<p>From today's Chronicle of Higher Education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admissions Experts Call for Broader Definition of College Readiness
By ERIC HOOVER</p>
<p>Los Angeles</p>
<p>What do SAT scores reveal about a student's ability to succeed in college? Not nearly enough, admissions experts here agreed on Tuesday.</p>
<p>At the inaugural conference of the University of Southern California's new Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice, admissions deans and higher-education researchers said colleges and universities must look beyond standardized tests and embrace a broader understanding of college readiness to promote access amid sweeping demographic changes.</p>
<p>What exactly are these achievement tests? They are certainly not SAT-II that the UC is about to drop. Are they suggesting some kind of new tests?</p>
So it sounds like he is saying that what they are doing now works, but since it is subjective rather than objective, it needs to be changed. I guess he never heard the saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”</p>
<p>Oh, and he works for College Board. Interesting! I’ll bet College Board could come out with more tests to provide “objective measurements” for the colleges.</p>
<p>The ACT, I believe, is generally considered an achievement test, but from what I understand performance on the SAT and ACT generally closely correspond with one another.</p>
<p>I agree, timely. It sounds like an excuse to produce and sell more tests.</p>
<p>The SATIIs are achievement tests. So are the AP exams. And “leadership” and other non-academic qualities can be demonstrated by what students do in their extracurricular activities and teachers’ recommendations. I fail to see the need for more tests.
If colleges don’t want to use the SATs for admission, or if they don’t want to weigh them heavily, that’s up to them. I don’t see a problem.</p>
<p>Is this the whole article? It seems to bring up several very different points and then not really explore any of them. I think the points about technical reading and ‘situational judgement inventory’ are good ones, but then it drops back into alternative testing methods.</p>
<p>Not to mention that many, many colleges now have classes teaching freshman how to do things that have traditionally been the job of high schools, like basic research and writing skills.</p>
<p>Geiser recently published a report that indicated that Subject Tests + AP Tests were much better predictors of frosh grades than the SAT or ACT (altho the latter was marginally better than the former). And, yes, despite the Professor’s arguments, the UCs will likely make Subject Tests optional. </p>
<p>College readiness- how to define it. Don’t they realize that some kids pick things up quickly in real life but would flunk a “what if” scenario, I don’t see how they can come up with a good test to objectively measure subjective items. Leadership abilities? Overrated as narrowly defined in today’s society- we need people who don’t lead but think independently… And college is where you get an education- not a job training facility, aside from the fact that the jobs college grads end up in are too diverse to pigeonhole with a test. The ACT and SAT can be useful for students who get high scores although they have lower grades- shows ability not revealed for various reasons by HS grades. I think the article author totally missed the point on determining who should go to which college- too many flaws in his statements.</p>