<p>DP, now you have shared your son's scores! Are you bragging on your kid?</p>
<p>Hey, if people want to shell out the big bucks for test prep, be my guest. I offered my advice that the $20 book from the CB works just as well. That isn't kicking a soul. It's offering true financial advice...for those who think that spending a lot of money is going to yield high scores. 99% of the time, it isn't. Spend the money on the book, and save the rest for a summer program or something else.</p>
<p>I think that's swell advice. Your mileage may vary.</p>
<p>I'm adding a post in reference to the 2K classes.</p>
<p>A dear friend of mine had her son take one of those courses. They are fairly well to do, so cost was not an issue. He is not a "brat" or a "sow's ear". He is a wonderful young man with exceptional character and leadership qualities who, I am confident, will go on to do great things.</p>
<p>She (he) found that the course was helpful, IF you did all the homework and followed the advice given. The in-class assessments isolated weaknesses, and students were expected to spend anywhere from 5 minutes to 5 hours (depending on the problem) on specially tailored assignments strengthening these weaknesses- outside of the classroom. </p>
<p>Of course, as is the case in any class, there were students who did not diligently put into practice the strategies and techniques. They just attended class; they did not do the homework, or if they did they did it in a cursory manner. Obviously, that isn't going to help. For example: some students had a problem because of limited vocabulary. A list of 500 words was given, and if those students do not want to put the work into learning them- Oh well.</p>
<p>Basically, what you put into a class is what you'll get out of it.</p>
<p>And doing a class rather than self-studying is not a sign of brattiness. Many people find having a structured environment or a mentor absolutely necessary in order to learn new skills. Nothing to be ashamed of.</p>
<p>My friend's son ended up improving his SATs by around 100-200 points.</p>
<p>No, I am not bragging on my kid's scores. Bragging on his scores would be for me to say, "My kid got XXX without trying, so don't even bother because you won't do it." </p>
<p>I'm trying to encourage sincere students who are out there and want to improve their SAT scores.</p>
<p>And you could memorize 500 words and find not a single one on the particular SAT you took. This is very common,a nd it is extremely difficult for some kids to memorize at all.</p>
<p>I know of kids who did work their little behinds off. They really tried to apply the strategies in those expensive classes. It wasn't that they were lazy (or bratty for that matter). And their scores did not improve to reflect that effort (not at all "what you put into the class you'll get out of it").</p>
<p>It's buyer beware with test prep; a very expensive proposition, with a minimal outcome for many. For those who have DP's friend's son's (there's a mouthful) outcome, it was worth the money. For every one of those, there are probably two or more with minimal improvement. It's expensive, with no guarentees. People should know that going in. That's all.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, I guess I just come at this question from a different perspective than you do. My view is that there are great colleges all over the country, each with a slightly different mix of students. At each college there's a spectrum of academic talent, top to bottom, but there's a general average level of academic talent at every school. The college admissions process is a means of matching students to colleges, taking into consideration many, many factors, but ultimately attempting to do a good job of matching students to schools where they fit academically. I don't view a prestigious college as a prize to be won by (for?) my kids. I'm perfectly happy to have them attend a less well known school if in fact that's where their academic talent fits.</p>
<p>Trying to game the system, whether by inflating class rank by getting into easy-grading high school teachers' classes, pumping up test scores through intensive study, strategic donation of money to a college, driving a kid to take up an obscure sport in which they may be recruitable, etc. is just a way to try to push that student into an academic environment which they may not actually be best suited for. That's not to say that they won't be somewhere on that school's academic talent spectrum; just that they may not be in their comfort zone. Some kids thrive on that kind of challenge; others don't. It's easy for a parent to overestimate their kids' actual abilities and strive to push them into the slot the parent is convinced is "right." Sometimes it might be better just to let the kid go to school, take the tests once or twice, and let the chips fall where they may.</p>
<p>"Trying to game the system, whether by inflating class rank by getting into easy-grading high school teachers' classes, pumping up test scores through intensive study, strategic donation of money to a college, driving a kid to take up an obscure sport in which they may be recruitable, etc. is just a way to try to push that student into an academic environment which they may not actually be best suited for."</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>"It's easy for a parent to overestimate their kids' actual abilities and strive to push them into the slot the parent is convinced is "right." Sometimes it might be better just to let the kid go to school, take the tests once or twice, and let the chips fall where they may."</p>
<p>I don't see why the same thing would not be true of the Wechsler. They keep it secret because they don't want the expense of updating the questions frequently. But are you arguing that if you had a variety of different vintages of the Wechsler and practiced on a couple you could raise your score on another different vintage of the Wechsler by a large amount, say 20 points? And are you arguing that others given the same opportunity would not be able to raise their scores too. My argument has nothing to do with the validity of the off the shelf tests as a measure of IQ. The real question is on any standardized test of this kind is their a plateau that is reached after a few real or practice administrations. If so, since everyone has the option of taking some pretests, the current system of super scoring seems fair.</p>
<p>kluge,
I agree with you point about a general average at various schools, and I also agree with you that we're looking at it from a slightly different angle.</p>
<p>One classmate of my son's, for example, is going to Brown next year; she scored a 1200-something on her SAT. Is she in over her head? I don't think so. A football teammate of my son went to Harvard with around 1300. Is he? Another football teammate is at Princeton; another at UPenn, and still another at Notre Dame, all with SATs in the 1000 to 1300 range. And they are all still there and doing fine, after 2-3 years. </p>
<p>Maybe they are making up for relative differences with their work ethic; maybe they are very organized; maybe they are majoring in things within their skill sets that aren't reflected on the SATs; maybe the have tutors to help get them through. The point is, who cares? I'm not going to say they don't belong there. They've proven that they do.</p>
<p>What I'd like to know is how students with such low to mediocre SAT scores got into such competitive colleges. When you check the statistics of incoming classes, there are always a few outliers, but you seem to know several. What do you think got them in (besides football)?</p>
<p>That would be a question for the adcoms at their respective universities. I don't know...other than to say that most of those students, irregardless of their "low to mediocre" scores took at least several AP classes and the rest honors, did well in them, were highly regarded at our high school for their character and leadership roles, were overall nice kids, hardworking, the whole nine yards. And with the exception of the young lady, they all are or were at one time playing football for their colleges.</p>
<p>I guess we had a couple really good signing years at our high school.</p>
<p>Boy, this thread has gone full circle. At the beginning I was saying that differentials (within 100 points per subtest) on the SATs were an arbitrary indicator of an applicants true potential, because it is possible to manipulate those scores by multiple tests and test prep. My other point was that within a certain range (100 points per subtest), applicants more or less fit in the same classroom. Most of you seemed to be disagreeing with me. Now it seems like you are in agreement, but do not feel it is right.</p>
<p>Some kids, and adults, freely admit that they cannot do it on their own when it comes to learning something. I teach piano, and I've never understood why adult people pay me week after week, when all they really want to do is get a rudimentary understanding of how to read keyboard music. They can learn that on their own! But I've been told that they do it because they need the accountability. They like the psychology of having an "assignment" and a deadline.</p>
<p>For some students and their parents, it is worth the $ to hire a private tutor or to enroll in a class. Personally, I myself need to go to a gym (actually I need to do that right now...) in order to work out. If I try lifting weights at home, I get sidetracked. I need to get in the car and drive somewhere, open the door and walk inside, and once there I will do it. Similarly, I've tried to brush up my Spanish with those books/CDs, but it just never seems to get off the ground. I need to go to the local CC and take the d*** class if I'm going to relearn Spanish. That's the same sort of mentality or reasoning why students take expensive classes instead of just picking up the book on their own.</p>
<p>I thought the discussion of UC studies found in the thread about how top scorers fail to gain admission to top schools showed that SAT I scores DO predict, pretty well, student success in college--which is all they have to do to be useful for college admission offices.</p>
<p>I'm coming to this thread late; I must have been on vacation last time.</p>
<p>I know several kids who benefited from test prep, both classes and individual tutoring. I can give examples of kids whose scores went up 200-400 points, making a significant difference in the type of schools they could apply to. I think this is partly a function of my local school district, where prepping for standardized tests is totally ignored from kindergarten onward. Kids here take the PSAT, see low scores, prep, and get significantly higher scores on the SAT. </p>
<p>Someone a screen back said the SAT was an aptitude test. Is that still true? When I took it decades ago it was described as an aptitude test, but now the CB acknowledges that since prepping does help improve scores, it's not an aptitude test.</p>
<p>It's easy to throw out lots of anecdotes about this kid who prepped and scores didn't improve and this kid who did and scores improved and this kid who went in cold and got 2400. Millions of kids take this test each year, so there are millions of possible anecdotes to tell. I don't think we can come to any set conclusions about the advantages of prepping unless we know all of those millions of anecdotes. Just because your kid did well without prepping and her friend only went up 20 points with prepping is not enough evidence to say that prepping does not work.</p>
<p>And a score of 1200-1300 is not "a low or mediocre" SAT score, except in the world of CC.</p>
<p>the SAT, however unfortunately, is necessary in admissions to competitive schools. Is someone with a 4.0 from a high school in the middle of nowhere with no AP/Honors and a lot of grade inflation equal to someone with a 4.0 from a top boarding or private school? Maybe, but we have no way of knowing unless we have some test that is a standard that everyone takes to base it off of. It very well may be that the first kid scores higher, in which case he has either overcame his inferior school, the school wasnt as bad as we thought, or the private school isnt doing a good enough job of preparing their students. The problems with the correlation of SAT scores to income are unfortunate, but we must deal with them because there is nothing better out there as of now.</p>
<p>Any test that was not positively correlated to income would be flawed since intelligence is at least partially inherited and since smart people tend to make more money.</p>
<p>No matter what "standards" are used for admittance there will be "game-playing" and those who won't or can't afford to "play" will be at a disadvantage - there is just no getting around that - just like you can't get around the fact that some kids have smarter parents who provide daily help and/or tutoring throughout the students' educational years. </p>
<p>If SAT is abolished, then ACT and/or SAT II's will be more important. Dedicated kids (or pushy parents) with financial means will prep for these tests. SAT II's will be "cherry picked" to the point where a kid will try to hide his weaknesses.</p>
<p>If GPA takes a larger role, then those who can afford tutors, etc, will make sure their GPA's are the highest possible.</p>
<p>quote from doubleplay: >>> I see it all the time around here...kids who have been dreaming of going to the state U all their lives. They know they only need to get thus and such a score, and if they do it, that's the end of it. No telling of where they'd end up if they kept trying. That's all I'm trying to say. <<<</p>
<p>This is no different than the kid who sees that their state U only requires math up to Algebra II. The kid finishes Alg II and then doesn't go on to Pre-Cal or more. Like DoublePlay says: "No telling of where they'd end up if they kept trying." That is just a fact of life. No way around that.</p>
<p>I think Murray is just peeved because they removed the analogies section and made it less like an IQ test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Murray's argument is hard to fault: if the SAT ceases to provide information different in kind from subject matter exams, then the rationale for using it disappears.</p>
<p>Coaching will continue to exist for the SAT-II, AP, or whatever other subject tests are used, but there is some value in studying for those (knowledge of the subject is acquired). There is no such value in studying for an IQ test or SAT; only knowledge of the test is acquired.</p>