Thoughts on Standardized Tests / Prep

[katilac]

16 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Nope. Just because you’ve worked hard( depending on your def of hard) does not mean it will automatically come across in the test. Test prep is also not hard cramming. It’s review, it’s taking the time to read what the test booklets say— good lord, you can even find out the percentage of questions that will be, for example, Alg vs Geometry vs Trig. 

Basically it means Going in Prepared.  

1

 

Yes, this. I am baffled by the idea that reviewing and practicing skills is somehow a bad thing. 

Athletes run basic plays over and over. Musicians practice scales. Doctors and many other professionals are required to take a certain amount of continuing education credits, many of which are designed to maintain skills (as opposed to learning new skills). Every job I have ever had encouraged both formal and informal review of basic skills. 

Review and practice is not a sign of failure to learn and prepare. 

[Joker]

4 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. 

 

How would you truly fix this to be fair, though? Do you also have an issue with most selective schools being only need based and offering zero merit aid even though it leaves out many students being able to attend? The way colleges and the government determines need for aid is pretty screwed up.  I just don't see how it's fair to ignore merit based on income. Ds is in the top 3% of his class of more than 600 and he scored in the 99% on his SAT so it's not like he hasn't worked hard for his grades. 

We're considered full pay at our state u where ds is attending but if he didn't receive merit aid, we couldn't afford it. He didn't apply to most selective schools due to them only giving need based aid and we are outside of most of it. He did apply to two and was accepted to one but he can't go because of cost.

FTR, ds did no test prep for the SAT as it just stresses him out but he's a good test taker. I will have dd do some prep because she wants to go to the same state u and will need the merit aid as well. 

[hepatica]

6 minutes ago, Joker said:

How would you truly fix this to be fair, though? Do you also have an issue with most selective schools being only need based and offering zero merit aid even though it leaves out many students being able to attend? The way colleges and the government determines need for aid is pretty screwed up.  I just don't see how it's fair to ignore merit based on income. Ds is in the top 3% of his class of more than 600 and he scored in the 99% on his SAT so it's not like he hasn't worked hard for his grades. 

We're considered full pay at our state u where ds is attending but if he didn't receive merit aid, we couldn't afford it. He didn't apply to most selective schools due to them only giving need based aid and we are outside of most of it. He did apply to two and was accepted to one but he can't go because of cost.

FTR, ds did no test prep for the SAT as it just stresses him out but he's a good test taker. I will have dd do some prep because she wants to go to the same state u and will need the merit aid as well. 

Well I guess I'll reveal my ideological leaning here, but I suppose I would consider debt free public education for all to be fair - so some form of "freeish" higher education.

I am never sure what people mean when they say they cannot afford something. I have had people whose income is $400,000 a year tell me they cannot afford the $65,000 tuition and they need merit aid because they are full pay. If folks receiving need based aid pay $25,000 out of a $100,000 income, then someone at $400,000 ought to easily be able to pay $100,000. Seems to me it is much easier to afford that than to afford $12,000 on a $50,000 income. What am I missing here? Who exactly are these people who are full pay but cannot afford college? 

Many kids don't get to attend the most selective schools. That's doesn't mean they don't have lots of options.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

 

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? 

 

 

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? 

 

At least in my world, there is nothing competitive about being in elementary or high school.  I choose to send my kids to a parochial school of my choice and I pay the same regardless of whether my kids are quick or slow learners.  In the public school system, all kids are guaranteed an appropriate education.  Graduating high school is pretty much a requirement for anyone who expects to be in the regular job market.  I might add that I pay a fair share (at least) of the tax-funded cost of any accommodations the schools are required to provide.  I don't see why my kid(s) should not be entitled to help to meet basic educational requirements through high school.

Post-high school, there are so many possibilities, but none is guaranteed.  Unless something changes drastically, I don't assume either my gifted kid or my struggling kid is going to try for an ivy league college; I assume they will set their sights on a state school, and I hope they can meet the minimum requirements of a state school.  For one of my kids, this will mean a lot of work both in middle / high school and once she's in her college classes.  I do strongly want her to have a basic college degree.  I don't assume she will have any help beyond minor assistance through high school, but we are working hard on developing content study skills and basic proficiencies.  Thankfully, she is a diligent student by nature.  I understand that it's possible she may not be able to do college, but I'm not giving up yet.  Check back with me in 6+ years.  Some people do have to give up the college dream.  College isn't for everyone.

[Joker]

3 hours ago, hepatica said:

Well I guess I'll reveal my ideological leaning here, but I suppose I would consider debt free public education for all to be fair - so some form of "freeish" higher education.

I am never sure what people mean when they say they cannot afford something. I have had people whose income is $400,000 a year tell me they cannot afford the $65,000 tuition and they need merit aid because they are full pay. If folks receiving need based aid pay $25,000 out of a $100,000 income, then someone at $400,000 ought to easily be able to pay $100,000. Seems to me it is much easier to afford that than to afford $12,000 on a $50,000 income. What am I missing here? Who exactly are these people who are full pay but cannot afford college? 

Many kids don't get to attend the most selective schools. That's doesn't mean they don't have lots of options.

We are one of those who are full pay but cannot afford it. We are one of many. I don't know why that is hard to understand. We have a modest home, two paid for cars that are 5 and 13 years old, and the only debt we have is medical debt. We still cannot afford the $25000/year price tag at our local state university or anywhere else. 

I just don't get the thinking that it's fine if selective schools only give need aid but you also think state schools should only give merit aid to low income students. It leaves very few options for kids like mine who aren't from low or high income families.

[hepatica]

8 minutes ago, Joker said:

We are one of those who are full pay but cannot afford it. We are one of many. I don't know why that is hard to understand. We have a modest home, two paid for cars that are 5 and 13 years old, and the only debt we have is medical debt. We still cannot afford the $25000/year price tag at our local state university or anywhere else. 

I just don't get the thinking that it's fine if selective schools only give need aid but you also don't think state schools should give merit aid to low income students. It leaves very few options for kids like mine who aren't from low or high income families.

I don't think I said the bolded.

As for full pay, I was referring to people who are full pay at selective private colleges (I think you must have an income of around $200,000 to be full pay at Harvard). A student with an EFC of $25,000 would get lots of need based aid at Harvard and such.

Overall, it is all ridiculously expensive. And that's why I support debt free public education. I am not unsympathetic. I think the medical debt issue is seriously relevant. Universal healthcare would help.

[Meriwether]

My husband makes a good salary, but we cannot afford to pay full pay for 20 years of college in 15 years. We are considered full pay, or close enough that it makes no difference. College costs without scholarships would likely total more than our house.

[hepatica]

1 minute ago, Meriwether said:

My husband makes a good salary, but we cannot afford to pay full pay for 20 years of college in 15 years. We are considered full pay, or close enough that it makes no difference. College costs without scholarships would likely total more than our house.

EFC will take into account the number of children in college at the same time. Your EFC would be the same each year, just split between the children in college.

[Meriwether]

1 minute ago, hepatica said:

EFC will take into account the number of children in college at the same time. Your EFC would be the same each year, just split between the children in college.

LOL. We can't afford 15 years of college in 15 years. It would be more than our mortgage. Now, when our mortgage is paid off, we should be able to pay for the little girls to attend the reasonably priced state school. The older three, no.

[hepatica]

3 minutes ago, Meriwether said:

LOL. We can't afford 15 years of college in 15 years. It would be more than our mortgage. Now, when our mortgage is paid off, we should be able to pay for the little girls to attend the reasonably priced state school. The older three, no.

But that's true for everybody, right? I think it has become typical that college costs about the same as your mortgage.  I agree that's too much, but merit aid only alleviates the problem for a small few. I don't think anyone would argue with the notion that college is too expensive.

[catz]

5 hours ago, hepatica said:

Well I guess I'll reveal my ideological leaning here, but I suppose I would consider debt free public education for all to be fair - so some form of "freeish" higher education.

 

 

I'm on board.  I'd even be on board with something like college tuition in exchange for some sort of post grad work commitment.  Or a much more reasonable EFC (no more than 10% income at any income level and less for lower income levels).  But there would still need to be some academic cutoffs for these types of programs.  My city already has free community college for public school grads.  But that doesn't help those low income kids ready for a 4 year who have been soaked in AP or dual enrolled (also free - yay).  I would prefer affordable public options to be available to students at all academic levels. 

Dmmetler, I think the bigger injustice is that your kid is not being given a free and meaningful education to her academic level and that she has to worry about jumping through the hoop of a really hard long test most kids aren't taking for 3 or 4 years yet.  School system fail for GT/2E/Asynchronous kids.  My oldest hit the ceiling of a K-12 oral achievement test at like age 10.  But I'm pretty sure he would have drawn Pokemon in the bubbles while singing if he had tried the ACT at that age.  We've been dancing around this  for a number a years waiting for this kid to be able to be college ready in all ways.  He still might end up in my basement.  LOL.   I'm glad your daughter has had success at the CC.

PSA - I discovered today the ACT does have some free online prep as well.  See, they do want you to prep!  ;)

https://academy.act.org/

I really recommend to those who are really opposed to prep to flip through a sample ACT and see what's on it.  They actually got rid of the old SAT because it was designed to trick people and tended to cater more to the high IQ crowd.  The ACT and the new SAT are designed to be straightforward achievement driven tests.  They've moved to this type of testing because it's MORE fair.   The Khan SAT prep is out there free because it's more fair.  Just like holistic admissions and more financial aid for lower income families is MORE fair.  I have plenty of issues with the way of college admissions and finances works these days, but bothering to do a little ACT prep is WAY down there at the bottom of the list.  I do actually think things are better than they used to be in many ways in terms of equity. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/will-the-new-sat-better-serve-poor-students/472311/

 

 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I really recommend to those who are really opposed to prep to flip through a sample ACT and see what's on it.  They actually got rid of the old SAT because it was designed to trick people and tended to cater more to the high IQ crowd.  The ACT and the new SAT are designed to be straightforward achievement driven tests.  They've moved to this type of testing because it's MORE fair.   The Khan SAT prep is out there free because it's more fair.  Just like holistic admissions and more financial aid for lower income families is MORE fair.  I have plenty of issues with the way of college admissions and finances works these days, but bothering to do a little ACT prep is WAY down there at the bottom of the list.  I do actually think things are better than they used to be in many ways in terms of equity. 

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder if the people who think these tests are nothing but a pointless exercise in useless information, and that test prep is either some form of expensive extended torture or is full of secret magic tricks that unfairly allow certain kids to artificially inflate their scores, have actually seen the current SAT and ACT tests and read through a couple of prep books.

The ACT and SAT test basic content (math through trig, plus English grammar/syntax/mechanics) and key skills (ability to read, comprehend, analyze and infer/extrapolate information and data from text passages and scientific charts and graphs) that are genuine indicators of college readiness. Test prep consists of reviewing that content and practicing those skills, plus gaining familiarity with the format, and learning a few strategies for making the most efficient use of the limited time (like doing the easy questions first, then going back to the hard ones if you have time, or skimming the questions before reading the text passage so you have an inkling of what you're looking for). Students who already know all the relevant content and have all the important skills can spend a couple of hours getting familiar with the format and learning a few strategies, and be done. A kid with gaps in content, or who needs more practice in the skills, or whose test anxiety means they need to do lots of practice tests so the process becomes automatic and less anxiety-inducing, can continue working on it as long as they need to.

It's not a "game" any more than figuring out how to write a really good admissions essay is a game, or planning your ECs is a game, or even deciding which colleges to apply to is a game. Being prepared and doing your best is always a good idea, in any endeavor.

If students, or their parents, want to write off the SAT and ACT as a pointless game that's not worth investing a few hours of prep in, or they object to the whole thing on ethical grounds and choose not to take the test at all, more power to them. My kid, though, will be sitting here celebrating the fact that he not only gets to attend his dream school, he will graduate with no debt and with money left over for grad school. He doesn't consider giving up one Netflix movie a week in order to spend time with a prep program to have been an unbearable burden, and he is very very happy with the return on that investment.

[Annie G]

On 4/5/2018 at 1:58 PM, SKL said:

 

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.

I do a little test prep for ACT/SAT and most of the kids I work with do really benefit from just a couple of hours a week of test prep.  They often just need to learn the strategies for the tests and some review of the content being tested.  I’m not talking about kids who score a 34 on the ACT and want to raise the score- I mostly work with kids who are bright but need some help getting to the mid/upper 20’s. Not super students, but definitely kids who can do well in college but need the scores to get in.

Some students feel the pressure of high stakes tests and prep can help them minimize that anxiety.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

10 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

It depends where you live.  My district has just started offering a semester class in SAT prep, and that's because a board member teaches in a wealthy district that offers that class.Since the public is upset that 75% of seniors have 4 study halls, it was the least he could do for those going on to college...its offered to seniors fall semester. A little late.

One can access community college without SAT/ACT test scores, but there may a math or english placement test, if RE scores aren't available. The scores are helping match the student to the offerings, so there is no wasted time in unnecessary classes.  One cannot access certain majors in certain SUNY schools without the proficiency determination. Sure, your dc is doing that by taking the courses at the CC, but most students don't have that much money or time; they want to grad in 4, not do a 2:3.

 

I see no reason why it would take my kid 3 years at the uni.  He will be only 16 when he matriculates though so yeah there is less of a hurry probably.