best recommendations, or any other admissions/scholarship criteria, either. So it sounds like you're philosophically opposed to the concept of scholarships in general? Do you think college tuition should be the same (reasonable) price for everyone, maybe with financial aid to help lower income students? (That's not a snarky question BTW, I'd be totally in favor of a system that is more like the UK in terms of costs.)

I don't think that will ever happen in the US, though. And as long as tuition costs are as insane as they are now, with scholarships being the primary means of "discounting" that cost, I'm going to encourage my kids to do whatever they can to lower the sticker price.

[SKL]

Well yes, I think college should have a reasonable price tag before scholarships.

[Corraleno]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think the idea of a standardized test made sense when test prep was not standard.  Now I don't think it makes sense, but I don't know what the replacement should be.

Hmmm, I will argue the opposite. I also took the SAT back in the dark ages when kids just showed up on Saturday, took it once without prep, and that was that. The SAT rewards smart kids who are fast processors, strong verbal-sequential thinkers, and good natural test-takers. Those kinds of tests are super easy for me; I've taken the PSAT, SAT, GRE, and LSAT and easily scored in the top 1-1.5% every time with zero prep. I made National Merit with room to spare, and got a near-full-ride to a good LAC, got into top grad schools, etc.

However, there are plenty of extremely bright kids that do not do well under the just-show-up-with-no-prep system. DS is highly gifted, but a slow processor and he is NOT a natural test-taker, plus he has serious test anxiety. He is no less intelligent than I am, and he is actually gifted in areas where I'm weak (like visual/spatial tasks), but the skills needed to do well on standardized tests do not come naturally to him. If he had just shown up on a Saturday and taken the ACT cold with no prep, it would not have been remotely reflective of his intelligence or abilities. Practicing the skills and techniques needed to do well on fast-paced, timed, multiple-choice tests made a huge difference for him. Without prep there would have been a massive gap between his test scores and the rest of his application (4.29 GPA, As in DE classes, multiple gold medals and perfect scores on the NLE & NGE, glowing "one of the best students I have ever taught" type recommendations). Test prep allowed him to achieve test scores that matched the rest of his application.

[katilac]

32 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think the idea of a standardized test made sense when test prep was not standard.  Now I don't think it makes sense, but I don't know what the replacement should be.

 

There is no replacement that isn't going to have equivalent issues, simply because of the intended purpose: to quickly sort vast quantities of applications. Colleges don't have the time to peruse every single application in depth any more than employers do. There are going to be inherent flaws in any such process, but I don't see how you do without the process in either case. 

[mumto2]

33 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

What countries would you consider to have merit-based college admissions? How does standardized testing work against that? 

It's my impression that America actually does consider achievements above and beyond the test score much more than many other countries. If I recall correctly from another thread, schools in the United Kingdom do not care a whit if you demonstrate leadership and talent outside of the classroom, it's all about the exams and test scores. In the states, outstanding extracurriculars can give the student a tremendous boost, and admittance into schools and programs where they would have been denied otherwise. South Korea, China, and others have very high stakes exams with far fewer options for students that don't score well. Anyone in America who gets minimal college-ready scores can find a school that will accept them. Of course, this can be more or less expensive depending on where you live, but it is at least an option. 

 

In the UK it is probably pointless to apply to a program where your anticipated exam scores aren’t in line with the course you are applying to.  Scholarships aren’t really what students are aiming at in the UK but extracurriculars are a huge part of the application process if you look at the UCAS application.  Everything has levels by exam...Music and dance for instance go to Grade 8 etc.  Duke of Edinburgh bronze, silver, gold.  These are all really important to kids applying to really popular competitive programs like medical school which are applied to in the US equivalent of high school.  They are also really important the elite schools.  I watch great smart kids struggle to get the perceived needed extracurricular scores all the time in England.

 I will be honest and say my kids applied using UCAS with just their US exam scores and essays with no problems but their stories were pretty unique and their scores high.  They applied to great programs, most triple A and had the scores and a story.  It worked but their programs were perhaps not the most popular. ;)

For the record in today’s world knowing that good prep books for competive  exams are available I can’t imagine not using them!

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Preparing for a test is not cheating. No amount of test prep is going to raise a student's scores above the actual level they're capable of achieving; it just allows them to reach their full potential and score the maximum they're capable of. How is that "grossly unethical"?

Do you think it's also unethical for colleges to give credit for AP scores if the student did extensive test prep for those? Would it be more "fair" if students were required to take AP tests with no studying allowed? Maybe we should make all college tests be "pop quizzes" from now on, so students can't cheat by actually studying for them.

The cut-off for the top merit scholarship at DS's college is a 33 ACT. That doesn't guarantee an award by any means, but it does get you into the pool of students being considered. Then they take into account your GPA, the rigor of the coursework, letters of recommendation, counselor letter, ECs, and the essay. In reading the CC admissions thread for DS's school, I've been surprised by the number of kids with scores equal to or higher than his who not only were not awarded scholarships, they were waitlisted or even outright denied.

The time that DS spent preparing for the ACT allowed him to reach a score that accurately reflects his intelligence and abilities and which, in conjunction with rigorous coursework showing his unique passions and interests, earned him significant scholarships to his first choice school. I fail to see how that is "grossly unethical" in any way. 

 

1 hour ago, katilac said:

 

This, exactly. 

It's much like preparing for a job interview. Is it grossly unethical to read books about the interview process, or go to the seminar at the local library? College testing is important. Jobs are important. People prepare for important things. 

Standardized testing can work in the favor of disadvantaged students. At quite a few colleges, if they get a certain score and GPA, then a scholarship is guaranteed. Of course, students with higher socioeconomic status have, as a group, an advantage in getting those higher scores, but it's better than a system where scholarships are denied based on race or religion, or granted based on nepotism or simply unconscious bias in favor of a certain type of student. 

 

But the question isn't really whether it's cheating to prepare for a test.

 

It's whether it's immoral/unethical/unjust to use a pretty unrepresentative test, a kind of game really, to determine who has access to higher education.  Not even jobs, but education.  Because education is not a job, and it's not particularly obvious that it should be treated in a remotely similar way.

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

 

What countries would you consider to have merit-based college admissions? How does standardized testing work against that? 

It's my impression that America actually does consider achievements above and beyond the test score much more than many other countries. If I recall correctly from another thread, schools in the United Kingdom do not care a whit if you demonstrate leadership and talent outside of the classroom, it's all about the exams and test scores. In the states, outstanding extracurriculars can give the student a tremendous boost, and admittance into schools and programs where they would have been denied otherwise. South Korea, China, and others have very high stakes exams with far fewer options for students that don't score well. Anyone in America who gets minimal college-ready scores can find a school that will accept them. Of course, this can be more or less expensive depending on where you live, but it is at least an option. 

 

 

It's because the stakes are often lower, I think.  THat's my observation here, and it's my sense from other countries too - Australia for sure, and to a large extent the UK outside of the very elite few schools - but those programs also are unusual themselves in some ways.  

 

If your grades are reasonable, you will probably get into a program. There are not "tiers" of schools like the US - all are pretty good.  If your marks etc are so bad you are rejected, chances are in most cases that you actually aren't suited.  It's unusual. Exceptions can be made if you have unusual circumstances. 

It's very difficult to me to see what good a high stakes, national standardized test could possibly do in this kind of system.  It seems completely superfluous and just an added source of stress, and a money sink too.

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

 

But the question isn't really whether it's cheating to prepare for a test.

 

It's whether it's immoral/unethical/unjust to use a pretty unrepresentative test, a kind of game really, to determine who has access to higher education.  Not even jobs, but education.  Because education is not a job, and it's not particularly obvious that it should be treated in a remotely similar way.

 

It is a game.  And I hate games. I really steered ds toward a path that required less game playing.

[catz]

Ok - I am going to respond without reading responses, but I'm looking forward to see what other people think.  

I'm answering as someone who has a junior taking the ACT for (hopefully) the last time next weekend.  He started taking it through a talent search in 8th grade and took it annually to fulfill out yearly homeschool testing requirements.  

I took the ACT one time, no parental involvement, no school involvement.  No prep.  My score absolutely did not reflect my academics or GPA at school.  When I took grad school testing I was much more comfortable with the speed and the timing and those scores reflected my abilities much better.    A little prep absolutely would have served me very well.  My parents only would let me attend state schools, so I didn't have huge compelling reasons to get higher scores anyway.  

Prep to me is just to create  comfort with the format and the timing.  My oldest has never done more prep than taking a sample test the week before over a few days.  After his first ACT, it made sense for us to keep some rolling review as part of our day to day math curriculum.  Which made a huge difference - his ACT math jumped 8 points the next year despite repeating Algebra 2 with another curriculum to make sure all that was solid.  

This year, he has done a little work with a tutor.  2 hours a week for about 8 weeks. For him, that little amount of prep has made a huge difference in speed and I think his final score will be really reflective of his academics.  I don't think you can falsely inflate a score with prep.  If you are spending many, many hours on prep, your time probably would have been better spent with a quality math curriculum or reading some real literature.    I did not force my kid to prep.  I would be fine if he wanted to go to a small state school.  He wants to look at further flung schools and he wants merit to be open to him.  His choice.  

Anyway - I don't think every kid needs to spend significant time on test prep at all.  I will say a little made a  difference here without much time.  And I'm talking about a kid testing at the 97% in 10th grade to the 99% across all subject areas in 11th grade so I'm sure many people would roll their eyes.  That can make a big difference in merit offered though and that tutoring might be the best high school money we spent.   Like I said, I don't think it's for everyone.

 

ETA - to be clear, nothing this tutor is doing is magical.  It could easily be done on your on with a $25 in practice ACT tests.  For us, having that time carved out and compacted and not having me in the picture was worth it.  I think anyone could do 4-5 practice tests over a couple months and thoughtfully go through their wrong answers and improve if the academics were really there.  I don't think prep should be used to "cover" for poor education or curriculum and I really wonder if that's ever actually successful.

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

But the question isn't really whether it's cheating to prepare for a test.

It's whether it's immoral/unethical/unjust to use a pretty unrepresentative test, a kind of game really, to determine who has access to higher education.  Not even jobs, but education.  Because education is not a job, and it's not particularly obvious that it should be treated in a remotely similar way.

But these test don't "determine who has access to higher education." In fact, I think they are less determinative than the tests in most other countries, where access to university is almost entirely determined by scores on A-levels, IBs, and similar exams.

SAT/ACT scores are just one component, of many, that help adcoms choose who will be admitted and/or offered scholarships at that particular school. There are plenty of other ways to access higher education for students who have no interest in test prep, or even in taking the tests at all. Any student in the US can start at a CC without taking the SAT or ACT, and there are four-year schools that are test-optional as well. Students who plan to attend less selective schools and don't need merit aid can choose to take the ACT/SAT with zero prep, and students who are looking at highly selective schools and/or hoping for significant merit aid, can choose to put some extra effort into achieving scores that will help them accomplish their goals. 

 

[Corraleno]

47 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

It is a game.  And I hate games. I really steered ds toward a path that required less game playing.

I've worked in academia, the corporate world, private business, and done freelance work, and there are few areas of life that do not involve some aspect of game-playing.  IMO, spending a few hours a week for a few months to increase a student's odds of both being accepted to, and being able to pay for, the school of his choice barely even registers on the scale of real life game-playing.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

I've worked in academia, the corporate world, private business, and done freelance work, and there are few areas of life that do not involve some aspect of game-playing.  IMO, spending a few hours a week for a few months to increase a student's odds of both being accepted to, and being able to pay for, the school of his choice barely even registers on the scale of real life game-playing.

Hmm. Well I guess so.  I do think different people set their lives up to avoid game playing if they can.  I live a simple life and it is almost completely free of game playing.  As far as my son having a 'school of choice'.....he was 17 when he decided he would go to college....he was doing well to have a general area of study in mind.  He knew nothing about which school would be 'his choice'.   Maybe some 17 year olds have some 'school of choice' in mind....but I bet many do not.

[catz]

Being able to live a life entirely without some game playing is actually a privilege not everyone has.  I live pretty game free at the moment.  Almost everyone who has some sort of paid employment has some give and take in this regard.  Heck, some volunteer leadership I've done even in the homeschool world has required some.  

I actually think admissions is more holistic than ever.  Some competitive schools have softened testing requirements in terms of requiring SAT-2's, etc and are more than willing to take your recommendation letters, or notes about why your grades 2nd semester in 10th grade weren't up to par, etc.  There are options for kids who don't want to test.  My junior is dual enrolled at a community college.  All his teachers are PhD holding professors and have been excellent and passionate about their subject areas.  There is nothing wrong with starting at a community college.   My kid will definitely need to move on after next year though and I think will really like a more rigorous school.

OP - if you took at test and took it again 6 months later, that WAS prepping.  5 points composite on the ACT is a very large jump in 6 months.  You had a level of comfort with the test someone who had zero exposure did not have.  Your parents were likely willing to pay for it twice.  You weren't without privilege in that process.  

My kids and I are much like Corraleno's son - more VS oriented and gifted.  My son tested as profoundly gifted in kindergarten and first grade ended up being such a train wreck for him we started homeschooling.  He is just a little bit atypical and asynchronous.  So light prep has just given him a better ability to show what he actually knows on a test format like this that requires speed, accuracy, and not overthinking questions.  Cramming for a standardized test is not going to replace higher level math, years of reading classics and reading for pleasure, understanding science concepts, etc.   You can't teach the content of the test while prepping.

I personally think the costs of higher education is outrageous and I wish our society valued education more, especially for ambitious young adults.   I wish there were good public options for kids at all academic levels.  A kid that scores 35 vs. 25 on the ACT just really is likely in need of a program with more rigor assuming than the kid with the 25 assuming that kid is testing to the best of their ability.   I think it's much more likely to test UNDER your ability than over your actual ability.  But if you have a 3.0 GPA and a 36 ACT, you still will not get into that competitive school in this day and age.   And you probably won't get that super competitive scholarship either.   

I also think GPA is hardly worth anything anymore.  Everyone gets A's.  It means nothing.   I have stories about over involved parents in my neighborhood calling teachers to "correct" their high schooler's grades.  One of those kids ended up at Harvard.  There is all sorts of game playing going on that doesn't involved standardized testing.  Sitting down with a prep books for a few hours for a few months is really not that big of a deal.  Do or don't do it.  There are options for kids that never take a standardized test.  

[RootAnn]

On 4/3/2018 at 12:55 PM, SparklyUnicorn said:

Test prep is also a lot about who can afford it. 

Khan Academy is free (SAT prep). Many libraries (not mine) have prep books kids can check out for free if they know they are there.

The local high school pays for private test prep that is used during school time junior year since the state now requires all juniors to take the ACT. I believe there is also additional test prep (free or very low cost) they can access out of school time if they wish. (This is not open to private or home schooled kids.)

On 4/3/2018 at 4:13 PM, SKL said:

So how many hours a week do kids usually spend on test prep, and what do they give up that they would otherwise have been doing during those hours?

Well, my oldest has spent much less than I would like. The highest time commitment for test prep in our house is taking the actual practice tests and going over the answers. She spent some time on Khan before her second PSAT (maybe 10 hours total over a couple of months including taking two sample PSATs?), an hour & a half with a prep book designed to help with the ACT Science section, and less than five hours of prep before her upcoming ACT - spread over a month. If she wasn't doing the prep, she'd be reading her fluff books, taking a nap, watching YouTube fluff, or browsing the latest gossip about country music stars on the internet. I would argue that she makes time for these regardless of the (minimal) test prep I require. :-)

16 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The tests are really not content-based, though, except for math, so what topics would this extra honors class include that would somehow also greatly boost test scores? Most of test prep is about getting faster and more efficient at reading passages for key content, dissecting questions so you know what they're actually asking for, analyzing charts and diagrams quickly and correctly, etc. And honestly those are not bad skills to have heading into college anyway, so I don't feel like test prep is just wasting time practicing things that will never be used again. Add in the fact that you can earn huge sums of money, and the ROI on test prep seems (to me) to be considerably higher than 90% of the busy work that high school students are assigned in class.

There are a small number of content-based questions - one or two in the ACT Science section and a few vocab words where it helps if you actually know what the word means. But yae, not content-based overall!

3 hours ago, SKL said:

But does anyone else think that if a test prep course can get many kids tens of thousands of tuition waived, the tuition itself is totally jacked up?  Upon what is said tuition propped?  Does it really cost $40K more to educate a kid who scored a few points lower on one generic test?  No it does not.  Not at any school.

IS tuition artificially inflated? Yes. (I would argue that airline seat prices are also grossly inflated, too. Those who can, pay. The rest hope for a deal, don't go, or find another way.) Schools offer incentives to get the kids they really want to apply and hopefully go. Those schools who get the top flyers already don't have to offer merit scholarships (see most of the Ivies!). Their rankings in US News & other places depend on a lot of factors, but some are the test scores of the kids who go there or the number of National Merit Scholars who choose to attend. If they are trying to improve their ranking, offering merit scholarships to kids with higher scores than their usual clientele is one way to do it.

With GPA inflation and the huge difference in high schools (what they offer, how much they teach) across the nation, standardized tests are one way that colleges can gauge candidates against each other. I don't like them, but AP tests & SAT IIs at least show some measure of ranking in terms of how students do on that one exam on that one day compared to each other.

Because we are a full pay (or close to full pay - depending on the tuition), I'm very grateful for merit (non-needs-based) scholarship opportunities. Not all of my kids will be able to achieve levels of scores high enough for the big money, but it makes a huge difference when they are. Full tuition scholarships are nothing to sneeze at, especially when you are out of state.

I was able to go to an in-state college on a full tuition National Merit Scholarship (plus another scholarship that paid my room & board for the first two years until I lost it due to GPA). I will be forever grateful to the low cost (summer) test prep that my mom was able to sign me up for at my high school back in the very early 90s. It didn't make me a better student, but it opened more doors financially. Merit scholarships are getting smaller in $ and fewer vs. even just a few years ago. I hope they are still around when my youngest gets to this point. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh these days that is true.  There is far more.  Not in our day though.  Only thing I could do is fork over for classes or an expensive book. 

I'm a little floored by some of the young folks in my classes who act so helpless when they can't understand stuff. I'm like hello..INTERNET. ..  I didn't have Internet when I was a student.

And talking like that makes me feel old.  LOL 

 

 

 

 

[catz]

21 hours ago, Tsuga said:

 

Also, have I ever mentioned I was .5 percentiles away from NMF status? Yeah, still kind of burned about not studying for the PSAT. 

Me too!  I was commended.  I don't think a few hours of getting comfortable with the format would have killed me.  LOL.  I took the PSAT once no prep.  ACT once no prep.

[Pam in CT]

Here is US News' map (you can zoom in to click onto the institutions' names) of the ~30 or so top schools which are both "need blind" (accept without looking first at financial aid needs) and also guarantee to "meet full demonstrated financial need" of all accepted students.  Virtually all of the Ivy, and many other top tier schools do.  (And that guarantee is real. My nephew is about to graduate from one of these; virtually all his aid has been grant; he'll have less than 10K in debt upon graduation -- which isn't trivial, but is far less than many kids coming out -- and all of that for room & board not tuition.   He got similar aid packages from everywhere he got in.)

And here is a list of "test-optional" and/or "test-flexible" schools.

There is overlap.  Bowdoin, Hamilton, College of Holy Cross, probably a handful of others (I'm going blind trying to scan, lol).  

But the bulk of the top top schools that meet demonstrated need, still require top top scores.

It's irritating. You do what you gotta do.

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

But these test don't "determine who has access to higher education." In fact, I think they are less determinative than the tests in most other countries, where access to university is almost entirely determined by scores on A-levels, IBs, and similar exams.

SAT/ACT scores are just one component, of many, that help adcoms choose who will be admitted and/or offered scholarships at that particular school. There are plenty of other ways to access higher education for students who have no interest in test prep, or even in taking the tests at all. Any student in the US can start at a CC without taking the SAT or ACT, and there are four-year schools that are test-optional as well. Students who plan to attend less selective schools and don't need merit aid can choose to take the ACT/SAT with zero prep, and students who are looking at highly selective schools and/or hoping for significant merit aid, can choose to put some extra effort into achieving scores that will help them accomplish their goals. 

 

 

And yet I don't think the level of concern among people overall is anywhere near the same.  There can be stress immediately about something like O levels - though we really don't do anything like that here in Canada - but I do not see the same level of angst.  Probably because scholarship money isn't so necessary.  

 

I'd also say, those tests are real tests on content.  Some test prep can help, in terms of actual test technique, but the goal seems to really be to test content.  I'm not sure I'd say the same of the big standardized tests.

[catz]

Sorry for droning, I just wanted to add one thing to be clear.  I think of test prep as "practicing" for a performance and not cramming or teaching content.  Like my kid has been taking piano for years and knows a bunch of advanced pieces.  So on a performance day I wouldn't say "well, I know you haven't seen this Chopin piece before, but you're good at piano.  Figure it out while you're on stage"   A good pianist could pick that up pretty quickly and be able to perform it well and may fake it pretty good without seeing it.  But without seeing it and practicing ahead of time might just choke on stage or certainly not to perform to their typical level.  The kid that is tapping out one finger twinkle twinkle is never going to be able to fake that Chopin in a convincing way without years of effort.   I feel like some of the discussion doesn't even make sense to what a typical few month/few hours a week test prep program looks like.  

I don't think it's any more elitist than any other kind of extra activity you do for your kids or after schooling.   And if your kids just naturally test in a way that reflects their academics, that's great.  Just not every kid does that.  And that's what prep or practicing is about.

And I do think prep  for a test is more accessible than ever for all.  I am paying for a tutor at the moment and he is an undergrad in college.  There is NOTHING magical about what they are doing.  I roll my eyes every week listening to my kid work with him.  We could easily do it on our own.  The books are easily purchased or borrowed and there are so many free resources online now.    I'm sure there were some kids that prepped when I was in school, but that was definitely not me.  My mom didn't attend college, and my dad worked his way through a local state school by sheer will power.  

I don't think elite schools are going to be on our radar seriously because we don't have much financial need.  We're more looking at more moderately competitive schools that have good merit options for high achievers.  

 

[Corraleno]

32 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

There is all sorts of game playing going on that doesn't involved standardized testing.  Sitting down with a prep books for a few hours for a few months is really not that big of a deal.  Do or don't do it.  There are options for kids that never take a standardized test.  

I totally agree — I actually think prepping for the ACT/SAT is the least obnoxious, intrusive component of the whole "admissions game." 

And I think it's rather funny that I'm one of the people defending ACT/SAT prep in this thread, since that is basically the only academic "hoop-jumping" that we were willing to do. DS did not do a single AP or SAT subject test. He didn't even take many of the "standard" high school classes that PS kids take — no Calc, Physics, Econ, Gov't, American Lit, or Brit Lit, and his Bio course was mostly A&P.  He had courses like Epic and Saga in World Literature, Intro Linguistics, World Languages, Ancient Greek History, Cognitive Science, and Human Origins (DE class on human evolution). He had 5 years of Greek, 2 each of Latin and Old Norse, and 1 of Turkish. His Fine Arts credits were Classical Art & Architecture (which included 6 weeks touring museums and archaeological sites in Greece, Italy, and Turkey) and World Music, where the output was teaching himself multiple styles of Tuvan and Mongolian throat singing and learning the play the didgeridoo.

Those are the kinds of things I was absolutely not willing to sacrifice for college admissions hoop-jumping. Spending a few hours a week in test prep to make sure his ACT scores truly reflected his ability? That is such an incredibly small thing, compared to the thousands and thousands of hours DS invested in following his interests and pursuing his passions. 

[catz]

32 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

And yet I don't think the level of concern among people overall is anywhere near the same.  There can be stress immediately about something like O levels - though we really don't do anything like that here in Canada - but I do not see the same level of angst.  Probably because scholarship money isn't so necessary.  

 

 

Bingo!  If there were more affordable and accessible options for high achievers, there'd be much less scrambling.  Though then we'd all be scrambling to have the right data for those programs though that would be less annoying at least if you knew your kid had an option that would work well academically.  Even state flagships are not affordable for many families.   I feel grateful at least those are an option for us. 

LOL Corraleno - my kid is also not doing any AP or SAT subject tests.  He actually has his eye on a 2 programs that want a couple SAT subject tests JUST for homeschoolers.  Dumb.  I told him he could take a couple if he wants.  Though again, I'd like him to do light prep/review before trying if he were going to do it.  OR I can write a blurb in our counselor letter about how we are filing a dual enrollment transcript with contact info for his profs along with the ACT score and they can take it or leave it.    His choice if he wants to apply.  I don't consider myself a hoop jumper at ALL.  The light 2-3 hours per week of prep the junior is doing for a couple months has only taken time away from those ever important multi player online video games.  And my kid has compelling classes on his transcript like "narrative film making " - ie creating horror movies for teenagers.  And Book Arts.  And "Cults and Extreme Religions".  LOL 

[Corraleno]

45 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

And yet I don't think the level of concern among people overall is anywhere near the same.  There can be stress immediately about something like O levels - though we really don't do anything like that here in Canada - but I do not see the same level of angst.  Probably because scholarship money isn't so necessary.  

Well my ex-husband took the Oxbridge exams in the UK, and he was extremely stressed about them — even moreso than DS was about taking the ACT, because there are no do-overs with A-levels. And despite having an IQ of >160, he bombed two of his three exams, because he's dyslexic and ADD and they did not have accommodations for that. Luckily he was able to talk his way onto the course he wanted by convincing the director of the program to give him a chance, and he was later accepted into a PhD program at Cambridge. A less obnoxiously persistent kid with the same A-level results might have ended up on an electronics repair course (as his counselor advised) instead of becoming a software developer with international patents.

45 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I'd also say, those tests are real tests on content.  Some test prep can help, in terms of actual test technique, but the goal seems to really be to test content.  I'm not sure I'd say the same of the big standardized tests.

 

Exams that require every student in the country to study the exact same content in the same subjects has advantages and disadvantages. I'm very glad that DS was able to study what he wanted, how he wanted, while still having a way to objectively demonstrate his academic skills and abilities to colleges via the ACT. If college admissions in the US was dependent on getting 5s on specific AP tests, he would have been utterly miserable and burnt out before he ever got to college. And if that had been the system back in the Dark Ages when I was applying, I doubt I would have ever gone to college at all. For me, the whole point of going to college was finally being able to get away from the boxed-in, one-size-fits-all BS of high school.

[Katy]

26 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Well my ex-husband took the Oxbridge exams in the UK, and he was extremely stressed about them — even moreso than DS was about taking the ACT, because there are no do-overs with A-levels. And despite having an IQ of >160, he bombed two of his three exams, because he's dyslexic and ADD and they did not have accommodations for that. Luckily he was able to talk his way onto the course he wanted by convincing the director of the program to give him a chance, and he was later accepted into a PhD program at Cambridge. A less obnoxiously persistent kid with the same A-level results might have ended up on an electronics repair course (as his counselor advised) instead of becoming a software developer with international patents.

Exams that require every student in the country to study the exact same content in the same subjects has advantages and disadvantages. I'm very glad that DS was able to study what he wanted, how he wanted, while still having a way to objectively demonstrate his academic skills and abilities to colleges via the ACT. If college admissions in the US was dependent on getting 5s on specific AP tests, he would have been utterly miserable and burnt out before he ever got to college. And if that had been the system back in the Dark Ages when I was applying, I doubt I would have ever gone to college at all. For me, the whole point of going to college was finally being able to get away from the boxed-in, one-size-fits-all BS of high school.

 

Not to mention there are plenty of people that because of family circumstances CANNOT be academically focused in school.  When there's addiction or abuse or poverty or teen pregnancy in the family sometimes focusing on survival is the only thing to do.  And later, after a few years in the job market or the military or both, people go back to school and do phenomenally well.  Part of this is probably disillusionment about how easy life will or won't be.  And part of it is just brain maturity.  Several people in my family in my parents generation basically blew off school, went back as adults, did very well, and then went on to grad school.  I don't mind paying more for college in exchange for the freedom to go back to school later.  I look forward to going back myself when I'm done homeschooling.  We've spent so much time in courtrooms recently with one of our foster children that even DH has suggested I consider law school.  I don't know that I will, but I LOVE that it's an option.  I don't want to get rid of options in favor of full public funding.

[Frances]

6 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

 

But the question isn't really whether it's cheating to prepare for a test.

 

It's whether it's immoral/unethical/unjust to use a pretty unrepresentative test, a kind of game really, to determine who has access to higher education.  Not even jobs, but education.  Because education is not a job, and it's not particularly obvious that it should be treated in a remotely similar way.

At least in the US, it’s hard to imagine test scores that would completely close the doors to higher education. Most, if not all, community colleges don’t require the SAT or ACT. Some colleges are test optional. Others have very low averages or scores needed for admission. And at least some of the students getting the really low scores probably aren’t ready for college. Personally, I’d say a poor high school education and/or finances are probably far greater barrier to achieving a college education than scores on any test. It’s pretty easy to get into college or university somewhere in the US, finishing is much harder.

[BlsdMama]

I think we also need to talk realistic figures. DS And DD attend a state university. We’re talking approximately $10k a year, not $40k. Private universities were not in our reach and I’m not terribly distraught. 

Oldest DD commuted almost an hour each way. It saved her another $10k per year. I hear a lot about costs, but people tend to inflate it. If we discuss two years at CC, it becomes even less. Now, this is a YMMV based on situation. I know many Illinois kids come here because their in state tuition is ridiculous. 

That aside? I’m grateful for the game. Out of pocket for us with eleven kids? I can’t compete. I can’t dven play. Kids are limited now and can’t borrow full tuition and we will never do parent loans. Ever. So, with $10k tuition and only able to borrow $5500, someone better have a plan. And frankly, it better be my kiddo if they want a college education. If they want to work all summer long and save? Fine. If they want to work a full time job during school and commute? Fine.  But, it seems to me, it would be significantly easier to toss four hours a week at SAT prep in high school and perform to your potential on the standardized tests. 

Our college has fixed scholarships. Get a specific GPA+ACT/SAT score, pass go, collect $$. Renewable every year if your GPA stays high. 

It **allows** students who know material and prep who may not have family money to pay for school. I love the system. Love. ~As a decidedly middle class family. 

My children are bright (and pretty if you ask me) But not top achievers. We did school in a way that equipped them to achieve their goals because it’s really not about me. Test prep has been another tool to equip them for college. 

We can label it a game if we want but the lane isn’t relevant. It’s part of the deal. Your kid can go to college with zero test prep and no testing. Now, if you want something (like admission or money) then you must conform to their requirements. It’s no different in life. My husband could be a manager at his job or a worker bee. The rule is he had to have at least a bachelors. He wanted the job (think admission) and he wanted the money, therefore he had to comply with their standards/rules. 

I think admission and scholarships are as fair as can be. 

[Frances]

4 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

And yet I don't think the level of concern among people overall is anywhere near the same.  There can be stress immediately about something like O levels - though we really don't do anything like that here in Canada - but I do not see the same level of angst.  Probably because scholarship money isn't so necessary.  

 

I'd also say, those tests are real tests on content.  Some test prep can help, in terms of actual test technique, but the goal seems to really be to test content.  I'm not sure I'd say the same of the big standardized tests.

The level of concern certainly seems to be way higher in many Asian countries. I’ve watched several documentaries on the all or nothing tests for Chinese high school students. One of my brother-in-laws is Japanese and never wanted his daughter to attend school past elementary age there due to the high stakes tests. While people may talk about the tests quite a bit in the US, I don’t think most people actually do all that much prep. And at least you can try again if you don’t like your scores.

[Bluegoat]

Asian countries seem to be a whole different kettle of fish.  I can't say I think their system is great, or even very education focused in a way I'd consider meaningful.

[hepatica]

My biggest concern with the focus on test prep and the resulting merit scholarships is that the effect of "merit" scholarships is to make college less expensive for those who are best equipped to afford it. In other words they primarily benefit the wealthy because GPAs and test scores largely reflect wealth and privilege. Yes, there are some poor students who benefit, but the macro picture is a redistribution of scarce financial aid funds from lower income students to higher income students. 

So, like many things, on an individual level it is rational to "play the game," but on a societal level that game is unjust. It's hard to teach our kids about injustice at the same time we are perpetuating it. It's a moral parenting dilemma.

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, hepatica said:

My biggest concern with the focus on test prep and the resulting merit scholarships is that the effect of "merit" scholarships is to make college less expensive for those who are best equipped to afford it. In other words they primarily benefit the wealthy because GPAs and test scores largely reflect wealth and privilege. Yes, there are some poor students who benefit, but the macro picture is a redistribution of scarce financial aid funds from lower income students to higher income students. 

So, like many things, on an individual level it is rational to "play the game," but on a societal level that game is unjust. It's hard to teach our kids about injustice at the same time we are perpetuating it. It's a moral parenting dilemma.

 

Yes, but in reality I don't personally know of wealthy kids who spend the time on that sort of test prep or that sort of time applying for scholarships.  I know plenty of middle class kids whose parents are doing okay but not well enough to pay cash for college who spend hours a week prepping and applying for scholarships and choosing fields like accounting because their dad's company will give them a scholarship and a promised internship as long as they keep a B average.

[hepatica]

5 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Yes, but in reality I don't personally know of wealthy kids who spend the time on that sort of test prep or that sort of time applying for scholarships.  I know plenty of middle class kids whose parents are doing okay but not well enough to pay cash for college who spend hours a week prepping and applying for scholarships and choosing fields like accounting because their dad's company will give them a scholarship and a promised internship as long as they keep a B average.

Seems like there are degrees here which you are correct to point out. There are the elite families who are aiming for the Ivy League or Stanford who have been doing test prep with their kids since they took SATs for talent search programs in elementary school. There are the wealthy who are going to be full pay, but need to get in to the poison ivy schools, and many of these have test prep built in to their private school educations (we live at a boarding school, and everyone here gets free test prep). Then there are the upper middle class families who will likely be the primary beneficiaries of merit aid who are paying for additional test prep. When you get down to the actual middle class, there really isn't enough money for test prep classes so thank goodness kahn academy has taken on the SAT prep. But, again, that often requires either a dedicated parent or an unusually mature teenager to work through test prep books or kahn academy on their own. It is certainly not a bad thing to reward that kind of maturity and focus, but it is a higher bar.

[Mom-ninja.]

On 4/3/2018 at 2:43 PM, SparklyUnicorn said:

 

I might just be a bit burnt out, but honestly this sounds daunting.  Trying to prep my kid for the prospect of having scores high enough to get all kinds of money?  Not sure I can necessarily pull that off. 

And I don't want to play the game really. I bought my kid a test prep book.  I offered test prep classes if he wanted them.  He is going a different route.  The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...he doesn't want to play the game either. 

I am right there with you. I am not going to play the game so long as there are alternative routes. I read a homeschooling high school book a few years ago and the author discusses how the goal is to get your kid to finish college as opposed to just getting in. Lots of people get into college. That's the easy part. The hard part is finishing college. The majority of people who start college don't finish. I am focused on getting my kids finished with college. That's where my time and energy is. 

[Mom-ninja.]

28 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Yes, but in reality I don't personally know of wealthy kids who spend the time on that sort of test prep or that sort of time applying for scholarships.  I know plenty of middle class kids whose parents are doing okay but not well enough to pay cash for college who spend hours a week prepping and applying for scholarships and choosing fields like accounting because their dad's company will give them a scholarship and a promised internship as long as they keep a B average.

I do. The kids I know who have done test prep come from quite wealthy families. The test prep cost (according to one mom who told me about the tutor) is a few thousand dollars. So, yes, I agree with the pp that test prep is an advantage for the privileged. Even Kahn Academy is a privilege because there are many students who do not computers or internet at home and live in communities lacking safe and ready access to computers and internet like in libraries, in order to spend the time needed on Khan to do the test prep. 

[Scarlett]

It seems to me that the make up of this board would lean toward people who are not interested in the game playing.  So those of you who say everyone plays games....well just realize that you are doing the rebellious version of it.  ;)

[catz]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

 

Yes, but in reality I don't personally know of wealthy kids who spend the time on that sort of test prep or that sort of time applying for scholarships.  I know plenty of middle class kids whose parents are doing okay but not well enough to pay cash for college who spend hours a week prepping and applying for scholarships and choosing fields like accounting because their dad's company will give them a scholarship and a promised internship as long as they keep a B average.

I agree.  I don't think that assessment is accurate.  Really wealthy kids can have their parents make a large donation to their school of choice.  They can easily pay out of pocket for any option.  They may have sent their kids to really high buck prep schools that have curriculum specifically designed to maximize scoring on these tests and have had really strong educations throughout.   Being a willing full pay student that doesn't apply for aid at many schools is a huge advantage to get in.  A kid with base exposure to the test with a good education, good nutrition, and good genetics is probably going to do well without much effort barring any sort of LD or quirks.

Most of the best private schools are labelled "meets need".  That means the money is distributed the most to those with the lowest income.  Because we are middle-upper/middle class, we are not very likely to be able to afford these options because 60-70K a year makes no sense when our state flagship is less half that price even though my kid has the academics to apply.   Our state has very economical community college and state universities.  I know states vary in this regard.  Our city has a free community college program for urban grads of our public schools below a certain income level no testing required.  

It's the middle class families with high achieving kids most likely to play this game. They can't actually afford their "EFC" (Expected Family Contribution) for college.   Ours is about 40% of our income and my husband is 10 years from retirement age.  College prices have gone up astronomically.   We are probably able to swing our state flagship, but we are lucky in that regard.  Many can not.   My kid is dual enrolling junior or senior year and needs to move on from a community college environment and doesn't have a social group there.   He has selected a major that cannot be pursued at any school and that limits our options.  I would be very happy if my 2nd kid selects a state school.

I went to a series of applying to college seminars for parents by a certified consultant that does college consulting for a living.  He thinks paying for a tutor is a waste of money for test prep and he didn't for his own kids.  Yes, I suspect his kids were focused and mature to be able to prep on their own.  But it is possible.  Both his kids went to competitive schools for a reasonable price.  

And again - I'd love to see state schools be much more consistently affordable.  I could send my kid to a small non-competitive state school for like 15K but the flagship that is closer to a fit academically is more like 30K.  Why?  Why does or should it cost MORE to educate more academically prepared kids?  I really don't think EFC should be higher than 10-15% of family annual income.  I'd love to see ways for ambitious kids with dead beat parents to not be dependent on their info and income to pursue college.   I do think there are more opportunities available and ways to get a higher education right now than before.  Should we keep eliminating inequities?  Absolutely.  

This was an interesting article I came across.  It's about how doing prep for the ACT in Chicago schools really didn't make a difference in scores over all and it has much more to do with the rigor and quality of curriculum exposed to over many years.  

https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2008/05/27/intensive-act-test-prep-during-class-leads-lower-scores-students-don-t-connect-gr

I really do think a 5 point ACT jump in 6 months is really large.  If you made a large jump, just exposure and comfort and lack of anxiety on a subsequent try probably made a big difference for you.  Sometimes JUST  exposure is enough to perform to your ability.  You are not going to come across many kids scoring greater than 27/28 who haven't had a reasonably good education, aren't strong readers that probably read for fun, had parents that read to them, etc.   There are plenty of stories out there about people who did poorly on their high school test flying high in grad school etc.  I did mediocre on my ACT, but managed to graduate from an engineering program that more than half the class failed or dropped out from.   I actually wouldn't get into that program today with the same ACT score.  But could have transferred after 2 successful years at a less competitive state school.   There are many paths.  

I don't know, I don't think test prep is really a game.  It's just preparing my kid for something he wants to do.  Attending college at all requires a certain level of hoop jumping.  I know homeschoolers wildly proud of the fact that their kid never took the ACT.  But they had to take an Accuplacer when they started community college.  LOL - it turns out that is a standardized test marketed by the same company that is making zillions off of the SAT and SAT-2.   So guess what?  Your kid just basically did the same thing.  Colleges inundating my kid with brochures pretending like they're wooing him because they want his stats and his dollars is much more of a game.   Or they at least want his application so their stats look even more competitive next year when a record number have applied.

 

[Scarlett]

39 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

 

 

I was just trying to say that yes I tell my son to remember colleges are first and foremost business in the business of making money. 

[Corraleno]

Test prep absolutely does not need to cost "thousands of dollars." Rich people with money to spare often pay for the most expensive option on the assumption that it is also the best, but that doesn't mean it's the only option, or the most common option, or even the best option. My son used the Real ACT Prep Book plus PrepScholar's online program, which costs $400 for a full year of access. If you complete the entire program and don't raise your score at least 4 points, you get your money back. There is another online prep program called Magoosh that's gotten a lot of good reviews; it costs about $100. And of course Khan Academy is free.

I disagree that the majority of people who are doing test prep are wealthy families. Of course some are, but I think the majority are actually middle class families who are caught in the gap between what colleges think they can pay and what they can really pay. For a lot of middle class families, the choice is between a 4-yr school with merit aid or starting at CC. I don't understand what those who object to test prep think those families should do? Just give up the idea of going directly to a 4 yr school and plan to spend 2 yrs commuting to the nearest CC, because there's something immoral or unethical about spending a few hours with a cheap prep book and Khan Academy, or even an online program that's cheaper than the cost of tuition for a single college credit? How does that even make sense?

The whole idea that preparing for a high-stakes test is somehow unfair or unethical just boggles my mind. In what other area of life do people think it's unfair to actually be prepared for something???

[BlsdMama]

2 hours ago, Mom-ninja. said:

I am right there with you. I am not going to play the game so long as there are alternative routes. I read a homeschooling high school book a few years ago and the author discusses how the goal is to get your kid to finish college as opposed to just getting in. Lots of people get into college. That's the easy part. The hard part is finishing college. The majority of people who start college don't finish. I am focused on getting my kids finished with college. That's where my time and energy is. 

Quantify this for me.  What does one look like vs. the other? It seems to me that this is setting a false either/or scenario. 

 

I equipped my my kids for scores for scholarships and I feel we equipped our kids with the ability to finish what they start. So I’m wondering, specifically, what this means?

[BlsdMama]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I was just trying to say that yes I tell my son to remember colleges are first and foremost business in the business of making money. 

I wouldn’t argue this. However, if your son wants a career that requires a degree, what is the solution. 

As an aside I do not understand the ethical argument. 

 

The argument could be made that it is unethical to choose to homeschool and then put our children at a disadvantage because by refusing to help them prepare for college entrance exams to the basic minimum that a public school would. If someone wanted to be jnflammatory and sassy,  it could be (weakly) labeled educational neglect - it inhibits the right of the child to access the ability to attend college based on a parent’s personal beliefs without regard to the child’s wishes. ;)

[Bluegoat]

22 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Test prep absolutely does not need to cost "thousands of dollars." Rich people with money to spare often pay for the most expensive option on the assumption that it is also the best, but that doesn't mean it's the only option, or the most common option, or even the best option. My son used the Real ACT Prep Book plus PrepScholar's online program, which costs $400 for a full year of access. If you complete the entire program and don't raise your score at least 4 points, you get your money back. There is another online prep program called Magoosh that's gotten a lot of good reviews; it costs about $100. And of course Khan Academy is free.

I disagree that the majority of people who are doing test prep are wealthy families. Of course some are, but I think the majority are actually middle class families who are caught in the gap between what colleges think they can pay and what they can really pay. For a lot of middle class families, the choice is between a 4-yr school with merit aid or starting at CC. I don't understand what those who object to test prep think those families should do? Just give up the idea of going directly to a 4 yr school and plan to spend 2 yrs commuting to the nearest CC, because there's something immoral or unethical about spending a few hours with a cheap prep book and Khan Academy, or even an online program that's cheaper than the cost of tuition for a single college credit? How does that even make sense?

The whole idea that preparing for a high-stakes test is somehow unfair or unethical just boggles my mind. In what other area of life do people think it's unfair to actually be prepared for something???

 

There are tests that are not meant to be prepared for - its not their purpose to test preparedness in that way.

I don't think people are saying anyone actually should not bother to prepare. I think they are questioning what sort of test this is really supposed to be, or needs to be, or what makes the most sense to achieve it's purpose - that is, to indicate to schools who might do well in a university environment.

I think a lot of people feel that time wasted teaching test skill really doesn't add to that.  In fact, when some are doing it, or have access to it, it seems to mean all have to do it or it makes the test a less effective tool to guide the schools - which have no way to tell which tudents did it, and which did not.  Test prep of that kind adds yet another externality to the picture.

That access to higher education becomes even more tied to these externalities - largely based on money - is what seems morally suspect.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

9 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

I wouldn’t argue this. However, if your son wants a career that requires a degree, what is the solution. 

As an aside I do not understand the ethical argument. 

 

The argument could be made that it is unethical to choose to homeschool and then put our children at a disadvantage because by refusing to help them prepare for college entrance exams to the basic minimum that a public school would. If someone wanted to be jnflammatory and sassy,  it could be (weakly) labeled educational neglect - it inhibits the right of the child to access the ability to attend college based on a parent’s personal beliefs without regard to the child’s wishes. ;)

 

Um, no I do not get the impression that schools try to prepare students for college entrance exams. 

I see nothing wrong with going that route or another route.  It also does not inhibit a child's ability to access college.  That's not fair.  I did craptastically on the SAT and I went to college no problem.  So obviously my school did not prepare me and my ability to go to college was not hindered by it either. 

[Scarlett]

37 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

I wouldn’t argue this. However, if your son wants a career that requires a degree, what is the solution. 

As an aside I do not understand the ethical argument. 

 

The argument could be made that it is unethical to choose to homeschool and then put our children at a disadvantage because by refusing to help them prepare for college entrance exams to the basic minimum that a public school would. If someone wanted to be jnflammatory and sassy,  it could be (weakly) labeled educational neglect - it inhibits the right of the child to access the ability to attend college based on a parent’s personal beliefs without regard to the child’s wishes. ;)

I wasn't trying to get him to not go to college.  He is going. My goal is to remind him to not be wowed by schools or intimidated by them.  They provide a service, he needs the service and that is that.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not all colleges require these tests and some schools only require you provide scores yet do not use them.  So there are certainly options.

That said, I didn't specifically discourage my kid.  I also bought him test prep materials.  He will be starting off at a CC with excellent transfer agreements that does not require the scores so it may very well happen he never ends up taking the ACT or SAT.   My state offers free tuition for state schools so that's a great option for us financially. 

[catz]

LOL - I feel like I'm droning on way too much about this.  Needless to say, I've done way too much reading and research on college application process lately.  Imagine this scenario because this is more what real prep results looks like and somewhat similar to what I've seen with my kid ...

Your kid wants to major in artistic basket weaving.  She discovers there is a program for her somewhere where she can weave baskets and study Norse mythology.  You visit that program while in that area on vacation.  Kid is in love and thinks it's the perfect place for her.  That program is not really affordable for you unless you can get some merit aid.  The school's average ACT score is 27.  So they have merit aid for kids that bring higher stats with them.  Kid tries the ACT cold and gets a 28.  Kid needs a 30 to get merit.  You get scores back and realize she botched the pre-algebra questions and she's getting A's in calculus and didn't finish the last 1/4 of the science problems even though she's done physics, chem, and bio.  You get your kid a couple prep books and sign her up for the next ACT and help her arrange to have a few hours a week to spend practicing and reviewing pre-algebra .  She gets a 31.  When you get detailed results the scores make more sense to her academics.  

 

There are rarely HUGE jumps in short periods of time  unless there was a problem during the previous taking of the test (anxiety, illness, lack of exposure, etc).  Here is an interesting data sheet ACT put together about re-testing.  

https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2016-Tech-Brief-MultipleTesters.pdf

There are a lot of interesting factoids.  Like higher income kids are more likely to retest.  No surprise.  But the average jump in scores after taking TEN tests is like 4 points at the most.  Retaking (and I think in practice or in a real test situation) loses impact over time.  I think most kids don't need much prep at all to really show their stuff.   Kids with speed issues might benefit from a little more practice than most.

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, SparklyUnicorn said:

Not all colleges require these tests and some schools only require you provide scores yet do not use them.  So there are certainly options.

That said, I didn't specifically discourage my kid.  I also bought him test prep materials.  He will be starting off at a CC with excellent transfer agreements that does not require the scores so it may very well happen he never ends up taking the ACT or SAT.   My state offers free tuition for state schools so that's a great option for us financially. 

Ds is also starting off at a CC with excellent transfer agreements.  And I certainly didn't discourage him prepping for the ACT.  I mildly encouraged it, but honestly getting him graduated from high school has been tough enough.  I am exhausted and at some point he has to take some responsibility.

[SparklyUnicorn]

1 minute ago, FuzzyCatz said:

LOL - I feel like I'm droning on way too much about this.  Needless to say, I've done way too much reading and research on college application process lately.  Imagine this scenario because this is more what real prep results looks like and somewhat similar to what I've seen with my kid ...

Your kid wants to major in artistic basket weaving.  She discovers there is a program for her somewhere where she can weave baskets and study Norse mythology.  You visit that program while in that area on vacation.  Kid is in love and thinks it's the perfect place for her.  That program is not really affordable for you unless you can get some merit aid.  The school's average ACT score is 27.  So they have merit aid for kids that bring higher stats with them.  Kid tries the ACT cold and gets a 28.  Kid needs a 30 to get merit.  You get scores back and realize she botched the pre-algebra questions and she's getting A's in calculus and didn't finish the last 1/4 of the science problems even though she's done physics, chem, and bio.  You get your kid a couple prep books and sign her up for the next ACT and help her arrange to have a few hours a week to spend practicing and reviewing pre-algebra .  She gets a 31.  When you get detailed results the scores make more sense to her academics.  

 

There are rarely HUGE jumps in short periods of time  unless there was a problem during the previous taking of the test (anxiety, illness, lack of exposure, etc).  Here is an interesting data sheet ACT put together about re-testing.  

https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2016-Tech-Brief-MultipleTesters.pdf

There are a lot of interesting factoids.  Like higher income kids are more likely to retest.  No surprise.  But the average jump in scores after taking TEN tests is like 4 points at the most.  Retaking (and I think in practice or in a real test situation) loses impact over time.  I think most kids don't need much prep at all to really show their stuff.   Kids with speed issues might benefit from a little more practice than most.

 

Oh yeah there was a point in time where my kid was goo goo over the idea of MIT.  He planned to do a lot of testing and I have no doubt whatsoever he would have been highly motivated to study hard and do very well.  HOWEVER, I told him even if he has perfect scores his chances of getting into MIT are right up there with being struck by lightening.  Probably most applicants are highly qualified so the only way they can choose is probably through some other convoluted process involving creating what they see as some magical student body configuration.  Or I dunno drawing names out of a hat.  I said if you want to put in that kind of work, go for it.  I guess he decided that it wasn't worth it because he is doing something else. 

Even if one can get a free ride, there are other expenses with some options.  If he were to go to a school out of state, there would be the expense of getting him there and back.  That's not  nothing.  It's a factor in the decision. 

[Scarlett]

Just now, SparklyUnicorn said:

 

Oh yeah there was a point in time where my kid was goo goo over the idea of MIT.  He planned to do a lot of testing and I have no doubt whatsoever he would have been highly motivated to study hard and do very well.  HOWEVER, I told him even if he has perfect scores his chances of getting into MIT are right up there with being struck by lightening.  Probably most applicants are highly qualified so the only way they can choose is probably through some other convoluted process involving creating what they see as some magical student body configuration.  Or I dunno drawing names out of a hat.  I said if you want to put in that kind of work, go for it.  I guess he decided that it wasn't worth it because he is doing something else. 

Even if one can get a free ride, there are other expenses with some options.  If he were to go to a school out of state, there would be the expense of getting him there and back.  That's not  nothing.  It's a factor in the decision. 

Absolutely more expenses in some choices than others.  

[catz]

Even at these schools where they brag about their amazing financial aid, they are still going to be out of reach for many.  And schools like MIT are lottery schools. They could fill their freshman class many times over with qualified applicants.  If my kid wants to apply, sure.  He should just know odds aren't good and finances probably will not work.   Like on that other thread about the  kid who got 20 full rides.  Most of those schools don't actually give full merit rides or any merit aid at all.  All the aid you get from them is need based.  So does he have outside funding?  When they say that all that they are declaring is that he is low income so I always think it's weird to see "Boy gets into Harvard with full ride".  All families that make below something like 60K of income that get into Harvard pay nothing.   That's like saying "Low income boy gets into Harvard".  He had an ACT34.  Plenty of ACT 35 and 36 get turned away from those schools.  There's a lot more to the puzzle than that test score.  

I just can't imagine have your teen be goal oriented toward something like a 4 year college and saying well, I won't help you prepare for the ACT that because it's not fair to the kid across town.   You might as well say you won't read to your preschooler because that is one of the biggest determinants of academic success.  I don't know families who are forcing.   My kid researched some options looked at his ACT scores a year ago and realized he could apply anywhere with a small bump in scores this year.  Scarlett, since your son took the ACT, he probably got the vast majority of benefit from a single retake.  If he were motivated, maybe he could have tweaked another point here or there with more prep.  But I do agree it is primarily on them to do so.  It sounds like he has found a path he is happy with and isn't that the goal?

[Corraleno]

9 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

There are tests that are not meant to be prepared for - its not their purpose to test preparedness in that way.

I don't think people are saying anyone actually should not bother to prepare. I think they are questioning what sort of test this is really supposed to be, or needs to be, or what makes the most sense to achieve it's purpose - that is, to indicate to schools who might do well in a university environment.

I think a lot of people feel that time wasted teaching test skill really doesn't add to that.  In fact, when some are doing it, or have access to it, it seems to mean all have to do it or it makes the test a less effective tool to guide the schools - which have no way to tell which tudents did it, and which did not.  Test prep of that kind adds yet another externality to the picture.

That access to higher education becomes even more tied to these externalities - largely based on money - is what seems morally suspect.

Other than a lie detector test, or maybe a psychological/personality test, I can't think of any tests that "are not meant to be prepared for." If the CB and ACT, Inc., did not want students preparing for these tests, they would not be producing so many prep materials! And a number of states actually use the ACT for annual standardized testing, where every student takes it, so obviously those kids are going to be preparing for it if teachers' and schools' ratings are partly dependent on the scores.

The ACT English section tests usage, mechanics, sentence structure, and rhetorical skills. Math tests algebra, geometry, and a bit of trig. Questions on the Reading test ask students "to use referring and reasoning skills to determine main ideas; locate and interpret significant details; understand sequences of events; make comparisons; comprehend cause-effect relationships; determine the meaning of context-dependent words, phrases, and statements; draw generalizations; and analyze the author’s or narrator’s voice and method." Science questions ask students to analyze and interpret passages with three different formats: Data Representation, Research Summary, and Conflicting Viewpoints.

ALL of those skills are highly relevant to success in college classes, and many are skills that are simply not taught or fostered in public schools.  My niece, who was in a really lousy PS, had straight As in Honors English and Math classes in 9th & 10th, but totally bombed the PSAT (which she took with no prep — doh!) because every single skill in the above list was missing from her toolkit. These are not useless party tricks that students need to cram and then dump; practicing these skills will help students be better prepared for college in general, not just for one test.

IMO, the SAT/ACT general tests do the opposite of reinforcing inequality — they help level the playing field for kids who went to crappy schools. Any kid who can afford a $10 used prep book, or can walk/bike/bus to a library that has prep books and internet access, or who even knows just one person with a printer and internet access who could print out all the free practice tests for them, has the opportunity to practice those skills and to achieve test scores that reflect their true aptitudes and abilities. In poor schools that offer few ECs and limited opportunities to demonstrate leadership, and where high teacher turnover may make it difficult to get meaningful recommendations from teachers/counselors who know the student well, a really strong ACT/SAT score can open doors that the student might not otherwise have access to, and may even provide the money to get there.

[TeenagerMom]

I definitely see the benefit.  We are actually living it now.  DS takes the ACT next Saturday.  He is taking a prep class at the local high school, which is free for in-district students and $50 for anyone else.  I borrowed a Chad Cargill ACT prep book and bought a Pearson ACT Prep book, so basically $20 spent on prep with 2 weeks worth of work.  He took a practice exam on Monday at prep class.  He took another practice exam for me yesterday.  He raised his Math score 4 points from 1 practice test to the other just because he knew what to expect.  We are using the practice tests to refresh on Math skills (aka Geometry since it's been 12 months since he completed that class) that he needs to help raise his Math score even more....We took his 2 lower subtests and are reviewing by doing practice passages, etc to help him get used to the odd way they like to word questions to intentionally throw you off.  I think the 30 hours of prep time that we are dedicating to it will substantially raise his score from what it would have been if he had gone in to take it cold and it's just his Sophomore year.  He will still have plenty of opportunities to get into scholarship range with his scores.  He plans on a local school but scholarships will be a must to at least help us out partially with tuition, since we will have 3 students in higher education at the time.

 

I took the ACT myself last fall.  I prepped for about 10-15 hours using the books and online resources.  My composite was 1 point less than I made in high school 20 years later.  Had I not just completed Intermediate Algebra in college and done the prep, I would have probably been lucky to make a score high enough to get into the program I am applying for.