<p>I haven't heard a huge deal being made about this before, but:
New</a> SAT Score-Reporting Policy</p>
<p>I'm concerned. Doesn't this seem to benefit wealthy kids with enough time/money to take the test four, five, six times?
I know many, many people who would have no qualms about picking the highest of six scores and sending it.</p>
<p>What do you guys think? With this knowledge, I'm going to retake-- I think that average reported scores will go up.</p>
<p>I think that the SAT IIs, which are usually only taken once, will be affected most. </p>
<p>Ugh. I hate collegeboard. Their so stupid :(.</p>
<p>So this doesn't affect 2009s at all right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I haven't heard a huge deal being made about this before, but:
New SAT Score-Reporting Policy
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Doesn't this seem to benefit wealthy kids with enough time/money to take the test four, five, six times?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Elanorci--I've been hearing more buzz on this than you have, but you're right in sync with much of it. Allowing students control over which scores colleges can see seems like a great idea ... but only if there is a limit on the number of times each student can take the tests. The new policy does indeed benefit advantaged applicants who can afford multiple sittings. The College Board only provides two fee waivers for those who qualify in the first place. Less privileged students are also less apt than their more well-heeled peers to get help with score-submission "strategizing" (whether from savvy school counselors, private counselors, or kick-butt parents). Weathier kids, too, can sacrifice the "free" score reports that come with every SAT administration and wait to see scores before sending them to colleges. Less affluent students are more likely to need the freebies and/or won't be counseled to eyeball the results before sending them.</p>
<p>Although admission officials typically only "use" a student's top test scores, they often see the others, too, and may be swayed by them, even if just subconsciously.</p>
<p>So, although I applaud the concept of "score choice" in theory, I feel that it does need amendment. In my perfect world, students should only be permitted two attempts per test, and then they should also be allowed submit to colleges whichever scores they choose (even if from different sittings ... e.g., an April Math score and an October Critical Reading Score).</p>
<p>two? I am not so sure about that. I think three would be more appropriate. I scored very low the first time I took the SAT because it was the morning after a late-night track meet several hours away from home. My scores skyrocketed when I retook the test a month later.</p>
<p>If it were not for the money, then I would take the test a third time so I could do the whole "superscore" thing and prep as well (now that I have a realistic idea of where I need to improve). Therefore, if I were wealthy, a third test would seem fair. Additionally, expanding the college board fee waivers to three tests does not seem like too bad of a proposition.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, I don't think this matters at all. Colleges already take all of this into consideration via holistic admissions.</p>
<p>Also, it's interesting that this new score reporting policy is very similar to the one the ACT has been using for years.</p>
<p>everything in life benefits the wealthy. Right now wealthy people can afford private tutoring and prep classes. So someone can take diagnostic tests that emulate the real test many times anyways. It wont change anything...</p>
<p>To be fair brendanww, it was your choice to test after the track meet, and to go without prep both times. I made sure to schedule my two test dates, along with the SAT IIs, for times when I knew I could do my best work - not during AP season, for example.</p>
<p>If people took the test more seriously, then you wouldn't see kids testing three or more times. With the MCAT, for example, retesting is frowned upon unless there's a significant improvement.</p>
<p>And keep in mind, each ACT score is sent out separately; this is similar, without the extra fees attached.</p>
<p>People will always find reasons to complain.</p>
<p>I do not think so.. the policy starts in February and students have already sent their scores in before the deadline.</p>
<p>"it was your choice to test after the track meet"</p>
<p>I'll defend the track participant-- Sports schedules are not always predictable
and meets can be longer or at a greater distance than anticipated. Then the athlete feels pressure to support the team or has a chance at a personal best. It's not always easy or straight forward to decline a meet for a test. </p>
<p>Students are pulled in many directions and have tough choices.</p>
<p>My second test date was in the middle of swim season - I understand the responsibilities of being an athlete. And I checked the meet schedule before signing up. Meets take planning between multiple schools, as well as money. I'm willing to bet this one didn't just "pop up" unexpectedly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The new policy does indeed benefit advantaged applicants who can afford multiple sittings. The College Board only provides two fee waivers for those who qualify in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does this new policy change anything? Wealthy students have always been able to take standardized tests more times than less privileged students. Now they just get to pick and choose which scores colleges get to see. Colleges have ALWAYS said that they'll take an applicant's highest score and have NEVER threatened penalization for taking tests too many times. For example, Harvard says
[quote]
We consider a student's best test scores, but it is generally our experience that taking tests more than twice offers diminishing returns.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So while less privileged students won't exactly be affected by this service, wealthy students won't receive any advantage other than peace of mind. Besides, given the current financial aid initiatives by higher ed's elite institutions, it seems as if the combination of affirmative action plus nice financial aid packages come very close to making admissions equal. While I imagine Sally Rubenstone knows more about this than I do, I'm of the firm belief that this policy changes nothing.</p>
<p>I think all this proves is that college board as not lost its knack for making bank.</p>
<p>good policy.</p>
<p>but i think collegeboard will earn more money thanks to this policy.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
...but i think collegeboard will earn more money thanks to this policy.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Bingo (10char)</p>
<p>IMO, standardized testing used by nearly every college in the country shouldn't be controlled by some business.</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO, standardized testing used by nearly every college in the country shouldn't be controlled by some business.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Though I really hated College Board by the end of my high school career, established economic theory dictates that private entities do it better than public bureaucracies. CB is here to stay.</p>
<p>Eh, if you say so.</p>
<p>If money is not an issue, would it make sense under the new system for a student to concentrate on different portions of the test each time he or she takes it? In other words, spend all of the available study time on a different section each time the test is taken with the idea of maximizing the score on that section.</p>
<p>What's the difference between this new policy and the one ACT has been using for years?</p>