Thoughts on Standardized Tests / Prep

[SKL]

47 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

...

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.  ...

 

The majority of these skills are important and should be taught over the long term, regardless of whether you take the ACT/SAT or not.  If they are not taught sufficiently in school, then families need to supplement, regardless of the ACT/SAT.  (I would argue that most of the skills are also necessary to be successful in a "trade" and in one's personal life.)  A short review course is not going to fix a real deficiency in those skills.

I can understand familiarizing kids with the test format if they have not taken a similar test before.

I'm really not sure what I'll encourage my kids to do when the time comes.  I hear some of you saying that prepping really only takes a little bit of time.  My concern is that there are other important things being sacrificed to test prep.  A couple hours a week is no biggie, though I am skeptical that a couple hours a week makes any real difference for most kids.

[Bluegoat]

47 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

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.

 

Any test that is meant to test baseline aptitudes or potentialities isn't really meant to be prepared for.  

 

For example, I had to take a standardized test like that to enter the army.  Not only did they tell you not to prepare for it, they wouldn't tell you what was on it, though it was easy enough to find out.  They weren't really all that interested in your content knowledge, though the nature of the test meant you needed some of that.  It was meant to test whether you would be able to do further training.

That they produce prep materials doesn't say much IMO - I have zero confidence in their motives or the internal consistency of their logic.  If test taking skills is a significant element of the ability to do well on the test, it's not really testing potentiality, or even base knowledge.  It's testing the ability to do well on the test.  

Bu then that seems to be largely in line with that understanding of education.

[Pam in CT]

5 hours 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.

 

That is exactly the demographic in my area: not necessarily wealthy (which is rather a definitional matter anyway), but the culture is such that most families OTOH want their kids to have the opportunity to do a private 4 year program, but OTO it's a stretch, or impossible, to pay full freight sticker prices.  Thus the overwhelming preoccupation, here, with getting into "need blind/ full demonstrated need" schools.  That is the golden ring, and that is WHY it is the golden ring.  Really motivated kids and really super-organized parents also invest a lot of time chasing down various scholarship opportunities, of which there are all sorts in all sorts of odd philanthropic and private sector corners if you put in the effort.  But those too are generally standardized test-qualified.

So teachers, college counselors and parents alike ALL expect kids to invest many hours into test prep.  The cost of prep varies -- experienced test prep tutors can cost more than $100/hour; my library offers a 10-week 30-hour Saturday class for $300; Khan's program is extremely thorough and insta-measured and free (though I take the pp point about computer access). But the students do have to put in the time and real effort.

And if they do, they really do increase their scores.  That is WHY the racket works.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

The majority of these skills are important and should be taught over the long term, regardless of whether you take the ACT/SAT or not.  If they are not taught sufficiently in school, then families need to supplement, regardless of the ACT/SAT.  (I would argue that most of the skills are also necessary to be successful in a "trade" and in one's personal life.)  A short review course is not going to fix a real deficiency in those skills.

I can understand familiarizing kids with the test format if they have not taken a similar test before.

I'm really not sure what I'll encourage my kids to do when the time comes.  I hear some of you saying that prepping really only takes a little bit of time.  My concern is that there are other important things being sacrificed to test prep.  A couple hours a week is no biggie, though I am skeptical that a couple hours a week makes any real difference for most kids.

 

Yeah, this is it to me.

The important things in terms of knowledge and thinking ability aren't something "test prep" really addresses.  They are about being well educated.  If a test can give an accurate window on education, great.

If test prep beyond a fairly straightforward familiarization is actually a big deal for all or most kids, then that has to be something different than the actual content knowledge, doesn't it?  It can only be rather more complicated knowledge of how to take the test or ways to game the test.

So - now you are taking time to learn that very focused thing instead of content or even things like math or writing.  And, you are creating a gap between the kids that can get the extra specialized training and those that can't - one the people marking the test have no way to assess.  So how does that really help them choose?

Now - if you are stuck with a stupid system you can't change, you work with it.  But it's still a stupid system.

[SKL]

It's interesting how different the comments here vs. on other standardized test prep discussions (i.e. the ones elementary / middle school kids do in school).

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I'm surprised about that too.

[forty-two]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

If test prep beyond a fairly straightforward familiarization is actually a big deal for all or most kids, then that has to be something different than the actual content knowledge, doesn't it?  It can only be rather more complicated knowledge of how to take the test or ways to game the test.

So - now you are taking time to learn that very focused thing instead of content or even things like math or writing.  And, you are creating a gap between the kids that can get the extra specialized training and those that can't - one the people marking the test have no way to assess.  So how does that really help them choose?

Fwiw, the test prep resources that I have looked into focus on reviewing and filling in content and content-related skills gaps, not test-gaming skills (Erica Metzger on critical reading and grammar is an example).  I think they are worth working through on their own merits - that it's good to have those skills in general.

[catz]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

It's interesting how different the comments here vs. on other standardized test prep discussions (i.e. the ones elementary / middle school kids do in school).

LOL -  if you have a kid enrolled at a B&M school before grade 9, you're already jumping through way more hoops than I have been willing to.  And my oldest homeschooler is a junior now.  I would have been fine with my kids going to high school if they wanted, but neither has made that choice.   I have never used a grade level test for my kids.  I have always used an open ended testing mechanism.  I never prepped with my kids for those tests they did in elementary or middle school school (we are required to test annually in my state as homescoolers).  I never even showed them their scores until they started asking for them.

I think it becomes obvious what your kid might need or not need when the time comes.  Maybe your kid is not interested in college and needs a gap year.  Maybe CC is the right route.  Maybe that state college is your kid's dream school.  Maybe your kid is an AP star and drags you along the process to apply to more competitive programs.  If you look at one of the links I posted above, something like 50% of students improve their ACT score with their 2nd retake.  Like 25% stay the same.  And 25% go down.  A single exposure can be plenty for some kids to give a score that makes sense to what they are doing academically.  You see marginal shifts with prep.  It is clear at least exposure to the format probably helps some.  But if your kid gets their score back and you realize the timing was rough on them, and they were nervous, and darn they really did take algebra 1 a long time ago so they aced the trig questions and bombed the lower level math and they want to retest, it becomes pretty obvious as a parent what to do.  Some kids have no interest in walking down that road which is absolutely fine.

[GoodGrief]

I always find people's perceptions interesting. Just last night I was listening to a man go on about how he would not choose to transfer his GI Bill benefits to his kids because everyone he knew that had gone to college on the GI Bill had failed or dropped out. Interesting point of view, but not my experience. Feeling the same way in this discussion. :-)

Put me in the camp of "test prep is really not that big of a deal." Do it, or don't do it. It doesn't replace a solid curricular foundation. Reviewing some concepts can bump up a score a few points, perhaps into scholarship range for some kids who are borderline. Even done at...maximum intensity, for lack of a better term...I can't imagine a situation where it would be possible for Test Prep to dominate a high school plan. It's a few hours, maybe several hours for some.

With a limited pot of money and resources, the cutoffs have to be somewhere. If there's a school that relies solely on the result of a standardized test for admission or scholarships, I don't know what that is. Even selection for the National Merit program is not based solely on test scores past the semifinalist level. Holistic admissions have their own set of ethical dilemmas, of course. How many threads have we had here decrying the trend of excessively scheduled teens.

I actually think our colleges do a decent, if not perfect, job sorting out the thousands upon thousands of high school seniors vying for spots in schools. Lots of them are drawn to the same places. We've got a culture right now where we want to send the majority of our young people through college (and some of our older citizens return to school, maybe multiple times.) We want to maintain personal choice as far as program of study. We want lots of amenities and special programs at the schools. It's all expensive, and we are going to pay for it one way or another, be it directly from our personal bank accounts or through taxes.

I have yet to hear of a country that is providing higher education and full personal choice to all its citizens. There are plenty of fine, but imperfect systems in the world. Always compromises of some sort.

As far as "playing games", it's fine to want to live a simple life. I don't necessarily think it is more or less admirable than the choices made by those who want different experiences. 

By the way, I'm a long time poster who slightly altered my name because my old account just wasn't letting me in. Hoping to not be unceremoniously removed because of the dreaded second account!

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

Any test that is meant to test baseline aptitudes or potentialities isn't really meant to be prepared for.  

People keep insisting that these tests are "not meant to be prepared for," without providing any evidence of this. Where have you ever read, on the ACT or CB websites, or the website of any college, a statement saying that they prefer students to take these tests totally cold? If what they really wanted was a baseline IQ test, the SAT and ACT would be designed as IQ tests. But they're not IQ tests, they're designed to measure how well students demonstrate certain skills that are deemed important for success in college. High schools, colleges, and the testing companies themselves all expect students to prepare for them. If colleges preferred to use the most "unprepped" score, every college would require that students submit all scores, and they would base decisions on the earliest/lowest score. In fact they do the exact opposite — most colleges not only say they will base decisions on the highest score, many will even "superstore" and take the highest subscore from each sitting. They are clearly, explicitly looking for the scores they feel reflect the student's highest potential, NOT their "unprepped baseline" score.

Honestly the idea that studying for these tests is somehow unethical or immoral and that they can't possibly be a useful measure of [whatever] if kids actually study for them, sounds very elitist — like "how can colleges possibly know which kids were born with the highest IQs and/or went to the best schools if merely bright kids from mediocre schools can get good scores just by studying?"  Well, maybe colleges are genuinely interested in the nongenius kids from average schools who are really hard workers and are willing to put in the time studying for these tests. Maybe — gasp — that's actually one of the things these tests are designed for.

 

It seems to me that the two main arguments against test prep directly contradict each other: It's either elitist and unfair because only rich people can afford extensive test prep (which is not true), or it's not elitist enough, because it allows kids who are not highly gifted, natural test takers to compete with kids who are, and colleges can't tell the difference (which assumes that colleges really only want the first type, which I believe is also untrue).

 

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

People keep insisting that these tests are "not meant to be prepared for," without providing any evidence of this. Where have you ever read, on the ACT or CB websites, or the website of any college, a statement saying that they prefer students to take these tests totally cold? If what they really wanted was a baseline IQ test, the SAT and ACT would be designed as IQ tests. But they're not IQ tests, they're designed to measure how well students demonstrate certain skills that are deemed important for success in college. High schools, colleges, and the testing companies themselves all expect students to prepare for them. If colleges preferred to use the most "unprepped" score, every college would require that students submit all scores, and they would base decisions on the earliest/lowest score. In fact they do the exact opposite — most colleges not only say they will base decisions on the highest score, many will even "superstore" and take the highest subscore from each sitting. They are clearly, explicitly looking for the scores they feel reflect the student's highest potential, NOT their "unprepped baseline" score.

Honestly the idea that studying for these tests is somehow unethical or immoral and that they can't possibly be a useful measure of [whatever] if kids actually study for them, sounds very elitist — like "how can colleges possibly know which kids were born with the highest IQs and/or went to the best schools if merely bright kids from mediocre schools can get good scores just by studying?"  Well, maybe colleges are genuinely interested in the nongenius kids from average schools who are really hard workers and are willing to put in the time studying for these tests. Maybe — gasp — that's actually one of the things these tests are designed for.

 

It seems to me that the two main arguments against test prep directly contradict each other: It's either elitist and unfair because only rich people can afford extensive test prep (which is not true), or it's not elitist enough, because it allows kids who are not highly gifted, natural test takers to compete with kids who are, and colleges can't tell the difference (which assumes that colleges really only want the first type, which I believe is also untrue).

 

 

A test that is meant to test suitability for something isn't necessarily an IQ test.  It might just be an assessment of base knowledge in a topic.  It might be an assessment of all kinds of facilities.  Studying for content would certainly be reasonable in terms of the purpose of testing for content - you'd need a well-written test of course.  And the content would presumably be worthwhile in itself.

The point of the test is exactly the question.  I think it was part of what the OP was getting at - what, really, is the point of these tests?  Beyond being a way to funnel money - because they could do that easily enough in other ways.  A lottery , say.  What are the universities trying to get out of the tests, what does it tell them about the test-takers?  If part of the reasoning is that it is more universal or standardized than the high school marks, what does that imply about how the test should be approached?  Should uneven high school background be something that affects the outcomes?  What about money, or involved parents?  Is the test eliminating confounding externalities, or creating more?

There's reason though a lot of people feel that these tests aren't really just about testing kids content knowledge, or even their ability to learn.  

[Corraleno]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

It's interesting how different the comments here vs. on other standardized test prep discussions (i.e. the ones elementary / middle school kids do in school).

 

3 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

Yeah, I'm surprised about that too.

 

Do you really see no difference between:
(1) Requiring young children to sit through hours and hours of standardized testing, three times a year, every year from grade 1 to grade 12, with vast amounts of class time devoted to cramming the exact content to be tested (often to the exclusion of almost everything else), with zero benefit to themselves; and
(2) Expecting college-bound 16 and 17 yr olds to spend a few hours/wk, for a few months, preparing for a college admissions test, in a way that directly benefits them personally and often financially?

The one year my son spent in PS, they spent an insane amount of time on test prep and test taking. He was supposed to get extra help in math, which turned out to be nothing more than a 1-hr pull-out once a week that focused entirely on drilling for the next standardized test. The material the tutor was going over with him had no connection with the stuff they were doing in class, and she refused to answer any of his questions or clear up any of his confusion about the fuzzy "Everyday Math" concepts his teacher, who was totally innumerate, was trying to "teach," with little or no success. The whole thing was a complete farce, which stressed out the kids and actually prevented them from learning and understanding math, for the sole purpose of boosting the school's ranking at the expense of the kids. There is no comparison between that and spending a few hours prepping for the ACT.

[Corraleno]

12 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

A test that is meant to test suitability for something isn't necessarily an IQ test.  It might just be an assessment of base knowledge in a topic.  It might be an assessment of all kinds of facilities.  Studying for content would certainly be reasonable in terms of the purpose of testing for content - you'd need a well-written test of course.  And the content would presumably be worthwhile in itself.

The point of the test is exactly the question.  I think it was part of what the OP was getting at - what, really, is the point of these tests?  Beyond being a way to funnel money - because they could do that easily enough in other ways.  A lottery , say.  What are the universities trying to get out of the tests, what does it tell them about the test-takers?  If part of the reasoning is that it is more universal or standardized than the high school marks, what does that imply about how the test should be approached?  Should uneven high school background be something that affects the outcomes?  What about money, or involved parents?  Is the test eliminating confounding externalities, or creating more?

There's reason though a lot of people feel that these tests aren't really just about testing kids content knowledge, or even their ability to learn.  

Saying "I don't think these tests measure anything useful" is a very different argument, though, from "These tests were designed to be taken without any prep."

Some, like SKL, have claimed that they do measure something useful — but only if students are not allowed to prep for them. Do you agree with that? If so, what useful information do you think colleges get from tests taken cold that they cannot get if students actually prepare for them?

[SKL]

Well this is the first time I heard that colleges want students to prep for those tests.  If that is so then maybe they should require everyone to prep for the test for exactly __ hours using a pre-approved (accessible to all) prep course.  That might actually make a lot of sense.

[SKL]

56 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

 

Do you really see no difference between:
(1) Requiring young children to sit through hours and hours of standardized testing, three times a year, every year from grade 1 to grade 12, with vast amounts of class time devoted to cramming the exact content to be tested (often to the exclusion of almost everything else), with zero benefit to themselves; and
(2) Expecting college-bound 16 and 17 yr olds to spend a few hours/wk, for a few months, preparing for a college admissions test, in a way that directly benefits them personally and often financially?

 

 

My kids are in b&m school, and that is definitely not how it happens around here.  For all the hype I've heard about that topic, the reality I've seen is not concerning at all.  "Test prep" is a short review assignment near the end of each chapter in certain textbooks. 

[Corraleno]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

My kids are in b&m school, and that is definitely not how it happens around here.  For all the hype I've heard about that topic, the reality I've seen is not concerning at all.  "Test prep" is a short review assignment near the end of each chapter in certain textbooks. 

Aren't they in a private Christian school though? In both my current state and my previous state, PS kids are required to take standardized tests 3 times per year — beginning of the year to check the starting level, midyear to check they are "on track" to meet end of year benchmarks, and end of the year to test "adequate annual progress." The charter school here actually requires a FOURTH test, which is different from the state test and which is specifically required by the school. There is apparently some process parents can go through to petition to have their child exempt from the state tests, but you cannot opt out of the charter's own test. DD used that charter for one year, and just that one (school required) test involved 2.5 days of testing, all of which was on a computer. For no reason other than their own internal statistics or something. So that was the end of our little charter school experiment.

[Meriwether]

I haven't read all the replies because my internet time is limited this week, so this may or may not fit the conversation at this point.

I do not like that standardized test scores matter so much. They measure a truly narrow aspect of a person. Even within academics, they measure a narrow aspect of the student. I don't think it is fair or particularly good. My two oldest are very different people. They are both bright and good students. My oldest is very quick. My second works very slowly. He will likely not test well, and that is a shame because he is pretty smart. But, I am going to take full advantage of the fact that my oldest is a quick worker and naturally good at tests. In fact, we did the first chapter of an ACT science study guide today. Less than one hour of prep took her science score from a 28 (official test) to a 35 (practice test). I cannot pay out of pocket for 5 kids to attend college. If my daughter gets good merit aid because of high test scores, we can help my son more than we otherwise would be able to. We are going to play the game because the potential scholarships are too big of a deal not to.

[RootAnn]

SKL - We don't prep for the every-two-year ITBS test I have my kids take from 4th grade to 8th grade. Those results are only for me - to see if I'm missing anything - if there is something I don't realize they need more work in. Most of the time, the results are exactly what I expect. We don't prep because the results don't go anywhere & we don't need them for camps or getting into a brick & mortar school or program.

ACT/SAT results eventually do go to colleges (if that's the direction the kid goes) and do result in $$ or acceptance to colleges. Huge difference in the why we take them & what they ultimately are for (entrance to & possible merit money for college). Standardized tests in elementary/middle school for homeschoolers aren't necessarily required (in all states) and for us, at least, don't translate to $$ or acceptance into certain programs. Thus, no reason to prep.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Your kids are in a public school? How often do they take the state standardized exams? If all they do is the short review assignment, then believe me, that school is a rare one, very rare, in the way it approaches statewide exams. 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/11/too_much_testing_charter_schoo.html

This is typical of state’s across the US, I could most likely find a similar one for any state you ask.

 

They do take standardized tests each year, but they don't spend the whole year prepping for standardized tests.  Depending on the year, they test for a total of 1 to 3 weeks (a couple hours a day).  In the grand scheme of things, it is not a big deal for the kids.

Re the Ohio issue you linked, that was from 2016 when they were introducing new tests.  Ohio agreed to dump the new requirement that the parents and teachers were so upset about.

[Corraleno]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Well this is the first time I heard that colleges want students to prep for those tests.  If that is so then maybe they should require everyone to prep for the test for exactly __ hours using a pre-approved (accessible to all) prep course.  That might actually make a lot of sense.

How does that make sense???

How does it make things "more fair" if the kids who are willing to work harder and practice longer in order to reach their full potential are prevented from doing so? Do you really think that colleges are only looking for those kids who were born with high IQs, who have naturally fast-processing, verbal-sequential brains, and who were lucky enough to attend excellent schools? And therefore they need some method for separating the effortlessly smart kids from the riff-raff, like kids with LDs, or with slower-processing/visual-spatial brains, or kids who are stuck in lousy schools and therefore have to work harder and prep longer in order to show their true potential? I just cannot even wrap my head around the idea that artificially preventing some kids from doing their best is somehow more ethical and fair.

How about we just let kids study for the ACT/SAT as long as they feel they need to in order to achieve the results they want, just like we let students study as much as they want for AP tests, CLEP tests, SAT subject tests, high school and college midterms and finals, and even your basic everyday math or history quiz. The amount of time kids need to study, and the resources and techniques they need to do it, depends on each individual's educational background, brain wiring, attitude, work ethic, and goals for that particular test. I'm all in favor of letting every kid reach as high as they can and expend as much time and energy as they're willing to invest to get there.

[SKL]

24 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

How does that make sense???

How does it make things "more fair" if the kids who are willing to work harder and practice longer in order to reach their full potential are prevented from doing so? Do you really think that colleges are only looking for those kids who were born with high IQs, who have naturally fast-processing, verbal-sequential brains, and who were lucky enough to attend excellent schools? And therefore they need some method for separating the effortlessly smart kids from the riff-raff, like kids with LDs, or with slower-processing/visual-spatial brains, or kids who are stuck in lousy schools and therefore have to work harder and prep longer in order to show their true potential? I just cannot even wrap my head around the idea that artificially preventing some kids from doing their best is somehow more ethical and fair.

How about we just let kids study for the ACT/SAT as long as they feel they need to in order to achieve the results they want, just like we let students study as much as they want for AP tests, CLEP tests, SAT subject tests, high school and college midterms and finals, and even your basic everyday math or history quiz. The amount of time kids need to study, and the resources and techniques they need to do it, depends on each individual's educational background, brain wiring, attitude, work ethic, and goals for that particular test. I'm all in favor of letting every kid reach as high as they can and expend as much time and energy as they're willing to invest to get there.

 

I thought the point was to gauge the student's aptitude for the rigors of college study.  It does not sound unreasonable to me that they would give preference to candidates who take relatively less effort and assistance to learn academic material - or whose long-term study habits combined with intelligence have produced a good level of competence.  When I moved from high school to college, my observation was that the speed at which learning was required increased by 4-6x.  A student who was propped up to get into college would struggle and often fail.  It's not the responsibility of universities to provide learning opportunities for every ability level.

Don't get me wrong, I have loved ones who have had and will have a truly difficult time performing on academic tests.  Obviously I want the best for them.  Most of them are pretty bright but don't have the complete package.  If they can't perform well on a screening test, then they need to figure out what other alternatives they have.  My eldest daughter needs to work a lot harder than everyone else, but this needs to be done over years and is already underway.  If that doesn't cut it, then I don't see how she can expect to keep up in a selective college.

[Frances]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

I thought the point was to gauge the student's aptitude for the rigors of college study.  It does not sound unreasonable to me that they would give preference to candidates who take relatively less effort and assistance to learn academic material.  When I moved from high school to college, my observation was that the speed at which learning was required increased by 4-6x.  A student who was propped up to get into college would struggle and often fail.  It's not the responsibility of universities to provide learning opportunities for every ability level.

Don't get me wrong, I have loved ones who have had and will have a truly difficult time performing on academic tests.  Obviously I want the best for them.  Most of them are pretty bright but don't have the complete package.  If they can't perform well on a screening test, then they need to figure out what other alternatives they have.  My eldest daughter needs to work a lot harder than everyone else, but this needs to be done over years and is already underway.  If that doesn't cut it, then I don't see how she can expect to keep up in a selective college.

But a huge part of being successful in college is putting in the time and hard work. Why would colleges want to penalize students who are willing to put in extra effort and time for test prep, grades, ECs, or anything else? And as had been noted by others already, most people don’t increase their scores significantly once they are familiar and comfortable with the format. I don’t think most students are prepping to the point where they are going to end up at a college that is so beyond their actual preparation and ability that they will fail. Even at the most selective colleges there are students with relatively low test scores who manage to graduate. I would think that “artificially” increasing your score by overprepping and therefore ending up at too challenging of a college is very, very far down on the list of reasons why a student would not graduate. 

[katilac]

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

I thought the point was to gauge the student's aptitude for the rigors of college study.   

 

 

No. The point is to gauge college readiness. 

[katilac]

From the ACT site:  The ACT College Readiness Benchmarks are the minimum ACT® college readiness assessment scores required for students to have a high probability of success in credit-bearing college courses . . . 

From the SAT site: Each year, the College Board helps more than seven million students prepare for a successful transition to college through programs and services in college readiness and college success — including the SAT and the Advanced Placement Program.

Bolding by me. 

Edited to add that I think most people would agree that many students might have the intelligence and/or aptitude for college studies while lacking the preparation. Filling that gap is one purpose of community colleges. 

 

[katilac]

18 minutes ago, Frances said:

I would think that “artificially” increasing your score by overprepping and therefore ending up at too challenging of a college is very, very far down on the list of reasons why a student would not graduate. 

1

 

Agreed. A willingness to put in extra work is an excellent sign for success in college. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

 

I thought the point was to gauge the student's aptitude for the rigors of college study.  It does not sound unreasonable to me that they would give preference to candidates who take relatively less effort and assistance to learn academic material - or whose long-term study habits combined with intelligence have produced a good level of competence.  When I moved from high school to college, my observation was that the speed at which learning was required increased by 4-6x.  A student who was propped up to get into college would struggle and often fail.  It's not the responsibility of universities to provide learning opportunities for every ability level.

Don't get me wrong, I have loved ones who have had and will have a truly difficult time performing on academic tests.  Obviously I want the best for them.  Most of them are pretty bright but don't have the complete package.  If they can't perform well on a screening test, then they need to figure out what other alternatives they have.  My eldest daughter needs to work a lot harder than everyone else, but this needs to be done over years and is already underway.  If that doesn't cut it, then I don't see how she can expect to keep up in a selective college.

Wow. O.o

I guess I should tell my son that he'd better turn down that full tuition scholarship to an excellent university that's top 10 for his major, because the fact that he needed to do a lot of prep to score in the top 1.5% of the country on the ACT, means he's clearly not cut out for that level of college work. Maybe he should look at "what other alternatives he has," like becoming a sports coach or something. We were just deluded, I guess, by the fact that he is fluent in Ancient Greek and reads Latin and Old Norse and speaks a bit of Turkish, and that he can discuss the unique lack of recursion in an obscure Amazonian language, debate the contention that the transition from hoplite warfare to reliance on a naval force was instrumental in the development of democratic rule in Athens, and discuss how understanding the secondary meaning of the phrase ton apolesa totally changes the perception of Achilles' rage. Obviously the fact that he earned A+s in every Lukeion course he ever took, has 6 gold medals (including 3 perfect scores) on the National Greek and Latin Exams, has As in his DE courses, and has recommendations saying he is a brilliant linguist and one of the best students the teacher ever had, are insignificant compared to the towering failure of needing 60 hours of test prep to score a 33 on the ACT. He will be so sad...

On the bright side, I'm sure every college in the country will be thrilled to know they can eliminate their disability office, since it is really "not their responsibility to provide learning opportunities for every level." Obviously any student with LDs or other disabilities who managed to get the test scores needed for admission probably cheated by studying too much. They should have just stuck to remedial classes at CC, instead of expecting serious colleges and universities to accommodate their needs. 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

 

I thought the point was to gauge the student's aptitude for the rigors of college study.  It does not sound unreasonable to me that they would give preference to candidates who take relatively less effort and assistance to learn academic material - or whose long-term study habits combined with intelligence have produced a good level of competence.  When I moved from high school to college, my observation was that the speed at which learning was required increased by 4-6x.  A student who was propped up to get into college would struggle and often fail.  It's not the responsibility of universities to provide learning opportunities for every ability level.

Don't get me wrong, I have loved ones who have had and will have a truly difficult time performing on academic tests.  Obviously I want the best for them.  Most of them are pretty bright but don't have the complete package.  If they can't perform well on a screening test, then they need to figure out what other alternatives they have.  My eldest daughter needs to work a lot harder than everyone else, but this needs to be done over years and is already underway.  If that doesn't cut it, then I don't see how she can expect to keep up in a selective college.

 

I am baffled by this post, and really by your entire string of posts in this thread. Are you truly equating prepping for the ACT with being propped up to get into college? 

Your dd receives significant accommodations and extra support at her school, and you have discussed requesting more. Do you regard this as acceptable because she is younger? What would be your cut-off point? Is it your stance that she should not receive accommodations for the ACT or from college? I am honestly wanting clarification on your thoughts. 

Colleges want you to be prepared. They don't give bonus points if it comes naturally to you, and they don't ding you if you work extra hard. The pertinent point for admissions is whether your grades and scores indicate readiness to succeed at that particular college.  

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I'm obviously missing some context to this discussion. Is test prep a hotly contested arena in the US ? I'm not understanding why people are feeling defensive about having prepped their children for testing.

Idk. If we lived somewhere test prep was a thing, we'd have done it with dd - her request. I don't play the game, but she does. Would doing well on the test indicate anything ? Well. A bit. I guess. It would indicate we/she had the time and resources to devote to test prep. If that helped her score $, well, game well played, I suppose. 

Wouldn't stop me seeing it as an uneven playing field. From that perspective, a test that you are explicitly NOT required to prep for would seem fairer.

I mean, in the end, it's a profit driven industry, isn't it ? Nothing more, nothing less. Universities have to sort somehow, and this is one way - it's obviously very profitable for all concerned.

Is test prep controversial here? Many don't like it, but most people do it. The sentiment expressed by several people in this thread that test prep is somehow unethical or unfair, and that test scores are really only useful if they can somehow separate the kids who are effortlessly successful at fast-paced, timed, multiple choice tests from the kids who (gasp) actually study for them, is not common IME.

Given the vast differences in quality among schools in the US, where the effort needed to achieve an A at one school may net a student a D at another school, comparing GPAs from different schools is often apples and oranges. At least the SAT/ACT allows colleges to compare apples to apples, and the fact that cheap and even free prep materials are widely available does allow ambitious students to overcome some of the disadvantages of being stuck in a lousy school. I do not believe that the preparation students get from a $2000 course is actually any better, or likely to raise scores any higher, than what a student can accomplish on his or her own using cheap prep books and free resources like Khan Academy. So in that sense, they are likely to reduce, rather than exacerbate, the inequalities inherent in the US educational system.

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Yes, I can see the apples to apples argument. 

It's interesting that people are shelling out $2000 if at-home prep is just as effective. How is the industry scamming people out of money in that case ?

 

 

It's usually because they have packed schedules. The kids have lots of activities, the parents both work and don't have the time or desire to see that it gets done. And, like a lot of things, it simply doesn't get done if it isn't scheduled. They have the money, and they are willing to pay so they can slot it into the schedule and have the accountability of an outside activity. 

Of course, with some people, there is also the inclination to think that the expensive option is always the better option! 

[Corraleno]

6 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Yes, I can see the apples to apples argument. 

It's interesting that people are shelling out $2000 if at-home prep is just as effective. How is the industry scamming people out of money in that case ?

 

I think to some extent it's the belief that "more expensive" must mean "better." People just blindly assume that if they're paying $2000 for a class instead of $20 for a book, they must be getting 100x the value. I think another big part of it is that parents who are used to turning their kids' education over to "experts" (public or private school teachers), just assume they need an "expert" to teach test prep, too. And in some cases, it probably has to do with keeping a reluctant kid accountable — it's easier to just drop a kid off for 3 hours every Saturday for X number of weeks, versus nagging them all the time to read the book and work through the problems and practice on Khan Academy. 

I did end up shelling out $400 for an online program that had thousands of practice problems, with explanations for each one, including some video explanations. The interface was very well designed and was great at keeping track of where DS was in each section, which topics he had mastered and which still needed work, etc. He probably could have done just as well if I'd bought additional prep books instead, but he is dyslexic and has executive function issues, so the built-in tracking and timing, plus the visual presentation on screen, worked really well for him.

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

True!

I suppose I wonder what a test you prep for offers above a test you don't prep for ? Like, is there anything out there that shows the kind of tests parents can throw good money at ID's successful students any more than an unprepped test of general intelligence can do ?

It seems like an iffy industry.

It's actually two separate "industries," though. The College Board and ACT, Inc., make most of their money on test fees and transcript fees, plus they each sell a basic book on the tests that explains what they are, how they work, and provides some practice tests. The books are only like $20 or so, though, so the test providers are not really the ones that are making big bucks off of prep materials and classes. That is a separate industry that is not linked to, or officially sanctioned by, the test providers. Anyone can set themselves up as a test prep company, with an online program or in-person classes. 

[Corraleno]

13 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I suppose this is where I see the potential for bias coming in - if kid A can use the $400 prep which works for his or her dyslexia, but kid B can't - kid B is at a disadvantage compared to kid A.

Not that I think you shouldn't do the best for YOUR kid! I am in no way, shape or form commenting on your kid/choices. Like I said, if this was us, we'd be shelling out for dd. 

I can see apples to apples theoretically reduces bias, but in practical terms, it does seem the ability to have high quality or tailored prep is going to be advantageous to some, which kind of leaves others behind.

Anyway, as i said. Not a personal criticism at all. I've just always wondered about college entrance selection - it seems all methods are quite imperfect. 

Right, but the lack of any prep options would result in a much greater disparity than you get with the current system. Khan Academy is a totally free online program that is also pretty visual (DS just really doesn't like it for some reason, and doesn't like the voice). Many libraries offer free tutoring for kids who need more personal attention, and they have prep books that can be borrowed and computers that can be accessed for kids who don't have internet access at home. Of course you can keep going down the line, until you get to the kids who don't live near a library and can't afford bus fare to get there, and their parents won't give them 10 bucks for a used copy of a prep book, but there's no way to make every thing 100% fair for absolutely everyone in every circumstance. At least the availability of cheap and free prep programs means that most kids in most circumstances who want to go to college can improve their chances if they're willing to invest the time and energy. Which (IMO) beats the alternative that only super smart kids from really good schools who are naturally good test takers get all the scholarships and top admissions slots.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

.Colleges want you to be prepared. They don't give bonus points if it comes naturally to you, and they don't ding you if you work extra hard. The pertinent point for admissions is whether your grades and scores indicate readiness to succeed at that particular college.  

 

Hard work is great, but if you are ready for college because you have worked hard through high school, then that will probably come across on your test scores without a significant amount of prepping.  Sustained hard work over the long term, coupled with basic aptitude, is readiness for college.  Hard cramming in the short run?  Not so much, in my personal opinion.

[catz]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

 

Hard work is great, but if you are ready for college because you have worked hard through high school, then that will probably come across on your test scores without a significant amount of prepping.  Sustained hard work over the long term, coupled with basic aptitude, is readiness for college.  Hard cramming in the short run?  Not so much, in my personal opinion.

 

I feel like you maybe didn't look at the data I posted above.  The average test taker who takes the ACT 10 (TEN!?) times improves their score by 4 points.  Heck, it would take you a good 18 months+ to legitimately take the official test 10 times.  My kid's ACT score went up 4 points per year between 8th and 9th and then again from 9th and 10th after a single practice test and another year of maturity and quality academics.  For the average tester, that is the difference between a 20 composite and a 24 composite according to the data.  And that is the difference between community college ready and  something like non-competitive state or private school ready.  I really feel like if someone can put in that level of work, they likely legitimately could be successful in the slightly more rigorous environment.  There is not faking in these tests.  You need good deep reading comprehension, grammar, English, and math skills.  The science section is a bit of a parlor trick but it really does help to have deep understanding of the underpinning science concepts to get through that section fast.  The timing is really hard in that section.  Check out the link about stopping school to prep for the ACT in the Chicago school system.  It didn't work.  

There's a reason you don't see stories like "Boy with perfect ACT score doesn't have the reading comprehension or math skills to succeed at Harvard and drops out".  I'm not saying people don't drop out.  But I suspect when freshman do it has to less to do with academic readiness it has more to do with maturity and executive function or in some cases something like anxiety or depression.   Those highest reach schools have some of the best retention rates.  

That's why I'm saying prep or do not prep.  I think for most people it is a fine point that maybe tweaks a couple points in your favor for older material, speed, comfort etc.  If you put in some work, you earned those points legitimately.  Like I said above my son has worked with a tutor this year.  Mostly what they've done is done timed sample tests (many available free online) and corrected wrong answers.  Repeat.  That's it.  They've gotten through like 5 tests in the past couple months.  When my kid started with a tutor, he was up 2-3 points from last year (he's hitting the top scores).  Now he' more consistently hitting 3+ and has made a couple perfect scores on sections.  The biggest difference is in science which has always been his hardest section.  He needed practice watching the clock.  Like I said - nothing magic about it.  He did a little review work on a couple concepts he hasn't had for a while like punnet squares.  However, without the academic backing and years of schooling his scores would look very different.  Was the tutor worth the money?  LOL - not really and this is from a big name national company that does this kind of thing every day.

The idea of using something like an IQ test is archaic and extremely unfair.  Do we really want to back to days of tracking?  I actually think this method is much more fair than many.  But prep cannot and does not replace parenting or your years of schooling prior.  There is just no way for that to be completely fair.  You can't force parents to read to their kids and follow up on homework.  You can't force high schoolers to use their free time to prep for a college entrance exam.  Again, there are so many more resources available for little or no cost than there used to be.  We have made progress.

I don't see why you're ok with prep and testing for elementary school kids but not when it's for college entrance?  If your kid spent 2 hours x 3 weeks on testing, that is 30 hours.  That is more time than my kid willingly spent on ACT prep (and I know because I'm paying by the hour) and it benefits him directly.  

[hepatica]

6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 The sentiment expressed by several people in this thread that test prep is somehow unethical or unfair, and that test scores are really only useful if they can somehow separate the kids who are effortlessly successful at fast-paced, timed, multiple choice tests from the kids who (gasp) actually study for them, is not common IME.

 

I just want to clarify that my comment was that the use (by colleges) of testing to determine merit aid was unjust (because it is a redistribution of scarce financial resources from lower income to higher income students), not that test prep itself is unethical. Test prep makes sense given the current system, but that system itself is unjust.

Sadly, I don't think that the testing regimen really does give better opportunity to students who work hard but have learning differences. Accommodations make a difference and test prep also makes some difference, but dyslexic students, for example, are already working harder than neurotypical students at their regular schoolwork. So, the addition of an extra hour or two a week for test prep is a significant burden. Extra time on the test presents the same problem. Turning a 4-5  hour test into a 6-7 hour test is not exactly a perfect solution for kids whose brains are already working almost 5x harder to complete the same tasks. How well they are going to perform in those extra hours is questionable.

And, sometimes I feel we throw away this problem by limiting the discussion to kids who don't have learning differences (saying things like of course the testing is harder for slow processors), but these are 15-20% of all students. So that issue can't be set aside as a different issue. 

 

[catz]

Well, the most competitive colleges do no merit aid and are meets need.  Some can be much more generous when they have large endowments.  Many private schools distribute merit with a holistic process and not based on a single test score.   

I think the reason many schools use merit like this is to attract higher stat middle income students.  Their lower income students get more financial aid.  Many private schools shift merit and need based aid around.  The fact is not many of the lower income families or the middle class can actually afford 4 year college.  If you make 100K and live in a major metro because that's where the jobs are, you still can't drop 40-60K per year for college for your kid.  Our expected family contribution is like 40% of our annual income.  I'm not whining about it.  We live a comfortable life style.  We own a modest 3 bedroom home in a city.  We have a well funded retirement account.  But if that merit was not there, very little of the middle class would be at those private schools.  The schools get to pad their average test scores by getting some of these kids and they certainly see it as a win win.  Until I really started digging into financial aid information did I really understand this.  This absolutely IS a game the schools are playing.  But I think many schools have good packages for low income families for qualified kids regardless of test score.   And it often is holistic.  If they school needs a clarinet player who is into student government, that kid might get some merit without a sky high test score.  The private schools hand pick their student bodies.   Most do value social, economic, and racial diversity in their student bodies but not all.

I don't disagree that this type of testing is difficult for LD kids.  The fact that my kid is a bit quirky at times definitely made exposure and practice beneficial even though my kid doesn't have a specific diagnosis.  When we pulled him out of school, I had a teacher encouraging us to get a diagnosis.   But I really think at most schools now, this is just ONE piece of data of many that may show a kid would be a fit at a particular institution of higher learning.

I absolutely do agree that public colleges could and should be MUCH more affordable and should be able to accommodate a range of students.  

[Bluegoat]

13 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

 

Do you really see no difference between:
(1) Requiring young children to sit through hours and hours of standardized testing, three times a year, every year from grade 1 to grade 12, with vast amounts of class time devoted to cramming the exact content to be tested (often to the exclusion of almost everything else), with zero benefit to themselves; and
(2) Expecting college-bound 16 and 17 yr olds to spend a few hours/wk, for a few months, preparing for a college admissions test, in a way that directly benefits them personally and often financially?

The one year my son spent in PS, they spent an insane amount of time on test prep and test taking. He was supposed to get extra help in math, which turned out to be nothing more than a 1-hr pull-out once a week that focused entirely on drilling for the next standardized test. The material the tutor was going over with him had no connection with the stuff they were doing in class, and she refused to answer any of his questions or clear up any of his confusion about the fuzzy "Everyday Math" concepts his teacher, who was totally innumerate, was trying to "teach," with little or no success. The whole thing was a complete farce, which stressed out the kids and actually prevented them from learning and understanding math, for the sole purpose of boosting the school's ranking at the expense of the kids. There is no comparison between that and spending a few hours prepping for the ACT.

 

I don't think every concern is the same, if for no other reason than they are different ages.

 But I see them as very similar when I consider how useful I think they are at actually assessing students (not totally useless but not very refined, either) and also in the way that I think they tend to blossom into something that was not intended - they easily take over and begin to direct study, or become attached to financial incentives that are a danger to the system.

So many of my reasons for being wary of one are also good reasons to be wary of the other.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

13 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Saying "I don't think these tests measure anything useful" is a very different argument, though, from "These tests were designed to be taken without any prep."

Some, like SKL, have claimed that they do measure something useful — but only if students are not allowed to prep for them. Do you agree with that? If so, what useful information do you think colleges get from tests taken cold that they cannot get if students actually prepare for them?

 

I think if they are to be useful, you need to have kids taking the tests with as similar prep - I mean that in terms of actually being prepped in test taking strategies that are pointed to those particular tests - as possible.

 

They are a clumsy tool under the best of circumstances.  As soon as some kids get extra training with the technicalities, while others don''t, they become worse than clumsy, they become a source of external inequality. 

You could solve that by making sure every kid has access to the same test prep, or by making it a test that it is difficult to do that for.  The second has the advantage that it is cheaper and easier to administer, and doesn't waste kids time that they could spend on content.

[Bluegoat]

7 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Wow. O.o

I guess I should tell my son that he'd better turn down that full tuition scholarship to an excellent university that's top 10 for his major, because the fact that he needed to do a lot of prep to score in the top 1.5% of the country on the ACT, means he's clearly not cut out for that level of college work. Maybe he should look at "what other alternatives he has," like becoming a sports coach or something. We were just deluded, I guess, by the fact that he is fluent in Ancient Greek and reads Latin and Old Norse and speaks a bit of Turkish, and that he can discuss the unique lack of recursion in an obscure Amazonian language, debate the contention that the transition from hoplite warfare to reliance on a naval force was instrumental in the development of democratic rule in Athens, and discuss how understanding the secondary meaning of the phrase ton apolesa totally changes the perception of Achilles' rage. Obviously the fact that he earned A+s in every Lukeion course he ever took, has 6 gold medals (including 3 perfect scores) on the National Greek and Latin Exams, has As in his DE courses, and has recommendations saying he is a brilliant linguist and one of the best students the teacher ever had, are insignificant compared to the towering failure of needing 60 hours of test prep to score a 33 on the ACT. He will be so sad...

On the bright side, I'm sure every college in the country will be thrilled to know they can eliminate their disability office, since it is really "not their responsibility to provide learning opportunities for every level." Obviously any student with LDs or other disabilities who managed to get the test scores needed for admission probably cheated by studying too much. They should have just stuck to remedial classes at CC, instead of expecting serious colleges and universities to accommodate their needs. 

 

This makes zero sense to me.  

Everyone knows that some kids are not as good at tests like that.  Universities know and have to account for it if they want those students, which they do - they aren't poorer thinkers because they are slower or don't test well.

Allowing people to practice if they are in a position to do so doesn't even that out.  It just adds confounding factors.  Those who test well can do the extra work too, and their marks will also go up, comparatively.  Some people won't be able to get help, and they will be disadvantaged compared to those who have it.  Now the university has to figure out which scores re related to being bright, doing prep, which are related to poor access to help.

It hasn't solved the problem of a test that doesn't really reflect academic potential or readiness.  Universities still have to account for all the possibilities. 

If your kid is poor at timed tests, you aren't less well served if they just are aware that some kids are poor at timed tests and account for it in their decisions, nor if they just don't have the test and look at those other factors you mention.

[catz]

43 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

28 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

This makes zero sense to me.  

Everyone knows that some kids are not as good at tests like that.  Universities know and have to account for it if they want those students, which they do - they aren't poorer thinkers because they are slower or don't test well.

Allowing people to practice if they are in a position to do so doesn't even that out.  It just adds confounding factors.  Those who test well can do the extra work too, and their marks will also go up, comparatively.  Some people won't be able to get help, and they will be disadvantaged compared to those who have it.  Now the university has to figure out which scores re related to being bright, doing prep, which are related to poor access to help.

It hasn't solved the problem of a test that doesn't really reflect academic potential or readiness.  Universities still have to account for all the possibilities. 

If your kid is poor at timed tests, you aren't less well served if they just are aware that some kids are poor at timed tests and account for it in their decisions, nor if they just don't have the test and look at those other factors you mention.

I think you are far over estimating what a test score means for most admissions and merit.  If you have a 36 ACT and a 2.0 GPA, stilted essays, and a half hearted recommendation you are not likely to be successful if you are applying to competitive schools.  If you have a 3.9, glowing recommendations, have leadership extracurriculars and tons of volunteer work,  graduate in the top 5 of your class, and a 29 ACT you will have a bunch of opportunities open to you.  Schools KNOW to take the scores with a grain of salt.  It's one piece of data of many.  It can show a basic level of academic competence.  

There are people complaining about admissions at UC Berkeley this year because kids with perfect test scores didn't get in.  Berkeley weighs GPA heavier.  

I don't really get the point of wanting to take away the ability to prep for motivated kids who want to do so.  Most kids have lots of experience with timed bubble testing by the time they get to high school and if prepping isn't their thing, they probably don't have their sights set on super rigorous schools.  I know someone who barely finished high school and was in law school at an Ivy at 30.  It doesn't close doors for later not prepping for the ACT now.  I hope most parents are ultimately trying to find a school that is a good fit for their kid and their budget.

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I think you are far over estimating what a test score means for most admissions and merit.  If you have a 36 ACT and a 2.0 GPA, stilted essays, and a half hearted recommendation you are not likely to be successful if you are applying to competitive schools.  If you have a 3.9, glowing recommendations, have leadership extracurriculars and tons of volunteer work,  graduate in the top 5 of your class, and a 29 ACT you will have a bunch of opportunities open to you.  Schools KNOW to take the scores with a grain of salt.  It's one piece of data of many.  It can show a basic level of academic competence.  

There are people complaining about admissions at UC Berkeley this year because kids with perfect test scores didn't get in.  Berkeley weighs GPA heavier.  

I don't really get the point of wanting to take away the ability to prep for motivated kids who want to do so.  Most kids have lots of experience with timed bubble testing by the time they get to high school and if prepping isn't their thing, they probably don't have their sights set on super rigorous schools.  I know someone who barely finished high school and was in law school at an Ivy at 30.  It doesn't close doors for later not prepping for the ACT now.  I truly most parents are ultimately trying to find a school that is a good fit for their kid and their budget.

 

Well, this is the thing - if the test scores aren't a big deal, and schools use lots of other things to get a good picture of the student, is it really a problem if motivated kids can't do prep?  Or in that case, is there really much utility to the test scores at all?  If a kid is a poor test taker, but hard worker, won't that be evident ion all those other measures. or some of them?

People saying it isn't a big component may be correct, but honestly looking at the discussions on the college board, from some of the same people saying it, that's not particularly how they seem to behave.

 

[vonfirmath]

13 hours ago, SKL said:

 

My kids are in b&m school, and that is definitely not how it happens around here.  For all the hype I've heard about that topic, the reality I've seen is not concerning at all.  "Test prep" is a short review assignment near the end of each chapter in certain textbooks. 

 

Agreed. My kids are in public school and yes they do test prep. But not to the conclusion of everything else. It sounds more similar to the SAT prep discussed here. Taking a sample test. And then using the results to go over problems that the students did not do as well in.  Having homework/in classwork of problems that are similar to those on the test so they get used to answering that type of question.  But it has not taken over other learning to anywhere near the extent I hear in the rhetoric about tests.  Yes, I am lucky that so far I do not have a kiddo who is anxious about the tests.  But he does have a problem sitting still for the amount of time they need to during the test.  The teachers have given them strategies to help with that as well though.

[catz]

4 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Well, this is the thing - if the test scores aren't a big deal, and schools use lots of other things to get a good picture of the student, is it really a problem if motivated kids can't do prep?  Or in that case, is there really much utility to the test scores at all?  If a kid is a poor test taker, but hard worker, won't that be evident ion all those other measures. or some of them?

People saying it isn't a big component may be correct, but honestly looking at the discussions on the college board, from some of the same people saying it, that's not particularly how they seem to behave.

 

Well, I also don't see a benefit to having a test score that doesn't reflect quite a kid's academic background because maybe they hit pre-algebra in 5th or 6th grade and are a little rusty on those concepts for example.  Like I said, I don't think you're seeing falsely inflated scores.  The OP raised her score 5 points on a 2nd sitting.  Someone else's son raised his score 2 points on a second sitting.  So should we call those 2nd scores invalid?

There absolutely are some families out there who are huge on those test scores because they want to apply to Ivy leagues or whatever.  But I suspect these are kids doing a rigorous college prep curriculum and are naturally already scoring at least a 29/30 on the ACT.   You do need a high score to be considered.  But what will get you in is something besides that score - it might be that summer theater program you ran in your back yard, or your 500 hours of volunteering for a campaign, or the every Saturday you spent playing music at a nursing home for the residents, or that national science award.  If you are hyper focusing on a point or 2 on the ACT over other academics or extra curriculars, that's your choice.  I think that is actually a pretty small percentage of families thinking about it like that.  My kid has scores in that range and he is welcome to apply, but I don't think financially we are in a position choose these schools even on the off chance he should get into one of them.  I suspect most people who bother prep programs are a few months/a few hours a week and work with the score that is the result of that assuming it's what you expected.  If you go over to College Confidential and read the test prep board, it's hyper focused teens posting on this topic the most.  

 

[SKL]

2 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

 

I feel like you maybe didn't look at the data I posted above.  The average test taker who takes the ACT 10 (TEN!?) times improves their score by 4 points.  Heck, it would take you a good 18 months+ to legitimately take the official test 10 times.  My kid's ACT score went up 4 points per year between 8th and 9th and then again from 9th and 10th after a single practice test and another year of maturity and quality academics.  For the average tester, that is the difference between a 20 composite and a 24 composite according to the data.  And that is the difference between community college ready and  something like non-competitive state or private school ready.  I really feel like if someone can put in that level of work, they likely legitimately could be successful in the slightly more rigorous environment.  There is not faking in these tests.  You need good deep reading comprehension, grammar, English, and math skills.  The science section is a bit of a parlor trick but it really does help to have deep understanding of the underpinning science concepts to get through that section fast.  The timing is really hard in that section.  Check out the link about stopping school to prep for the ACT in the Chicago school system.  It didn't work.  

There's a reason you don't see stories like "Boy with perfect ACT score doesn't have the reading comprehension or math skills to succeed at Harvard and drops out".  I'm not saying people don't drop out.  But I suspect when freshman do it has to less to do with academic readiness it has more to do with maturity and executive function or in some cases something like anxiety or depression.   Those highest reach schools have some of the best retention rates.  

That's why I'm saying prep or do not prep.  I think for most people it is a fine point that maybe tweaks a couple points in your favor for older material, speed, comfort etc.  If you put in some work, you earned those points legitimately.  Like I said above my son has worked with a tutor this year.  Mostly what they've done is done timed sample tests (many available free online) and corrected wrong answers.  Repeat.  That's it.  They've gotten through like 5 tests in the past couple months.  When my kid started with a tutor, he was up 2-3 points from last year (he's hitting the top scores).  Now he' more consistently hitting 3+ and has made a couple perfect scores on sections.  The biggest difference is in science which has always been his hardest section.  He needed practice watching the clock.  Like I said - nothing magic about it.  He did a little review work on a couple concepts he hasn't had for a while like punnet squares.  However, without the academic backing and years of schooling his scores would look very different.  Was the tutor worth the money?  LOL - not really and this is from a big name national company that does this kind of thing every day.

The idea of using something like an IQ test is archaic and extremely unfair.  Do we really want to back to days of tracking?  I actually think this method is much more fair than many.  But prep cannot and does not replace parenting or your years of schooling prior.  There is just no way for that to be completely fair.  You can't force parents to read to their kids and follow up on homework.  You can't force high schoolers to use their free time to prep for a college entrance exam.  Again, there are so many more resources available for little or no cost than there used to be.  We have made progress.

I don't see why you're ok with prep and testing for elementary school kids but not when it's for college entrance?  If your kid spent 2 hours x 3 weeks on testing, that is 30 hours.  That is more time than my kid willingly spent on ACT prep (and I know because I'm paying by the hour) and it benefits him directly.  

 

1) re the test data you posted, it is not clear but I assume that a lot of the multiple-time test takers prepped before the first test.  I also don't know the time lag between tests, but if you're taking it 10 times and not increasing your score much, I assume the time lag is fairly short - because even just attending a few months of public high school should increase your score somewhat.  And as the authors noted, there are many other variables not controlled for.  The kind of person who would take the ACT 4+ times is a differently focused (and possibly differently resourced) person than the kind who would take it once or twice.

2) regarding my relative comfort with test prep at different ages, well first I did not say I was pro prep or against prep at any age.  But I think it is worth a discussion.  I think if kids are taking standardized tests in school as they are, it's not a huge deal, but I also think it has the benefit of familiarizing ALL b&m students with the format of a standardized test.  When I was a kid 40+ years ago, we did the Iowa tests every other year starting in 3rd, and one could argue that was the totality of my prep for my first ACT.  I am not a big fan of them doing multiple weeks of testing (which they do some years, not all years), but I'm not going to march on Washington about it.  It merely provides feedback to the teachers.  And frankly I am curious how they will do - as I will be when it comes time to take the ACT and SAT.  I really enjoyed taking the Iowa tests as a kid, so I don't see where there's anything to fuss about as long as it's only a small part of their school life.  The so-called "prep" that I mentioned is just one more way that they review content that has been taught. 

By contrast, the SAT / ACT specific prep, which gets done to very different degrees depending on students' motives and resources, and which is often a for-profit transaction, seems to me like more of a racket.  I think it stinks that students are affected by it even if they personally want their score to reflect what they can do without competitive prep.  That really isn't an option any more, at least not percentile-wise.

I totally understand doing what is best for your kid or my kid on an individual level.  As a parent, the buck stops here; nobody else gives a damn whether my kid is successful in life.  But I dislike the testing structure which puts us in this position.

[Tsuga]

26 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

My opinion? At this point, she’s just trolling you, or playing devil’s advocate or some such. 

From her own posting it’s clear she’s fine with asking for extra help for a child. 

At this point, we may as well start debating whether it’s fair for kids to study their homework or text right before a normal school test. Really, according to what it seems she’s saying, there’s not much need to study as long as the student did their homework and read the book had a decent grasp on the facts.

I don't think SKL is trolling. I think that she has an idea of standardized tests as a third party data point, beyond rec letters and grades, to help schools make a good decisions about students. When those standardized tests become vulnerable to playing by adding in an economic element, the test seems less fair. You aren't supposed to prep for the cogat to get special services like gifted  so why this?

My view is that it's all horribly unfair but I get her point.

 

And I would say, just like anything, some people get it and some have to try hard, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with studying unless they do want an IQ test.

[Dmmetler]

2 hours ago, hepatica said:

I just want to clarify that my comment was that the use (by colleges) of testing to determine merit aid was unjust (because it is a redistribution of scarce financial resources from lower income to higher income students), not that test prep itself is unethical. Test prep makes sense given the current system, but that system itself is unjust.

Sadly, I don't think that the testing regimen really does give better opportunity to students who work hard but have learning differences. Accommodations make a difference and test prep also makes some difference, but dyslexic students, for example, are already working harder than neurotypical students at their regular schoolwork. So, the addition of an extra hour or two a week for test prep is a significant burden. Extra time on the test presents the same problem. Turning a 4-5  hour test into a 6-7 hour test is not exactly a perfect solution for kids whose brains are already working almost 5x harder to complete the same tasks. How well they are going to perform in those extra hours is questionable.

And, sometimes I feel we throw away this problem by limiting the discussion to kids who don't have learning differences (saying things like of course the testing is harder for slow processors), but these are 15-20% of all students. So that issue can't be set aside as a different issue. 

 

This is what I’m hitting with BK. Fortunately, our state offers free community college tuition for jumping through a few hoops, and she is doing well enough in her college classes that she should be able to transfer to a state U and get the state scholarship that is currently barred to her because extra time on the ACT gave her a whopping 1 point composite increase and wiped her out for three days following. 

[Bluegoat]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that saying the way the tests function or the testing racket is a problem means that individuals can somehow get out of that problem.

Jeez, I think capitalism is an immoral system, I still by my groceries in a shop.

[Frances]

39 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

1) re the test data you posted, it is not clear but I assume that a lot of the multiple-time test takers prepped before the first test.  I also don't know the time lag between tests, but if you're taking it 10 times and not increasing your score much, I assume the time lag is fairly short - because even just attending a few months of public high school should increase your score somewhat.  And as the authors noted, there are many other variables not controlled for.  The kind of person who would take the ACT 4+ times is a differently focused (and possibly differently resourced) person than the kind who would take it once or twice.

2) regarding my relative comfort with test prep at different ages, well first I did not say I was pro prep or against prep at any age.  But I think it is worth a discussion.  I think if kids are taking standardized tests in school as they are, it's not a huge deal, but I also think it has the benefit of familiarizing ALL b&m students with the format of a standardized test.  When I was a kid 40+ years ago, we did the Iowa tests every other year starting in 3rd, and one could argue that was the totality of my prep for my first ACT.  I am not a big fan of them doing multiple weeks of testing (which they do some years, not all years), but I'm not going to march on Washington about it.  It merely provides feedback to the teachers.  And frankly I am curious how they will do - as I will be when it comes time to take the ACT and SAT.  I really enjoyed taking the Iowa tests as a kid, so I don't see where there's anything to fuss about as long as it's only a small part of their school life.  The so-called "prep" that I mentioned is just one more way that they review content that has been taught. 

By contrast, the SAT / ACT specific prep, which gets done to very different degrees depending on students' motives and resources, and which is often a for-profit transaction, seems to me like more of a racket.  I think it stinks that students are affected by it even if they personally want their score to reflect what they can do without competitive prep.  That really isn't an option any more, at least not percentile-wise.

I totally understand doing what is best for your kid or my kid on an individual level.  As a parent, the buck stops here; nobody else gives a damn whether my kid is successful in life.  But I dislike the testing structure which puts us in this position.

While likely all brick and mortar public school kids are exposed to both test prep and standardized testing to some degree, the amount and types vary dramatically across the country, just as people are arguing here that the amounts of personal prep for the SAT and ACT vary greatly. And has been pointed out several times already, there are quite effective free and low cost prep options available. If a student doesn’t want to do any prep, that’s absolutely their choice, just like they choose how much to put into ECs and school studies, etc. Personally, I’m far more concerned about the wide range in quality and opportunities available in our public high schools, as I think that has far greater bearing on whether someone is actually prepared to succeed in college.

[BlsdMama]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Well, this is the thing - if the test scores aren't a big deal, and schools use lots of other things to get a good picture of the student, is it really a problem if motivated kids can't do prep?  Or in that case, is there really much utility to the test scores at all?  If a kid is a poor test taker, but hard worker, won't that be evident ion all those other measures. or some of them?

People saying it isn't a big component may be correct, but honestly looking at the discussions on the college board, from some of the same people saying it, that's not particularly how they seem to behave.

 

So my take on this - most of merit aid coming directly from the school is ACT /SAT score tied. That’s the easy money. You apply, they write a financial aid package based on stats. It’s relevant. 

Kids with great volunteer work, amazing extracurricular, unique stories? Their time might be better spent writing essays to private scholarships. It’s YMMV type of a thing. 

 

As as far as learning disabilities - my kids run the gamut. 

Oldest DD is neurotypical and very academic. 

Next DS is moderately dyslexic (officially diagnosed) as is DD3   

DD4 has anxiety. We plan on several tests and practice because she is wicked smart, very gifted, but she will prep for the anxiety factor  

DS5 currently wants comm college and a two year program. He is severe to profound dyslexic with incredible working memory impairment and ADHD inattentive. I doubt we will prep because what he wants to do doesn’t require it  

 

Those are my teens. Then I have four more dyslexics up and coming. Some of my dyslexics have plans for advanced degrees. It is my job to remediate their struggle areas so they can competently achieve them. They MUST be college ready in grammar, reading, and math. DD3 scores extremely high on practice ACTs as an early sophomore BUT couldn’t complete the test in time  Great but slow reader. If we had not “prepped” I’m not sure I would have gotten her diagnosed officially and then had a 504 put in place for her so it could be adequately documented for extended time. Studies have shown no improvements for neurotypical students with extended time. However, dyslexic kids then have adequate time to complete the test and accurately display their abilities. I would argue test prep is ESPECIALLY important for these students, not less so.

And if I haven’t prepped my students to get adequate scores in Reading, Math, and Grammar -that’s concerning. Can they handle university work? If not, then I think CC is a necessity before University.

 

That said, because of financial aid packages, it was cheaper for my kids to BEGIN at University because the scholarships are greater for freshman and all of theirs were renewable. They were less likely to get scholarships in those amounts as transfer students, leaving their junior and senior years significantly more expensive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[katilac]

8 hours ago, SKL said:

 

Hard work is great, but if you are ready for college because you have worked hard through high school, then that will probably come across on your test scores without a significant amount of prepping.  Sustained hard work over the long term, coupled with basic aptitude, is readiness for college.  Hard cramming in the short run?  Not so much, in my personal opinion.

 

People have said repeatedly that they are not talking about cramming, yet your posts continue to be 'ya but cramming is bad.' 

Yes, if you are college ready, that will come across in your scores without a significant amount of prepping, but brushing up on early algebra skills and such can improve your score within the realm of ready. Do you never revisit skills that you have already learned? 

41 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

 By contrast, the SAT / ACT specific prep, which gets done to very different degrees depending on students' motives and resources, and which is often a for-profit transaction, seems to me like more of a racket.  I think it stinks that students are affected by it even if they personally want their score to reflect what they can do without competitive prep.  That really isn't an option any more, at least not percentile-wise.

 

1

 

 

Everything gets done to very different degrees depending on students' motivation and resources. It's disingenuous to suggest that test prep is unique in that regard. 

You come down hard on test prep, and wrote specifically about kids being "propped up" in order to gain admission to college. Again, I think this makes your views on accommodations and support very relevant, and I'd be interested in your thoughts. When do you think accommodations and/or extra support should end? Before high school? Before college? If students shouldn't have extra support before taking a test, should they have accommodations?  I'm curious as to where you stand regarding the time frame between the middle grades and college admission. Is extra assistance a good thing right up to the point of college admission, or do you think that students should quit being propped up earlier than that?