<p>In response to a Cornell Daily Sun editorial, College Board rep again writes that preparatory courses do not assist those who take them, that SAT scores are not higher for those who take such courses, and that they have no benefit over free or low-cost practice tests available on-line or in bookstores. Such practice courses provide only the "illusion of control:"</p>
<p>"To the Editor:</p>
<p>Your editorial (The 1,600 Blues, Nov. 1, 2007) contained several significant errors that misrepresented the SAT and its role in college admissions. </p>
<p>Your editorial states that the SAT favors candidates from higher incomes who can afford tutoring. That statement is both wrong and misleading. The SAT cannot be cracked or gamed with expensive, short-term test prep courses. Research proves that these courses do not improve scores more than the free and low-cost practice tests available online or in bookstores. Expensive test prep courses only serve to give affluent parents and students the illusion of [control] over a scary process. In fact, the best preparation for the SATs is developing good study habits, taking rigorous high school courses and becoming familiar with the SAT by taking sample practice tests.</p>
<p>The editorial also incorrectly states that the SAT is not a good indicator of ones academic achievement. In fact, dozens of independent research studies prove that the SAT, along with high school grades, is the best single predictor of success in college.</p>
<p>As greater numbers of students apply to colleges, tests such as the SAT provide admissions officers with critical information that help match a students potential with the best school for them. Our goal for the SATs is to help connect students to a college or university where they can achieve, succeed and graduate.</p>
<p>/s/Laurence Bunin, senior vice president for operations, The College Board</p>
<p>Well, if you sign up for a course, you will essentially be forced to study...if you plan to use sample tests and books you have to motivate yourself to actually do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your editorial states that the SAT “favors candidates from higher incomes who can afford tutoring.” That statement is both wrong and misleading. The SAT cannot be “cracked” or “gamed” with expensive, short-term test prep courses. Research proves that these courses do not improve scores more than the free and low-cost practice tests available online or in bookstores. Expensive test prep courses only serve to give affluent parents and students the illusion of [control] over a scary process. In fact, the best preparation for the SATs is developing good study habits, taking rigorous high school courses and becoming familiar with the SAT by taking sample practice tests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem with the rebuttal is that it contains the same errors decried by the representative of the College Board. Because it is virtually impossible to measure correctly the impact of tutoring, or even define what constitutes "expensive" test preparation, anyone can make up baseless numbers. This is not very different from the highly questionable SOURCE of reports of the SAT's correlation with income. It's not the conclusions are incorrect, it's that the infornation is culled from self-reported surveys on the test itself. This intimates that the student knows his or her family resources, or cares to provide TCB accurate information. A fact that will bring a smile to anyone familiar with a group of 15-17 years old 'connection" to TCB. The same applies to the question regarding high school grades and the result allowing CB to report that more than 40% of US high schoolers have an average ABOVE the A level! </p>
<p>A perfect example of murking the waters is: "In fact, the best preparation for the SATs is developing good study habits, taking rigorous high school courses and becoming familiar with the SAT by taking sample practice tests." Of course, it cannot hurt anyone to developing good study habits and taking rigorous high school courses, but is that why the SAT does not really test a HS curriculum? On the other hand, isn't the key becoming familiar with the SAT by taking sample practice tests? </p>
<p>The reality is that The College Board knows very well that its test is prone to be "gamed" by astute observers. The fact that these astute observers can be "plain students" who discover the patterns and highly predictable contents via repeated practice, or otherwise can be professionals who were well-trained in the development of tests makes little difference. The majority of the students who approach the test are only armed with a very poor preparation from their high school, and only have access to a group of profiteering charlatans selling overpriced group classes through national chains, or even worse, the same teachers who fail them during the weekday! Indeed, the statistics will support that the PR, Kaplan, Sylvan of the world are ineffective ... as long as they look at the basic average. However, behind the small army of poorly prepared tutors, there are high-priced tutors who can and DO make quite a difference. </p>
<p>In the end, students and families have to deal with idle speculation, half-truths and outright fabrication. </p>
<p>The SAT cannot be “cracked” or “gamed” with expensive, short-term test prep courses.</p>
<p>Thats what they "want" us to believe. If all 9th graders and up were "prepped" in the fashion most kids here on CC have been, either by self study, repeated practice exams, learning from what you did wrong, or decent tutoring, ANY SAT exam can be cracked or gamed. They want people to believe it is a mysterious intelligence test, ha!</p>
<p>Samiamy, my daughter took the ACT with less than two hours of total prep time. (She took a practice test out of a book a few days before at home.) Some of her friends were coached for years -- yes, years, by expensive private tutors in weekly test prep sessions -- in preparation for the same test. My daughter scored in the mod-30s, her friends in the upper 20s. Sometimes a silk purse is just a silk purse.</p>
<p>The test prep course I am paying $1700 dollars for really seems to do little more than simulate testing conditions and review the questions; if my kid was disciplined enough to lock herself in her room for hours with the prep books she could achieve the same result. But very few kids (or adults) can force themselves to undergo this process. I've considered studying really hard myself to take the SAT's to try to get an impressive score so I can BE an SAT tutor at $150/hour!!!!!</p>
<p>My S who was valedictorian of his class and an IB graduate would overanalyze standardized tests. The instructor of the SAT prep class he took could see that he did not need help with information but had him repeat tests again and again until he would fly though them without overthinking. It helped him tremendously and he ended up with a 2290 on the SAT. This was a private class (not a company) and I think he received much more personal attention. We paid about $500 for the class with 4 other students. It was well worth his peace of mind.</p>
<p>The first time I took the SAT, I took a semester long class in school for it and only got a 670 on the math section. The second time I took the SAT, I used one of the College Board's provided practice test booklets and worked exclusively on the math stuff(that being the score I needed to increase) during my break at work. That SAT, I scored 800 on the math section.</p>
<p>It's all just a matter of putting oneself in the correct thinking mode. If you can do that, it's fine.</p>
<p>I paid for the expensive ($800) SAT test prep for both my daughters. I don't think it helped at all. They both scored exactly as my intuition told me they would before they took the class. What my $800+ bought was the peace of mind that I had actually DONE what conventional wisdom tells us mothers we must do or suffer the GUILT of not having helped them somehow. </p>
<p>Xiggi - what is the effective private tutoring you refer to and can I find it in my area? :)</p>
<p>My daughter came out of last Saturday's SAT happy and energized and concluded that actually taking the SAT was the best SAT prep. I've bought the books, flashcards, etc., and I doubt you could find her fingerprints on any of them. She says the mental zone one has to be in at test time is not something that can be replicated. To her, if the concentration and focus is not 100%, careless errors ensue, so what's the point? </p>
<p>She came out saying why not just take it 10 times, that's still a lot less money than test prep courses, and you maximize your exposure to the different curves that can make a big difference in score. Yes, the curves are normalized over the entire population of test takers, but that doesn't mean the curves are normalized for a single individual test taker. There's still a factor of chance involved, that you click with the CR passages, that you happen to get the obscure vocabulary that you know over the ones you don't know, or that you get the most softball of essay prompts like the one on the 11/3 SAT. </p>
<p>The question of course is whether colleges look at using the actual SAT as your test prep course as outrageously obsessive. Why pay a test prep company $1600 to make you sit down and do practice tests when you could pay a lot less to the Collegeboard for the same process and actually have it count?</p>
<p>I agree with Bay that the test prep course generally provide a level of comfort and peace of mind. I think that there are certain types of goofy errors that kids can be taught to avoid, and some techniques for approaching the test. But you can't "coach" a kid to an 800 verbal score who hasn't been a lifelong reader, or get him to an 800 math if he never understood trig. I think the coaching and/or test prep at home (basically the same thing in my book) can help eliminate "false" low scores, but cannot create "false" high scores.</p>
<p>I'm a student, I'm not the greatest but I certainly feel the prep courses are a complete waste. Of all the people I know who took prep courses, only one or two scored higher than me the first time (1960 or so) and that was with nearly zero studying, and the second time I've scored higher than almost all people who took one (2020), I'm sure with a bit more studying of math I can boost my 1380/1600 to 1500 but I just don't want to.</p>
<p>I really think they are right, it gives you that placebo affect. For some its good, for others, unneccessary. Being able to keep a level head ad use all of your logic in timed situations is the real key.</p>
<p>If you start prepping a few months before the test I'm sure you'll do better but not much. If you start prepping in 9th grade, you'll definitely do much better, not because of the test prep per se, but because you have actually become a better, more focused student and you may have actually learned to learn better. In other words, you have become a more efficient student. This involves discipline and people tend to be more motivated and disciplined if it costs them a lot of money. Otherwise, professional or home prep should be equally effective and if you are motivated and disciplined to begin with, then you don't need any prep besides a practice test or two.</p>
<p>I think that schoolwork should do that though, I mean I go to a relatively terrible public HS, but anything I want to know I teach myself, and I think that motivation coupled with the ability to focus and get things done when they need to be done is far more valuable than a prep course can be.</p>
<p>For example, my friend often wonder how I can bang out 10 or 15 page papers in 2 or three hours, usually less. I literally wait sometimes till the morning before a research paper or two, wake up at six, and be done by eight with both of them and always get an A. Some people say I shouldn't cram, but when you learn to be able to be efficient with your time it's easily doable. That's not something any class taught me, just years of laziness and procrastination finally paying off (and you all said it wouldn't :P).</p>
<p>
[quote]
The question of course is whether colleges look at using the actual SAT as your test prep course as outrageously obsessive. Why pay a test prep company $1600 to make you sit down and do practice tests when you could pay a lot less to the Collegeboard for the same process and actually have it count?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, unless it did change, I think the colleges only see the last SIX scores. </p>
<p>Regarding practice test, obviously nobody needs to pay a test prep company for getting access to practice tests. Although TCB made it harder to purchase the QAS by closing the "store," finding older tests should not be that hard. I know I was able to locate about 40 tests with just a bit of effort and perseverance. Armed with such tests, all you need is an uncomfortable chair, a temperemental clock, a mean proctor, and annoying noises to duplicate the testing environment. Wouldn't it be easy to find an accomodating parent and a small corner of the kitchen table? :D</p>