<p>"WASHINGTON - The high school class of 2006 recorded the sharpest drop in SAT scores in 31 years, a decline that the exams owner, the College Board, said was partly due to some students taking the newly lengthened test only once instead of twice.</p>
<p>Fatigue wasnt to blame, the College Board insisted, even though this years class was the first to take a new version of the exam which added an essay. It now takes an average of three hours and 45 minutes to complete the test, not counting breaks.</p>
<p>The results come several months after numerous colleges reported surprisingly low SAT scores for this years incoming college freshmen. The nonprofit College Board, which had said scores would be down this year, released figures Tuesday showing combined critical reading and math skills fell seven points on average to 1021."
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14569572/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14569572/</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT scores dip in Mass. for first time in 15 years</p>
<p>By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff</p>
<p>Massachusetts scores on the 2006 SATs dipped for the first time in 15 years, mirroring a national decline on the revamped college entrance exam, according to results released today.
<p>just speaking as someone who has never taken the SAT ( and never plans to)but as a parent, I would say a few obvious things strike me- a couple negative, but at least one positive.
Good first-
more diversity in students taking tests. More lower income students, more immigrant students, more diversity in ethnic background.
Not just the usual suspects planning to attend college, as 30 years ago.
However---I DO think fatigue is factor in test scores.
How could it not be?</p>
<p>How long can you work at peak brain capacity, as an adult, with years of developing techniques to stay on task and prioritize approach.
To expect 16-17 year olds...... I repeat 16 & 17 yr olds, to function at an intense level, with a lot on the line for 4 hours, is not going to improve their output.
If they are like my kids ( and me) their brain just turns off after a few hours- it needs a break- not a lot to do about it, when you need to reboot.</p>
<p>I would also throw out there, that testing relevant to NCLB and graduation standards, and what curriculum is being supported in schools, isn't necessarily connected to the type of material covered in SAT, I bet that many students who do well on SAT, are doing well * in spite* of their high school curriculum, not because of it.</p>
<p>I think it is true also that more students are only taking the test once. Many at my s's hs (including my s) took both the SAT and ACT and are opting to retake the ACT instead.</p>
<p>Didn't they add some higher level math as well? That plus the added length could very well explain some of it. I had my daughter take the old SAT at the last sitting offered just in case there were issues with the new one and she did do a little bit better on the old one.
Since being on CC I've decided that my younger one will take the ACT as well as the new SAT.</p>
<p>Technically, S2 is part of the class 2007, but his Maths SAT I score, identical to his brother's score (Class of 2004), put him two full percentile points ahead of his brother.</p>
<p>S2 is not taking it again because his score was 10 points higher than his predetermined goal. His chances of improving that score are very slim. Also, he finds the tests a bother--nothing to do with fatigue. </p>
<p>He will retake the Literature SATII because he missed his target score and took it without studying. Otherwise, he's done. </p>
<p>Me too! Yeah! (Though my vocabulary improved as the Chief Card Flasher).</p>
<p>I have had the chance to check a couple of recent tests, and I really think that the drop is caused by a slightly tougher conversion. My take is that the curve used by TCB has been off, and I expect that the Fall 2006 tests will reflect needed corrections. </p>
<p>FWIW, I believe that earning a perfect score on the new SAT Writing is much harder than the corresponding SAT-II Writing of yesterday. The test is not necessarily harder but the conversion scale is different. In the same vein, while the changes in verbal are less visible, the math sections have been become a bit less forgiving. </p>
<p>Considering the extensive arsenal at the disposal of The College Board and ETS, I foresee quick corrections. However, that won't mean much to the students who had to take the test in the 2005-2006 period. Of course, the ACT was just sitting there ... ready to be torn apart by well-prepared testers who practiced for a much harder--but more dependable--test. For this reason, I also forecast a substantial increase in the ACT scores, as students who live in SAT Land start taking advantage of the loopholes created by admissions' offices.</p>
<p>My d said the thing was grueling and refused to take it again. Her scores were good enough in one sitting that it wasn't necessary, but I worried colleges might conclude she was a slacker compared to the kids who take the test over and over. I guess it's kinda reassuring that many kids felt the same way she did.</p>
<p>Gee, it looks as if College Board doesn't think their packaging of the test or the fact that the format changed could possibly have contributed to the decline in scores - it must be due to factors external to them.</p>
<p>All someone needs to do is speak to their kids after they take the test - it is unduly long for a single-sitting test. They could easily mitigate this by offering the essay portion in a separate sitting although I suppose it might be more costly that way but then, with the prices CB charges, it's hard to believe they'd lose money. Of course the students will opt to retake at a lower rate given how tortuous the 4-5 hour experience is.</p>
<p>I just heard some College Board bigwig on the CBS evening news. He said the drop was because students are only taking the test once, and that if they took it twice the scores go up an average of 30 points. I'm sure he's not thinking of all the money taking it multiple times puts in CB's pocket. </p>
<p>Is it true that scores go up 30 points or did that fact come out of thin air?</p>
<p>DD was one of those kids who should have taken the SAT again. BUT she refused to take it again. Our high school does not offer the test so she had to travel out of town to take it. Between the travel time and test time, she was gone from 7 am until almost 2 pm. She simply refused to do it again...and you know what...I don't blame her. 3 hours was long...almost 4 hours was too long.</p>
<p>On a less serious note, I would suggest to all parents to monitor and time the activities of any junior or senior from the time school ends on Friday until it starts again on Monday. </p>
<p>I would wager a few bucks that during this time time span most everyone will engage in many activities that might tax the brain cells and be a lot more tiring than "suffering" through a 4 hour ordeal. How many kids who cannot take such torture have no problem playing Counterstrike, Everquest, or WOW for 10-12 hours without much of a bathroom break? How many students can maintain 8-10 hours of non stop chatter sessions of multi IM/texting on a Friday evening? </p>
<p>Funny that the SAT gets tons of complaining, yet we hardly hear a peep about the two weeks of AP fun and games. Is the difference only because one is on Saturday and the other during a school day? </p>
<p>For the record, I'd rather take two SAT in a row than dig ditches in the mountains of New Mexico or move furniture in August in Texas for 4 hours, or the absolute torture that having to listen to Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton for 20 minutes would be! Resistance to pain and suffering is very relative.</p>
<p>my kids haven't taken any AP tests
They don't play video or computer games and they don't IM ( at least my 18 year old doesn't- I have no idea what my adult daughter does- but we have never had anything but dial up- with only one computer access to the net at a time)
And actually, while I would perhaps ski all day- that would be fun and I would take breaks when I needed it, but I wouldn't compare it to 8 hours of heavy labpr.
SOme kids do enjoy testing.
My older daughter was given an IQ test for about 4 hours when she was 8, she just kept getting right the requsite number to go on, so the psych kept giving it to her,until she realized they had fulfilled the purpose, which was to determine if she was functioning normally, not to discern her IQ ( it was for a research study)
BUt I doubt if it would have been such a good time, if she had felt that her future depended on the test, and if she had been pressured beforehand to "perform"</p>
<p>I don't doubt you would rather push a pencil than do something physically strenous, but who's to say, that high school student has that, or should have that mind set?</p>
<p>Point taken but they don't actually have to 'think' during any of those activities which is, I believe, the key. The secondary point is how few care to repeat the exercise resulting in less opportunity for an improved score. Basic troubleshooting of a problem generally has one asking, "what was changed?". In this case, what was changed was the format of the test yet CB wants to blame everything but themselves.</p>
<p>Now, I'm off to play some mindless "Unreal Tournament".</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Counterstrike, Everquest, or WOW >></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I had never heard of these so I asked my two kids. Neither had they. Some kids can do things for long periods of time, but not things that hold the "stakes" that the SAT hold. Sorry Xiggi, I do not agree with you on this one. The "brain power" for video games, digging ditches and moving furniture are far different from the brain power of taking the SAT. But then again...we haven't agreed on much when it comes to the SAT :)</p>
<p>I think the changed format of the SAT is probably a big factor. My daughter took the SATs (old form) at the end of 10th grade and scored 620 on the verbal section. Her highest scores were with the analogies. CB eliminated the analogies. A year later, my daughter took the new SAT, and scored 620 on the CR. At the time, I told her that even though the number was the same, it was an improvement, because on the remaining sections she needed to do better than she had done before in order to keep the same score. </p>
<p>In short, it wasn't the same test. So one could expect the results to change. I think in a sense the test became harder to study for, since analogies were merely a matter of having a strong vocabulary together with good critical thinking skills, and it is much easier to study word lists than to anticipate questions that will be asked based on reading passages. </p>
<p>But I am also a parent who encouraged my duaghter to take, and retake, the ACT rather than the SAT again. The simple factor of score choice makes the ACT an attractive alternative. So I do think that CB is going to continue to lose market share to the ACT this coming year.</p>
<p>My son took the SAT once and refused to take it again. My daughter took it a second time because I made her. She found it exhausting and considering her attention disorder, fatigue and inattention were factors. She did, however raise her score 30 insignificant points. </p>
<p>What bothers me about the College Board position on the decline in scores is that they dismiss all factors that might have to to with the test itself and its administration and blame the decline on external factors. And while multiple sittings may be the "norm" on this board of high achievers, it is not the norm in the real world where time and cost are factors, nor do I think it should be.</p>
<p>My son had taken the old SAT as ajunior and the new SAT as a senior - got the same score on both and did below average on the writing. His complaints: the new SAT was just too darn long and the writing prompts were so simplistic that he just wrote down any old thing. He was used to writing well-thought out papers with an introduction, thesis, defense, and closing.</p>
<p>I think that the swing towards taking the ACT will continue.</p>