Abolish the SAT?

Parents Forum
41

<p>There are a large number of quality schools that do not require standardized tests of any kind to evaluate applicants. Bowdoin, Bates and Middlebury are a few examples in my backyard.</p>

<p>Bates has been doing it that way long enough that they have done the research to satisfy themselves that those who were admitted without SAT scores perform equally well as those who submitted scores.</p>

<p>How is it that these highly selective schools are able to evaluate students from all over the country and the world, advantaged and disadvantaged, and make successful admissions decisions? With neither SAT I nor SAT II nor ACT scores?</p>

42

<p>"The nefarious impact of multiple sittings is one heck of a canard."</p>

<p>I agree and never understood the argument that there is greater value (to the adcom) placed on a one-time "single sitting" SAT score than a superscore. After all, ACT has score choice requiring the submission of only one score with no indication how many times it was repeated. If SAT and ACT are treated the same and accepted by every school, I can't believe there's any hidden value in taking the SAT only once.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
I've never understood why there is only one-shot on the AP tests.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>AP tests do allow retakes, and all the AP publications say so. But of course with only one test date per year per student (because of the elaborate human-intensive grading procedures), the AP tests don't offer a lot of retake opportunities over the course of a high school career. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/student/testing/ap/AP-bulletin.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/student/testing/ap/AP-bulletin.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

44

<p>Another excellent post from jmmom (post 41). Why indeed. This is what SAT-OPTIONAL means. It does not mean you can't sculpt your score results into trophies, if you want, and we'll look at the trophies. It means we won't punish someone else who doesn't have those trophies, but perhaps different trophies that we value just as much as yours. IF we can determine what other measurements of academic achievement are available, & if those measure up to our high standards, we may admit BOTH of you. I don't understand why that concept is so threatening to so many people.</p>

45

<p>Epiphany - I don't think the SAT is excluding kids from college. It may be more difficult to get into certain schools because of the huge increase in demand by qualified students for whatever reasons. Twenty+ years ago there were 4000 applicants for 1000 slots at MIT. This year there was something like 12000 applicants for the same 1000 slots. I'm guessing the mean SAT score is probably higher for those 1000 students today; not because of SAT coaching or retaking (although that I'm sure is happening), but because MIT CAN draw the line higher. Is using the SAT as a measuring stick excluding kids from MIT? No more than any of the other measures schools use to cull through the pile.</p>

<p>Asking high schools to provide syllabus, reading list and such is a good idea, but probably never going to happen - how many teachers, how many classes, AP, IB, Honors levels? Even with all that information it will still be a subjective measure. My S's GC wrote this in the school profile "competitive atmosphere has prompted our students to redefine success at a superior level". It's true, but how is that helpful when comparing this economically and culturally diverse urban HS to an eastern prep school? In the end it's a judgement call about an individual student.</p>

46

<p>


</p>

<p>in the latest edition of the Harvard viewbook. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/utilities/electronic_resources/viewbook/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/utilities/electronic_resources/viewbook/index.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>(Similar statements have appeared in the Harvard viewbook for years.) Colleges base such policies on EXPERIENCE, because, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote, "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." A college like Harvard can set any score consideration it pleases, and doesn't have to have a me-too policy, and Harvard today doesn't care how many times an applicant has taken the SAT I. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4198038&postcount=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4198038&postcount=1&lt;/a> </p>

<p>(I guess if the SAT I test ceases to exist, Harvard will care even less how often you have taken it, but this year SAT scores still enter into admission decisions, on the basis described in the Harvard viewbook.)</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
On a single SAT administration, there would certainly still be kids who study like crazy, prep with tutors, etc. And there would still be kids who don't, but I see this particular scenario as somewhat less troubling than our current model. I think the "regular"/more advantaged differences might actually be leveled out with a single test administration.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What is troubling about the current model? One can take the test as many times as he or she wishes and all scores are reported. Compare that to the non-disclosure rules imposed by the ADA. </p>

<p>Fwiw, the AP does not offer a relevant comparison, especially for scores earned. The AP tests were not developed for admission purposes, and ETS/The College Board has often opined that they should be used SOLELY for college placement. </p>

<p>And again, the number of OFFICIAL tests taken has little relevance to the quality and scope of one's preparation. Students with access to the best preparation tools would be HUGELY favored in a one shot test.</p>

<p>Just think if you had only ONE chance to pass a driving test in your life. Would you not try to seek the aid of a company that could duplicate the entire experience or ... spot you the test questions? And would you walk in the test center with more or less confidence than your neighbor who happened to know no one?</p>

48

<p>Skiersmom,
Again, as far as I'm concerned, I'd just as soon they scrap the generic "school profile," replacing it instead with something more classroom specific. (Sorry, but I find that GC comment unhelpful.) In terms of "it's never going to happen," it's already happening when it comes to AP classes, because the colleges have become fed -up with how AP in one high school is only about a test, in another h.s. it's a veritable college seminar. Thus, collegeboard is now requiring certain add'l info to be provided by the schools.</p>

<p>Overall, yes, I do agree with you on the numbers game. D and her peers have the un-luck to be in the worst college admissions competition in history, regardless of scores. My point on the scores is that for anyone to come onto this forum and state that the SAT is an intelligence measurement, and by inference includes those of superior academic ability as well, has a limited view of academic ability AND intelligence. In addition, yes, the colleges are using it as an excluder because they can. (It limits the numbers, reduces the decisions; it's of enormous practical convenience right now.) My D will be no more adversely affected in that competition than all others applying. </p>

<p>It's just that people need to be careful about jumping from the level or degree of its use (and its preparation) to conclusions about its predictive value. (Which is what the article and the OP had introduced.)</p>

49

<p>Epiphany,</p>

<p>"You need to know the school." One of the vehicles available to quickly assess differences between schools is the SAT and other standardized test scores earned by students at that school compared to other schools. Course descriptions may be real or may be fluff but the test scores are at least an objective standard.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
But is 1410 unprepped equal to 1410 after year(s) of coaching ? Do both students have the same intelligence and ability ?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've always wondered about that. So, someone who never studies magically makes a 2400, but someone who does makes like 1700, yet both have basically the same grades, what does that mean exactly? That the 2400 person is destined for Harvard and the other should give up and be a McDonald's burger flipper? All because of one thing?</p>

51

<p>jmmom,</p>

<p>Actually the vast majority of students at these schools eg Bowdon and Bates, submit their SAT scores and the schools use them to evaluate the students applications. They are SAT optional. And these schools have the SAT results from the students HS to use as a base line to evaluate their grades. If there were no SAT's at all, these schools would find the SAT optional approach much more difficult to execute.</p>

52

<p>curious, the SAT has very little to do with how the student has performed relative to classroom work. It is not a curriculum-based test. Further, thousands of schools in the land have no standardized tests whatsoever, such as a national achievement test (which would be in a completely different category than the SAT). Some schools have other "aptitude" tests, and these are often taken way too early in the student's cognitive development to be of use to the colleges. The SAT is NOT an achievement test. Your statement is way off. Course descriptions that are "fluff" would be dismissed by any intelligent admissions committee. These are intended to be accompanied by a sample of an assignment sent directly from the teacher, from the school's address to verify the course description. I have stated this several times elsewhere on CC.</p>

53

<p>Well, yes, they are optional and some submit, some don't. That was the point, wasn't it? Bates has compared the college performance of those who submitted and those who didn't and found no significant difference.</p>

<p>With hindsight, they were able to look back and see whether they "got it right" - ie, whether those they admitted without having test scores to evaluate them performed as well as those for whom they had such scores. They did.</p>

<p>QED.</p>

54

<p>Epiphany,</p>

<p>You have a ridiculous amount of faith in the ability of swamped adcoms to ferret out truth in a course description. And it does not matter that the SAT I is not curriculum based it gives an adcom a simple way to evaluate how difficult the HS was. The SAT II results could help with that too but only if all students took a standard set of them.</p>

55

<p>Andale,</p>

<p>I'm afraid the QED is unwarrented. Bates can do this because it has SAT scores from the student's HS even if not from that individual student. With those in hand it can have some sense of the difficulty of the HS and thereby evaluate the rest of the application without the individual student's SAT's. Bates and Bowdoin are free riders on the existing system. I'm glad they exist and do what they do. It is a good safety valve but they do not prove that we could do without standardized testing as a whole system.</p>

56

<p>"So, someone who never studies magically makes a 2400, but someone who does makes like 1700, yet both have basically the same grades, what does that mean exactly?"</p>

<p>It just means that person with 2400 is smarter than the other person.</p>

<p>"That the 2400 person is destined for Harvard and the other should give up and be a McDonald's burger flipper?"</p>

<p>It is up to the other person, but he should not dream of going to H.</p>

57

<p>"It just means that person with 2400 is smarter than the other person."</p>

<p>Let's step back for a minute and talk about something less "extreme" than 2400 vs. 1700...Do you really believe that a higher SAT means smarter? I guess you believe that certain races are smarter than others then, because there are differences in average SATs. This is not really something you believe is it?</p>

58

<p>Here's something I've noticed, in my long career as a student and as a teacher and consultant.</p>

<p>The only students I've seen who have ever made a big deal about their SAT scores and/or find them a singularly supreme way of selecting for academic capability, never had much to recommend themselves in any other way besides scores and possibly grades (but not always the latter, even). Students who score just as high but have lots of additional achievements behind them (many of those, academic achievements) have never been overly self-impressed with their scores, or with other people's scores. Not surprisingly, those are the people also accepted to multiple elite colleges, whereas the ones who cared only about "numbers" did not have similar multiple offers from equivalent schools. Yet the funny thing is, these are the ones who are so focused on the supposed importance of scores. You would have thought their personal acceptance history would have told them something. Apparently not.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
There are a large number of quality schools that do not require standardized tests of any kind to evaluate applicants. Bowdoin, Bates and Middlebury are a few examples in my backyard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, Middlebury does require applicants to submit standardized test scores, but allows them to choose from among SAT I, SAT IIs, or ACT.</p>

60

<p>Hmm, arcadia. I see that Middlebury's website says exactly what you describe. Yet they are on the fairtest.org list, which is why I assumed that tests are not required. So, I'm a bit confused now. Fairtest says that schools on their list "de-emphasize" test scores and that some schools may require test scores for various purposes, but do not use them for admissions decisions.</p>

<p>So I'm not sure how to distinguish among the schools on the list. It does appear from reading the FAQs on Middlebury's admissions website that this school, in fact, considers test scores in admissions decisions.</p>