<p>This is semi-amusing (and also highly depressing) and includes a lot of basic history about the origins of (and changes in) the SAT that some might find of interest. I'll cut to the chase, however, and post the author's conclusion. I'm sure it will anger and horrify some, but it reads pretty spot-on to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whatever is at the center of the SAT—call it aptitude or assessment or assiduousness or ambition—the exam at this point represents an accident. It was conceived for one purpose, adapted for another, and somewhere along the line it acquired a hold on American life that nobody ever intended.
<p>Unfortunately, the conclusions reflects the TOTAL lack of understanding by a glorified amateur. It is such a shame that people who have no business writing about the college admission process find a way to get their garbage published. </p>
<p>How can this person conclude that a test that is almost all about reasoning is one for which “Critical thinking was never called”? </p>
<p>As far the comment "
(A couple of years ago, the dean of admissions at Claremont McKenna College was forced to resign after it was revealed that he had inflated students’ scores to boost the school’s ranking.) " it simply shows how the author relies on hearsay and previous erroneous accounts to make points that fits an opinion. </p>
<p>The author wasted her time, and the time of anyone looking for a valid … punch line. It’s just a hodgepodge of old history and trivial reporting.</p>
<p>Why the snarky remark, Mrs. Lucie? You posted an article and pointed to the conclusions of the author. I offered the opinion that this person, albeit being a journalist, did not appear to know much at all about the SAT. This has nothing to do with being smart or peons. </p>
<p>And again, I find it shameful that humorous and self-deprecating takes on the college issues such as the present or Ferguson’s end up being published while the voices of true experts remain silent. The worst part? That some believe such efforts might actually help their poor kids who struggle with the pressure of standardized tests and college applications. </p>
<p>Why the snark? Because I don’t agree with your conclusion that no one aside from an SAT savant is allowed to have an opinion about the Testing Industrial Complex. Yes, standardized tests may be a necessary evil, and there are clearly ways, if one is so inclined, to master these tests, but that doesn’t mean everybody wants to Play The Game. </p>
<p>xiggi, I genuinely applaud your willingness and desire to help students prepare for and master the SAT, but I hope you realize a lot of people would rather just get the best possible education they can in high school and take the tests without succumbing to all this pressure to “prep.” There are plenty of decent schools out there that will take someone with average SAT scores. Yes, if your life depends on getting into an Ivy, I guess you better follow one of the prescribed methods for achieving a perfect or near-perfect score, but a lot of this SAT-prep frenzy is really, to quote Solomon, “just vanity and a chasing after wind.” IMHO</p>
<p>I thought it was a great article. I think the SAT’s are a little over rated myself. Seen some under achieving students do extremely well on those tests but their gpa’s are dreadful. I have also know some straight A students in the same school who did not test well. It seems that those hard worker’s get penalized while those that slacked off get rewarded because of rankings. </p>
<p>I disagree. Rigorous test prep is a great way to score merit scholarships. I have helped kids on their ACT test prep and it fills my heart with joy when they nail a great score and get merit scholarships that allow them to attend decent schools at a fair price. </p>
<p>I notice the article writer didn’t reveal her final score… I personally am a fan of the SAT. I did well with no prep/one sitting “back in the day”, and I believe my kids scores did reflect their qualifications fairly well. Like the person who took it a ton of times, my D1 couldn’t get her math score up to 700 for any amount of prep. And she isn’t great at math – I know as her math tutor through middle and high school that she has no knack for it no matter how hard she studies. But she has great verbal and reading analysis skills, and the test showed that as well. D2 is just blindingly smart, and her scores showed that as well. I still have never heard of any other tool that allows colleges to compare students across the country and world against one measure (except, of course, the ACT). I do think the essay is not a good addition, though – too subjective and makes the whole testing cycle too long.</p>
<p>Very valid point. But did you help kids in order to pad your wallet, a la Kaplan and all these other test prep companies? I’m guessing not.</p>
<p>I would contend that, if there wasn’t such a high profit motive involved (including for the “not-for-profit” College Board), the playing field would be a lot more even for all kids. And, for the record, I’m glad the folks who produce the ACT (which I have no familiarity with whatsoever) are giving the College Board a real run for their money.</p>
<p>It’s not studying for the SAT I object to, it’s the HUGE BUSINESS it’s become that has benefited the very kids who don’t need any additional help. </p>
<p>And the SAT essay is an absolute JOKE. Rewarding kids for length of their essays and making up “facts”? Way to reinforce strong critical thinking skills and concision.</p>
<p>That’s true, and my kid did well on it with almost no prep, so he can reap all the associated benefits, but that doesn’t mean I think the SAT, as it’s constituted today with that ridiculous essay portion, is a great test. But it sure makes the College Board folks, and all the cottage industries that have sprung up around it, a helluva lot of money.</p>
<p>@LucieTheLake, I really feel the importance of expensive test prep is vastly overstated. Many kids do extremely well with just a book or two. Of course, they do have to be motivated to academic achievement and have a reasonable academic background. If Kaplan et al had offered their classes to my daughter for free, she wouldn’t have attended.</p>
<p>I’m surprised no one has pointed out that this is an extremely bizarre way for this woman to “motivate” her son. I’m expecting we’ll learn the real reason for this whole endeavor when the tale of her saga hits booksellers everywhere next fall. If she simply wanted to motivate said son, she didn’t need to knock herself out with the SAT. What happened to the power switch of the playstation, and the keys to the car?</p>
<p>First off all, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion about what you call the Testing Industrial Complex. Opinions, however, come in different flavors, ranging from educated to wildly incorrect. I pointed out to a gross misunderstanding of the test in the author’s conclusion, and there was no need for a snarky rebuttal about being smarter or more clever. </p>
<p>As as far as the Industrial Complex, I am afraid that you must have missed the nuances of my positions on its construct, and especially the part that having to take standardized tests is such an unavoidable evil that it is best to make the best of it and do it quickly and efficiently. And that does NOT require dealing with the subpar national chains nor well-meaning but incompetent instructors. The test, when properly deconstructed, should not be the source of aggravation or derision it appears to be to some. It also should not represent a crusade or require a small fortune. And, there is NO need to seek that elusive perfect score. The objective is to score up to one’s natural ability and not underscore through lack of familiarity.</p>
<p>Lastly, to be clear, I could not have agreed more with Les Perelman regarding the validity of the essay. To this date, I still blame the UC leadership for having delivered such non-sense to millions of students instead of leaving the writing as the arcane SAT2 it was. The essay has been a nightmare since it’s inception, but then you only have to look at the contributing forces to understand how it took form. </p>
<p>No, but she must have done pretty well the first time around. She’s a Yale grad, and from there she won a Fulbright to study in Germany.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually thought that was the most insightful comment in the article. She’s right, IMO. There is no real critical thinking on the SAT, at least not at any depth–and the full quote, by the way, is, “Critical thinking was never called for, let alone curiosity or imagination.” That pretty well sums it up. There are a bunch of cheap reasoning tricks, and if you’re good at spotting and avoiding those tricks and traps, you can do pretty well. But that’s superficial game-playing, it’s not at all the same as real critical thinking. I think Kolbert’s characterization is spot-on: the SAT is “disappointing” because it is it so “superficial.”</p>
<p>I haven’t taken the SAT in over 40 years, of course, but I have seen the practice versions that my daughters worked with. I don’t mind saying I did very well on it, as did my daughters more recently. That doesn’t make me think any more highly of the test. I thought it was pretty superficial when I took it 40+ years ago, and my opinion hasn’t wavered. And even the College Board doesn’t make very big claims for it; about the most they’ll claim is that, when used in conjunction with HS grades, it gives you a slightly better predictor of first-year college grades than HS grades alone. If you think about it, that’s a remarkably modest claim, and it’s equally remarkable that a test about which its own proponent can’t find anything better to say retains such an iron grip on the college admissions process. </p>
<p>Well, sorry, I must have missed that. I read your initial comments as an unequivocal dismissal of the article, and the implication was that it didn’t warrant any further discussion:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But maybe my critical reading skills need improvement. Or maybe there was an assumption that everybody has read your methods for mastering the SAT? I personally haven’t. </p>
<p>Seriously, though, why don’t you write a thoughtful rebuttal to the New Yorker? </p>
<p>I’m just impressed Steir had the time and resources (and stamina!) to take the SAT all seven times. Two was plenty for me! Although the SAT does seem to mostly measure one’s test taking ability, it does provide a necessary benchmark in an age of ever diversified college admissions, especially when grades can mean such different things from one school to the next.</p>
<p>The sad thing is, it doesn’t seem like her efforts inspired her son at all. Her time would have been far better spent working directly with her son on his college plans, not her SAT ambitions, and maybe just trying to enjoy her last years with him instead of putting herself through this completely pointless exercise.</p>
<p>Even if it didn’t help her son, her story is a great reminder of what is involved in preparing for the SAT, and the different ways that standardized tests bring out the good and bad in all of us. </p>
<p>“The objective is to score up to one’s natural ability and not underscore through lack of familiarity.”</p>
<p>Blasphemy!</p>
<p>What makes you think “natural ability” has anything to do with the SAT? I have it on good authority that the SAT is a measure of “college preparedness”, and I am certain that the College Board and the schools that rely on its most famous test would not lead me astray!</p>
<p>The SAT may be a weak proxy, but a proxy it is. </p>