<p>In the past of course the changes to the SAT have been mostly superficial, but with all do respect I am not sure how you can be certain this round of changes is going to be the same. The change in 2005 of course was basically tacking on the TSWE and the essay and changing the scoring to a 2400 scale, but based on Coleman’s statements it seems probable that the current changes are much more wide sweeping. The following quote from the New York Times makes me believe that the entire direction of the SAT is changing:</p>
<p>“Saying its college admission exams do not focus enough on the important academic skills, the College Board announced on Wednesday a fundamental rethinking of the SAT, ending the longstanding penalty for guessing wrong, cutting obscure vocabulary words and making the essay optional.”</p>
<p>The College Board has always tried to distinguish the SAT from other tests by saying it was more a test of ability and not a test of curriculum knowledge. Now it seems Coleman is trying to align the test with his
“common core”. It seems he is trying to the reshape the test in to a test of curriculum and that would mean a fundamental change. He has even stated that the SAT has become disconnected from the work of high school students. </p>
<p>I must say I agree with your “if it ain’t broken don’t fix it.” </p>
<p>Our paper has a USA Today supplement. I noticed an article in there that stated the SAT was being made more difficult, with new “essay assignments.” Huh? How could the writer get it so wrong? And how many kids who only read USA Today will conclude the SAT will be even more difficult and decide it (and college) is not for them? </p>
<p>Well, we will see how big this is as it develops. But I am not expecting game-changing results. To function at all, the test still has to make distinctions among the population of students who test. That’s the bitter truth and it will still be true.</p>
<p>As far as math is concerned, on the plus side, I can stop worrying about convincing students to “guess” (answer though not certain) more often. Obviously, under the new system, leaving blanks is insane. But now I will have to convince students that it still makes sense to go slow, even if it means random guessing the last few questions in the last 10 seconds. After all, the grid-ins have never had a guessing penalty and yet the hardest of them are still a waste of time for students aiming for 650. Oh, well. Those arguments can wait 2 years.</p>
<p>@xiggi - My conclusions are anecdotal, based on my own kids’ experiences and also on numerous speaking engagements throughout the country about the nuances/insanity of standardized testing. I have observed that students find the ACT kinder and gentler for these reasons:</p>
<ul>
<li>no vocab</li>
<li>no penalty for guessing</li>
<li>kid-relatable essay prompts</li>
<li>more lenient score choice policy</li>
<li>September test date</li>
<li>precludes need for Subject Tests at all but a few schools</li>
</ul>
<p>In urban areas, the ACT used to be considered the SAT’s unsophisticated midwestern cousin, but the numbers show it has become the test du jour. The new SAT is not about dumbing down - it’s just a huge step toward ACTification.</p>
<p>O great now when i tell my kids my 2400 scale SAT score they are going to think im the ancient one…
■■■ collegeboard??? you couldnt have waited another century?</p>
<p>likely scenario in their boardroom:
“O herpdy derp wattawe do now that people dont wanna take our test?”
“Ok so we gotta make the Reading easier, essay optional, and allow em to guess.”
“So just copy the ACT?”
“Yup. its FRIGGIN GENIUS.”</p>
<p>I suspect that these changes will have a smaller resulting effect than many are expecting. The SAT score is really only one component of an admissions evaluation, and besides, it’s the candidate’s competitive position that matters, anyway. I don’t think we’ll see a big skew of scores upwards, it will remain something like a bell curve. Also, even a 1600/2400 doesn’t guarantee the red carpet at the elite schools, so I do think the reaction to these changes is a bit of a storm in a teacup.</p>
<p>1) They are already testing new questions. The January SAT had experimental sections filled with new reading passage question types (which lines in the passage support X…?).</p>
<p>2) re Coleman, felt a lot more like PR spin than anything else. Agree with those who noticed how politically aware he seemed.</p>
<p>3) I don’t buy the ‘more in line with high school curriculum’ pablum. But then again, I don’t think the ACT has much to do with hs curriculum either. These are reasoning tests at their core, different enough that a small percentage of students will score meaningfully higher on one than the other, but a lot more similar than different.</p>
<p>4) Almost every opinion he shares about test prep is contradictory, or just plain nonsense. If he truly believes the test will be more in line with hs curriculum, then how can he possibly come to the conclusion that the new test will be LESS susceptible to prep? and then why the Khan Academy arrangement? If they really are moving more in the direction of hs curriculum (which I highly doubt), they are doing no favors for the traditionally disadvantaged-in-prep population. </p>
<p>5) It’s too early to know that the test will be easier, but if it is, we will see a dramatic rise in the number of schools that require Subject Tests, not the other way around.</p>
<p>6) Eliminating the guessing penalty does almost nothing for the scores of high scorers while having a much bigger affect on those of low scorers, I think this is probably a tactical move to get mean scores of various demographic groups closer together. Beyond that, there is not much to say until we get a look at a few tests.</p>
<p>I’m pretty unhappy about this emphasis on historic US documents. Coleman seems to be completely ignoring the fact that education is not standardized. I read on cc about freshmen and sophomores taking classes like AP gov and APUSH. Nice for them that they’ll have spent 2 years reading and studying in great detail what the SAT is testing. But at our school, US history and Gov are required of, and strictly restricted to, juniors and seniors. Putting specific content on the test which has been gone over in great detail for 2 years by some and never read by others, and calling that “in line” with what they learn in high school is just wrong. It is absolutely not in line with our high school curriculum and I suspect many others as well.</p>
<p>As a jaded consumer, this looks to me as simply a matter of economics. They will charge the same amount for the 2 part test, and will charge extra for the essay portion. It’s the same thing that you see in the supermarket. The packaging gets smaller and the price remains the same…</p>
<p>In order to complete the ACTification, TCB and ETS would have to drop decades of rigorous testing development and abandon the integrity they brought to the field of psychometrics. Inasmuch as it might be a tad unfair to label the ACT an unsophisticated midwestern cousin of the SAT, it remains that the Iowa folks never invested in the library of tests nor dedicated much to fully mastering the historical validity of their “poor cousin” test. The Iowa organization dedicated itself to gaining political traction and convincing the easy to “convince” or bribe political forces in the fly-over states. Just as they did in the K-12 with their ineffective and corrupting junk aka Iowa Tests. It was and still remains a much poorer test for most parts, and its success --again-- has nothing to do with offering a superior product or even one that is better aligned to the demands of the market. For all its vilification, the SAT organization is hardly “worse” than the ACT. After all, it is owned by the colleges, and as many organization that deal with public funding (albeit indirectly) it is mostly a political organization that is keenly aware of its power and image. It should, however, not have to an organization loved by its real customers, as pleasing the test takers is not important as much as pleasing its members and political supporters. The last move by the SAT is not about the students, and in the end, it amounts to not much more than trying to present a kindler visage (yep, that kinder word) and pretending to worry about the less advantaged. Cynical as it is, it is still not different from the shallow marketing ploys of the Iowa ACT. None of the two cares about the students! </p>
<p>In the end, the debate of which is better or more successful is a sterile and futile one. It makes NO difference and the only outcome that matters is that students should be directed to try both tests and figure out which is the one that rewards their type of ability --or call it intelligence if you wish-- and not look back. A third of the students will do better on either test and one third will have comparable results. </p>
<p>A CAT version will require a slow roll-out … when or if it comes out. This is an issue that has often been announced only to be shelved later. The technology is expensive to develop (properly) and even more to implement. Compare the cost of the SAT to the GMAT, and you might have an idea on the differences. The SAT will mostly remain a No2 pencil test. </p>
<p>It’s not that hard to computerize standardized tests. They aren’t doing geometry constructions or anything like that. My kids have been taking various standardized tests on computers for years now. But if they allow typing for the essay, fast typists will have a big advantage.</p>
<p>When you compare the numbers of SAT candidates to those of GRE/GMAT you will understand the size of the undertaking that will be required to computerize this test. Basically, they will need to invest in a lot of additional terminals in testing centers so that hundreds of thousands of students can take the test simultaneously round the country. Unless, of course, they trust the student enough to take the test from his/her own computer at home (just kidding)??</p>
<p>TCB is trying to fix the results of bad parenting in America by adjusting the test to suit the needs of a generation that has become comfortable with only doing the bare minimum to get by academically. We don’t instill enough love of learning in our children as we should. We are not strict enough with our children. We allow them too much TV and unlimited access to video games. We make all kinds of excuses for them when they are too lazy to study. “My son has practice this Saturday. He won’t be able to his homework”. We can also blame child psychologists for misleading parents into thinking it is right to empower children and give them decision making authority. Children do not know what is good for them. That is why parenting must be firm when it comes to education.</p>
<p>I think the changes in the test are certainly politically motivated. They want to make sure that the upper echelons of American society remain ethnically and racially diverse and are representative of what we all like to think “America” is. They don’t want a future where all the top positions in business and government are taken by those whose ethnicity is synonymous with acing the SAT. If i am right, this is very scary. It smacks of xenophobia. I’m all for diversity but it must be attained the right way - through hard work and not through manipulation.</p>
<p>America has always been a land of opportunity that rewards hard work. So what if the only ones who are willing to do the massive amount of work required to ace the current SAT happen to all be of the same ethnicity? You can change the test all you want but hard work will always triumph over form.</p>
<p>jblakhdar, did you not read the study that there is no correlation of college performance with SAT scores? They compared those who submitted SATs to those who did not at test-optional schools. Their academic performance was virtually identical.</p>
<p>The SAT measures what the SAT measures and being good at the SAT means you are good at the SAT. The correlation with success in top positions in business just means a correlation with college admissions to top schools.</p>
<p>And I say that as the mother of a child who is very, very good at test-taking.</p>
<p>"Basically, they will need to invest in a lot of additional terminals in testing centers so that hundreds of thousands of students can take the test simultaneously round the country. " In thousands of testing centers. Our state tests were computerized years ago. They are testing all the students in a grade, often multiple times (different subjects). Sometimes they divide the grade into two or three groups for testing but still, they must have a number of computers around the number of SAT takers. I understand the common core testing is online, so it must be happening everywhere it hadn’t already. </p>
<p>"Jim Montoya, the College Board’s Vice President of Higher Education, in an interview on NPR, reiterated Coleman’s criticism of “SAT words.” Asked why the SAT is “always [testing] the word ‘unscrupulous’,” Montoya replied, “Yes, you’re right. It’s one of those words people identify as an SAT word. All I can say is that as we move forward, one of the things we want to make absolutely certain of is that the vocabulary that students are expected to know will be vocabulary that they will be able to use as college students, and which will be valuable to them.”</p>
<p>I find it rather strange that the word “unscrupulous” would be considered an obscure SAT word. We have classes in professional schools on ethics. We had the economic disaster of a housing market collapse due in part to questionable practices in the finance industry. We spend money on programs to educate and protect the elderly against consumer fraud. But the college board doesn’t think it’s important for kids to learn a word they can use to talk about these issues? </p>
<p>Because “learning words for the SAT” was not an intended consequence by Collegeboard. The SATs were designed to test critical thinking skills, hence the original name the Scholastic Aptitude Test. They want to make it a static, IQ-test-like system as it was intended to be. Not a test that the rich can exploit by taking expensive courses to boost their scores. </p>