Cessation of SAT Subject Tests

[Roadrunner]

2 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

There actually are a few schools where a 1000 SAT would be reasonable to list, especially if it was a 600 English 400 math or something similar, because it would place the student out of remedial English.  And there are high schools in my district where kids who get the 21 ACT required for the base state scholarship are lauded, because their average score is in the mid teens. One thing I've noticed this cycle is that the schools that have the wider range of expected scores also expect to see them. And the better the merit aid, the more likely the school wants to see scores-and doesn't have any flexibility on requiring them. 

The big problem I see with AP vs SAT subject tests isn't essay vs multiple choice. It's that there is now no way other than the SAT or ACT to validate high school level understanding. Essentially, it's saying that the only way to prove you will be successful in college is to actually have been successful in college already. And financially, we have a standard in our country that high school is free, and college is not. 

But what parents and schools often call here “college” makes me roll my eyes. Our neighboring district is so proud of its dual enrollment. They have kids dual enrolled in precalculus. Somebody explain to me what is a difference between high school precalculus they are already teaching versus what they are now calling DE precalculus which is also taught at the high school at the same pace using the same textbook, but somehow the latter gets you credits. They have brought in a bunch of entry level courses inferior to APs into the high school and parents are on the moon that their high schoolers are going to college. Nobody questions anything. It really boggles my mind. I believe there should be a clearer line between high school and college. I think Calculus is one such line in math. I don’t understand why a super easy survey history course (much easier than AP) gets you college credits. I think those survey courses belong in high schools, not colleges. 
And I am convinced that taxpayers are paying over and over for this bonanza because somebody did a study linking dual enrollment with higher rate of college attendance. Now I could go on picking that study apart as well, but I won’t.
And DE is free here. The cost of CC is generally minimum. We know kids who take and retake courses and flunk several times the same course (3 I think is the limit). Free college? Excuse me. I don’t mind paying it once. The second time you take a course you flunk on the first try, I want the full cost (not just subsidized tuition) charged to those students. 
I guess in short yes, we need to strengthen high school level knowledge and actually graduate kids knowing something and have them prove it with some sort of standardized measure before moving on to college. This free for all doesn’t do anybody any good. 
 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Roadrunner

[EKS]

On 1/19/2021 at 7:11 PM, daijobu said:

I strenuously disagree that any AP course is college level.

I would argue that many freshman level courses offered at real universities aren't college level either, especially those in the social sciences and humanities.

[wendyroo]

20 minutes ago, EKS said:

I would argue that many freshman level courses offered at real universities aren't college level either, especially those in the social sciences and humanities.

I think this depends on our definition of "college level".

I have taken several community college courses (at different community colleges in different states) that I felt could only charitably be called middle school level. I took psychology at a community college; the reading assignments for each class were 2-3 textbook pages, all assessment was multiple choice and true/false, grading was heavily weighted by attendance and participation.

If that is considered "college level", then I think even the easiest AP classes are probably "college level" and a high school could get away with legitimately labeling any half-way decent class as "college level" DE.

[Kassia]

49 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

I think this depends on our definition of "college level".

I have taken several community college courses (at different community colleges in different states) that I felt could only charitably be called middle school level. I took psychology at a community college; the reading assignments for each class were 2-3 textbook pages, all assessment was multiple choice and true/false, grading was heavily weighted by attendance and participation.

If that is considered "college level", then I think even the easiest AP classes are probably "college level" and a high school could get away with legitimately labeling any half-way decent class as "college level" DE.

I really think a lot depends on the instructor.  We've had very good thorough AP classes while others were just a waste of time.  Same with DE/underclassman classes at universities and community colleges.  Some professors expected and taught a lot, others not so much.  

 

 

[Clemsondana]

3 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

And I am convinced that taxpayers are paying over and over for this bonanza because somebody did a study linking dual enrollment with higher rate of college attendance. Now I could go on picking that study apart as well, but I won’t.
 

In a previous state, studies showed that students who did DE or AP did better in college, so it was required that students take an AP or DE class to graduate from high school so that they'd be prepared.  Correlation and causation is apparently not taught anywhere.  It's crazy - similar to what@Dmmetlersaid, to graduate from high school, you had to take college-level classes. I would so much prefer that students actually master high school material, or even middle school material, rather than everybody pretending that they know college material.  There are kids who are ready for advanced material at an early age and it's great for them to have access to it, whether through AP, DE, or self-study, but making the courses easy enough that 'average' students can do well doesn't help anybody -  the students who need more rigor don't get it and the other students have the false belief that they are doing college level work.  

[GoodGrief3]

3 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

But what parents and schools often call here “college” makes me roll my eyes. Our neighboring district is so proud of its dual enrollment. They have kids dual enrolled in precalculus.
 

Our school district has set up an alternative high school where the curric is essentially (very basic) college coursework via the local university. It's becoming increasingly popular every year as people are eating up the idea of earning college credits, in whatever form they come, at reduced cost. The result is that students and funding are being pulled from the neighborhood high schools, with decreased choices for classes for those who choose to remain (for example, our local school has no physics course that is not AP, and high schools are having to combine certain arts courses.)

I am all for choices and competition, but I'd be hard pressed to call what is going on with college courses in this particular program a superior education academically.

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by GoodGrief3

[Matryoshka]

6 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

And DE is free here. The cost of CC is generally minimum. We know kids who take and retake courses and flunk several times the same course (3 I think is the limit). Free college? Excuse me. I don’t mind paying it once. The second time you take a course you flunk on the first try, I want the full cost (not just subsidized tuition) charged to those students. 

DE is not free here.  I told dd after her first C (for lack of effort, not because she couldn't hack the course) she'd have to pay for any future courses she got  a lazy C (or less) in.  Never happened again.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Matryoshka

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, Matryoshka said:

DE is not free here.  I told dd after her first C (for lack of effort, not because she couldn't hack the course) she'd have to pay for any future courses she got  a lazy C (or less) in.  Never happened again.

You should run my state! 😉
 

Our CC allows you to take a course 3 times. And you can still go and petition and do it again if you failed all three times. Cost per credit unit? $46. My friend has students failing the classes who refuse to drop because not only it’s free, but they are getting a stipend to go to college. She sees these kids for years working the system. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Arcadia]

16 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

DE is not free here.  

 

14 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

You should run my state! 😉
 

Our CC allows you to take a course 3 times. And you can still go and petition and do it again if you failed all three times. 

Each CC has its own policy and even with the California College Promise, some CCs are more generous. 

My kids are doing DE at a further local CC that allows 9th - 12th graders instead of only 11th and 12th graders for the nearer ones. We pay if they exceed 12 credits per Fall/Winter/Spring quarter. 

[frogger]

On 1/24/2021 at 4:49 PM, Roadrunner said:

You should run my state! 😉
 

Our CC allows you to take a course 3 times. And you can still go and petition and do it again if you failed all three times. Cost per credit unit? $46. My friend has students failing the classes who refuse to drop because not only it’s free, but they are getting a stipend to go to college. She sees these kids for years working the system. 

It may not be costing them in accounting terms but it certainly is in time. The opportunity cost is, of course, the money they could be making in that time. Although, if they can't figure that out then they probably wouldn't be making much.

Edited January 26, 2021 by frogger

[Roadrunner]

53 minutes ago, frogger said:

It may not be costing them in accounting terms but it certainly is in time. The opportunity cost is, of course, the money they could be making in that time. Although, if they can't figure that out then they probably wouldn't be making much.

But it’s costing the taxpayer plenty. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

But it’s costing the taxpayer plenty. 

So is ignorance. I’d much rather invest in people trying to learn than those who are incarcerated, under/unemployed due to lack of knowledge or skills.

[Clemsondana]

46 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

So is ignorance. I’d much rather invest in people trying to learn than those who are incarcerated, under/unemployed due to lack of knowledge or skills.

I think the difficulty is in sorting out who is trying to learn but isn't always successful and who is using this as a way to get money through grants or avoiding getting a job while parents foot the bill (not that that's a problem in the same way - families can do what they want with their money).  When I taught at a CC, we had to report on the last day of attendance and whether we judged each F to be an 'earned F' - whether the student tried and failed.  They kept up with it because it was so common for students to take the money but not go to class.  

I've also had students at my co-op complain about dual enrollment classes where only 5 of the 20+ students in the class did any work.  They were completely confused as to why anybody would sign up for a class and come sit in the class most of the time but do no work and not pay attention.  

It's a tough problem, and it's a hard situation for instructors, who would often LOVE to help students, even if they need remediation, but are instead faced with a class full of blank faces.  I usually had good classes when I taught at a CC, but I had one semester that was horrible.  In a lab with 24 students, in the end only 3 passed.  The A student had 0 absences, the B had 1, and the C had 2.  In a lab that met 16 times, everybody else had 3 or more absences, and most had 5+  They just didn't come, no excuses or requests for make-ups despite me asking.  One even wrote on the course eval that I did everything I could to help them succeed, but they guess that they should have come to class.  I was paid the same as if I had a full class and the lab was replenished with perishables in case everybody came to class.  I don't know how to handle this situation reasonably, but it's not fair to the taxpayers who were paying me or the students who were on the wait list for the class who can't get into nursing school until they take it.  I also had great experiences where the class was truly life changing for students and of course for most it was just a class, but there has to be a way to make sure students have skin in the game so that they have more incentive to not waste time and $.  

Edited January 26, 2021 by Clemsondana

[Sneezyone]

27 minutes ago, Clemsondana said:

I think the difficulty is in sorting out who is trying to learn but isn't always successful and who is using this as a way to get money through grants or avoiding getting a job while parents foot the bill (not that that's a problem in the same way - families can do what they want with their money).  When I taught at a CC, we had to report on the last day of attendance and whether we judged each F to be an 'earned F' - whether the student tried and failed.  They kept up with it because it was so common for students to take the money but not go to class.  

I've also had students at my co-op complain about dual enrollment classes where only 5 of the 20+ students in the class did any work.  They were completely confused as to why anybody would sign up for a class and come sit in the class most of the time but do no work and not pay attention.  

It's a tough problem, and it's a hard situation for instructors, who would often LOVE to help students, even if they need remediation, but are instead faced with a class full of blank faces.  I usually had good classes when I taught at a CC, but I had one semester that was horrible.  In a lab with 24 students, in the end only 3 passed.  The A student had 0 absences, the B had 1, and the C had 2.  In a lab that met 16 times, everybody else had 3 or more absences, and most had 5+  They just didn't come, no excuses or requests for make-ups despite me asking.  One even wrote on the course eval that I did everything I could to help them succeed, but they guess that they should have come to class.  I was paid the same as if I had a full class and the lab was replenished with perishables in case everybody cam to class.  I don't know how to handle this situation reasonably, but it's not fair to the taxpayers who were paying me or the students who were on the wait list for the class who can't get into nursing school until they take it.  I also had great experiences where the class was truly life changing for students and of course for most it was just a class, but there has to be a way to make sure students have skin in the game so that they have more incentive to not waste time and $.  

It actually isn’t that hard. 1) give people the benefit of the doubt as you’d want done for you. There are a million reasons from poor academic backgrounds to household instability to mental illness why people don’t complete courses, none of which are my business. 2) people are rational actors. If going to school is a way to boost their income on paper or in truth, even temporarily, that’s what they’ll do. 3) If the student exhausts their subsidized opportunities, that’s on them. Limits are limits. We have three strikes for criminals, why not students? 4) the assumption in the ‘NOT MY TAX DOLLARS!!’ Argument is that there aren’t other taxpayers, even those in the disfavored group, who don’t have skin in the game. It may well be tax-paying jobs and obligations that keep them out of class. If the state has adopted a policy that allows multiple chances it would seem that other taxpayers determined the expenditure was worthwhile. Otherwise, they’d select representatives that make different rules.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Clemsondana]

49 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It actually isn’t that hard. 1) give people the benefit of the doubt as you’d want done for you. There are a million reasons from poor academic backgrounds to household instability to mental illness why people don’t complete courses, none of which are my business. 2) people are rational actors. If going to school is a way to boost their income on paper or in truth, even temporarily, that’s what they’ll do. 3) If the student exhausts their subsidized opportunities, that’s on them. Limits are limits. We have three strikes for criminals, why not students? 4) the assumption in the ‘NOT MY TAX DOLLARS!!’ Argument is that there aren’t other taxpayers, even those in the disfavored group, who don’t have skin in the game. It may well be tax-paying jobs and obligations that keep them out of class. If the state has adopted a policy that allows multiple chances it would seem that other taxpayers determined the expenditure was worthwhile. Otherwise, they’d select representatives that make different rules.

I'd argue that most taxpayers have no clue that students take money and then don't come to class...I had no idea until I was given the instruction to mark whether it was an 'honest fail' or 'potential fraud'.  I'm actually incredibly sympathetic to the complicated lives that some of my students had...but, many of those students did very well.  I taught nights and weekends so my classes were disproportionately older students.  I coached a crying recent divorcee through being in classroom for the first time in a decade - she was looking at 6 years to the nursing degree that would let her support her family comfortably after her husband left.  I had a man have to miss class for work trips twice, and we worked out make-up tests.  I had a hospital orderly come in late because he got stuck helping when a patient coded.  One woman was doing respite care for her dad with pancreatic cancer, another's infant daughter had a shunt put in to drain fluid off her brain, and a couple had babies during the semester.  All of those students actually did fine, and I'd expect that there were other similar stories out there.  Labs have a lot of wait time so I got to know the students in those semesters really well.  The 'take the $' students were mostly young and would come for a few weeks and then disappear.  Sometimes they'd call the last week of class and ask how they could pass, having turned in no work for the entire semester, or they'd show back up in class for the last few weeks and think that they'd be fine and the 'last attended' date would be good even though they had done nothing.  The colleges were struggling to put policies in place that would make it easier to report these students to funding agencies without mislabeling students who had actual problems and issues to work around.  There were students whose stories broke your heart and there were students who were unprepared, but there were also students who, by word and action, were not there to learn, and I'd think it would be to everybody's benefit to only have the interested in the classroom.  

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

But it’s costing the taxpayer plenty. 

That is true but my point was it is also costing them. A lot.