<p>S had taken the old SAT twice with good results, and then took the new one spring of junior year and his v, m score total went up 120 points. He never complained about the test length, and snorted when I just asked him about it. </p>
<p>This is the same S who a year later was staying up all night at semester's end getting late papers done. We didn't know if he'd graduate until the very last second. He still hasn't had the courage to pick up his final report card.</p>
<p>Go figure!</p>
<p>
[quote]
>>Counterstrike, Everquest, or WOW >></p>
<p>They don't actually have to 'think' during any of those activities</p>
<p>I had never heard of these so I asked my two kids. Neither had they.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thumper, be happy! Very happy about that. Now, I am not really sure why we need to disagree about the SAT. :)</p>
<p>UC-Dad ... not thinking while playing the games? Well some players do!</p>
<p>For what it is worth, I really do not see why anyone would consider this drop in scores as a failure, or something worthy of a blame. Why would the SAT be considered better if the national average were to jump 10 or 30 points higher? While the scores could and should have stayed more in line with the expectations, a jump in scores would have worse than a small decrease. It simply appears that the conversion scales were based on slight;y stronger students than the ones who took the test in 2006. The test is harder for the students who are not well prepared, and the changed contents might have surprised a few. </p>
<p>All in all, the only person who should lose a bit of sleep over this is Gaston. But, for some reason, I think he has not lost much of it since besting the "sages" of California in a most comical way.</p>
<p>Good news for me, my scores look even better now. I think they may be right about people not taking it again. I know I had no desire to take it a second time.</p>
<p>My d took the sat and the act in the spring. Her ACT results amounted to a comparison score (to SAT) of 100-120 points higher (using the conversion chart given by her HS). She refused to take the Sat again, but instead has prepped this summer for the ACT. FWIW, many of her friends are doing the same. And, we love that score choice. FWIW, many of the "B student" schools she is looking at are not even considering the writing portion of the SAT's as a factor in admissions.</p>
<p>Speaking about conversion, here's a small conversion chart, based on the new policies for 2007 applicants at the UC system:</p>
<p>SAT UC ACT
800 100 36
790<br>
780 97 35
770<br>
760 93 34
750<br>
740 90 33
730<br>
720 87 32
710<br>
700 83 31
690<br>
680 80 30
670<br>
660 77 29
650<br>
640 73 28
630<br>
620 70 27
610<br>
600 67 26
590<br>
580 63 25
570<br>
560 60 24
550<br>
540 57 23
530<br>
520 53 22
510<br>
500 50 21</p>
<p>Our S took the old SAT twice in his junior year, followed by the "new" SAT with writing & the ACT with writing. The same year, he also took 3 SATII exams & 4 AP exams. He found the new SAT exam the most exhausting of all the tests as well; everyone we spoke with agreed that it was a most grueling test & we don't know many folks who re-took it unless they REALLY had to.</p>
<p>My son loved analogies & had gotten a 800 on the old verbal portion of the SAT but lower on the "new SAT." He really disliked the new writing section, prompt & short, rigid time constraints. His scores were:</p>
<p>800V, 730M T=1530 (1st old SAT)
730V, 740M T=1470 (2nd old SAT--he wanted a perfect 1600)
CR 770 M 760 W 700, essay 6 out of 12 T=2230</p>
<p>His ACT scores were roughly comparable (he only took it once as well), but the schools he applied to preferred the SATI & IIs. His HS transcript lists all the standardized test socres anyway & he was fine with that.</p>
<p>He decided enough was enough with the SATs & took one SATII test (MathII) in the fall of his senior year because his guidance counselor recommended it for his engineering proposed major.</p>
<p>xiggi could be correct. Under the older, recentered test, a student could miss one on the math and still score an 800. But no more. Miss one = 770. The "curve" (scaling) went back to the dark, old days.</p>
<p>I'm interested to hear thoughts about the discrepancy between writing scores for males and females.</p>
<p>See today's Washington Post article, which starts: </p>
<p>SAT Records Biggest Score Dip in 31 Years</p>
<p>By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A01</p>
<p>The first national results from the revamped SAT show the biggest annual drop in reading scores in 31 years and a significant edge for female students over males on the new writing section of the test, the College Board reported yesterday.</p>
<p>My daughter was totally impacted by fatigue. That and the fact that they got absolutely no breaks.</p>
<p>^^ Ditto for S. He said he was so starving by the end that he had a very hard time staying focused. Snack he took did not seem to help. For 16-17 year olds, esp boys who operate on a 2-3 hr feeding cycle (I'm not kidding here), this is a very real performance issue. I hear my sons' friends talking about their "food strategies." Hello, CB, anyone listening?</p>
<p>FWIW, he took old SAT twice, bc kind admissions people told him that the Class of 2006 would "get a pass" on the issue of how many times they took it, so he should be sure to take advantage of the settled nature of the old test. Took new one only once. Went from a PSAT writing score of 80 to a new SAT writing score of 670 (with a 10 essay). Didn't seem like the same objective part of the writing test to him.</p>
<p>I think the length of the test is probably the most important factor. </p>
<p>However, the fact that the test prep people may not have the new exam entirely psyched out yet might also play a role.</p>
<p>Hey-- at least Georgia isn't in the cellar anymore. Whatever the reason, thank god we're not so embarassingly low....</p>
<p>Here's a different thought for you all... look at what happened a few years back to education.. NCLB. NCLB does not, repeat does not reward school districts for college applicants. It rewards (by not punishing)school districts for getting the most to the minimum standard. </p>
<p>How many of you are in school districts that adopted "new" math programs to meet the demands of NCLB. Ours did and we've seen a significant drop in math scoring and an increase in remedial math for incoming college freshmen. </p>
<p>Why? Our states NCLB testing does not test to the level of math on the SAT or ACT, so alot of districts are forgoing that math to spend more time on what gets them through the NCLB. </p>
<p>We've had two kids go through at different times under two different math programs and we've seen the difference. Both were NMF but the second ran into questions on the SAT in math that she had not seen through her junior year of HS, while her B three years earlier had prior. The distirct's priorities changed. </p>
<p>This is just another ripple on the water of the NCLB rock splash, kids aren't doing as well because the requirements of education have changed. School districts face heavy consequences for failing the NCLB laws, what would they logically do?</p>
<p>Just curious - Anybody know how many kids scored 2400 this past year?</p>
<p>Opie -- but the avg math score only dropped two points, whereas the cr score went down 5 points. So if NCLB curriculum change had an effect on SAT scores, could someone conclude that NCLB actually cushioned the drop rate for math?</p>
<p>I lucked out with my standardized exams, but I personally think the length of the exam makes it more of an endurance test than anything else. Even bright people can break down after four hours.</p>
<p>The only test I've taken that was longer was the USAMO, but that was much more interesting.</p>
<p>I know some have argued that SAT is supposed to identify college readiness- but ?
My daughter college- ( for those who are new- is supposedly one of the most difficult in the country) had some tests that were unproctored- students could even take the test on the lawn, in their rooms etc.</p>
<p>Some things that were tested, just could not be faked, even if you had the book open in front of you, if the test was written well.</p>
<p>I don't think most students are going to have a similar testing situation with their undergrad degree- and I don't think for most students, an endurance test is an * accurate* way of determining how strong a student they will be in college,</p>
<p>We are seriously considering whether to subject S to the SAT I a second time. He was definitely fatigued and reported that this was particularly noticeable on the CR portion. He was bored beyond belief with the passages, and that's when his attention deficit issues really start to kick in. Yes, he will have to read challenging and boring material in college, and yes, he reads it now for AP and Honors classes, but he doesn't intersperse that reading with a series of experimental math problems or sentence correction exercises. I have never understood why the test can't be given in sequence, with all the math sections together, all the verbal sections together, etc. The last CR section, when he was the most tired, was where he made avoidable errors that affected his score. I think the analogies would have been better for him. On the writing section, his essay was scored a 10. The main reason he didn't score higher seemed to be that he didn't include more detail and did not fill both pages. This is what my H refers to as the "Hemingway" style that may be more typical of teenage boys than girls. S and I read an essay on the same prompt later from a girl who chose one of the same literary examples and scored higher, and the difference seemed to be that she went on at greater length, giving more giving names of secondary characters and so forth. So even though we don't think the SAT I was his best performance, we are evaluating whether to stick with decent scores rather than go through this again. Maybe he should work on his essays instead (where there is a word limit and the Hemingway style might be to his advantage).</p>
<p>Esquette,</p>
<p>"could someone conclude that NCLB actually cushioned the drop rate for math?"</p>
<p>Let me ask you this, when your school district introduces a "new" reading, math or anything program... what do they say? </p>
<p>"This will help us meet NCLB standards and keep schools in compliance." </p>
<p>Listen, I don't view this as a demo/gop thing, so let's not take it there. Both parties have made stupid educational moves over time. </p>
<p>I view this as a dad who if their kid tests well on the SAT, somebody else gives us money for college and my kids college fund becomes a summer home fund... So if you can classify that to either party? I think it's more of being a dad.</p>
<p>Math is the example I give because that is what happened in my district. They are now reconsidering the change and it's impact. The problem is, somebody's kids have to experience the program for the problems to arise. Others might have reading programs or writing programs started in the last few years to meet the requirements. "Teaching to the test." </p>
<p>We have a private school that makes performing on the SAT a big part of their educational process. They fairly consistantly produce 20+ NMSF yearly.</p>
<p>As far as conclusions of cushioning the fall in math compared to Critical reading because CR was even lower is in the same vien as implying drinking two classes of milk effected the score.</p>
<p>My point really simply was there were questions on the SAT math section that my D hadn't even seen to because the new math program doesn't show kids until senior year.... And when do you take your SATs? Before senior year. So while not answering a question doesn't reduce a score on the SAT, it lowers the total points available which makes an 800 on the section unlikely. </p>
<p>I would think not being taught the subject matter prior to the test would be a stronger point than the NCLB possibly cushioning the math fall. It was still down.. no?</p>
<p>^^ My S refused to take the new SAT in his senior yr, and also questioned why all the switching bw math and verbal portions. He felt his "Hemingway-esque" writing style was not rewarded either, but just chalked it up to his natural "scientist's" aversion to adjectives and adverbs. "Whatever," he shrugged with absolutely no second thoughts.</p>
<p>And when he was asked by college interviewers why he wasn't taking the exam again, he answered that he was putting his very full senior year of ECs, classes, and college applications first and just didn't have the time to do it again. </p>
<p>He spent more time with his essays, and on research on/communications with the schools where he applied, and I have no doubt that these paid off for both admissions and scholarships -- at least as well as another tortuous sitting for the SAT would have. To each his own.</p>