If that is the case, then you have been accusing me of lying throughout this entire thread. I am using the same standard of proof that you are requiring. You are unwilling to accept anything that I have said as fact. You repeatedly deny to acknowledge what I have said, despite links that i have provided. You have also been unwilling to accept any other posters’ statements about adult cheating. You have demanded to see something reported that the CB has specific concerns about adult non student test takers cheating. I pointed out that the same standard of proof thad not applied applied to the claim that the CB has moved registrants to June. It has not been reported. That does not mean that you are lying. Just that it doesn’t meet your standard of proof. You don’t acknowledge circumstantial proof or reasonable deductions from
Me - so why do you so willing to accept it when it bolsters your own argument?
@spongybob6587 Congratulations on winning your appeal. I still do not understand how you think the results you are getting in May will help you with colleges who make decisions in May, but good luck to you.
Well, @2018eastorwest, I’ve noticed you put a lot of stake in news articles, so please look again at the one to which another poster linked on the previous page:
You may notice the following sentence:
That’s “dates,” with an “s” at the end.
Sorry @jgoggs, but the words of the owner of a tutor company don’t qualify as proof according to your own standards. Your standard seems much higher than anecdotal comments made in a blog, according to all of your comments in this thread about the requirement for proof about adult non students posing cheating concerns. After all, this info is coming from an admitted adult non student tutor who says that he was registered for the test so that he could give a webinar about it afterwards, undoubtedly for profit. I wonder what he could have spoken about during that webinar, since the terms of the sat prohibit any taker from speaking about the contents of the test?
Otherwise, the link was very interesting. Especially this: Even as they criticized the College Board for barring professional test-takers from the March 5 SAT, test-prep officials acknowledged that the company does have a duty to ward off cheating by their colleagues. Tutoring companies have long sent employees in to take the SAT or ACT, so they can better advise clients on what to expect. But some, including large-scale efforts in Asia, have taken that access to a different level, sending armies of employees in to memorize subsets of questions, so the test can effectively be reconstructed.
I know that you will not consider that proof, though, in your mind, that any of those “armies of employees” who have been sent In to memorize and cheat are adults, because you have already stated repeatedly that unless it is specifically reported that these employees are adults, you assume that they are children. Even thought he CB did not cancel the registrations of any non adults in response to their concern for security related to that noted concern.
Question about tutors taking the sat, now that I have after learned all that I have learned through this informative thread-
The test terms say this: Sharing of test questions or answers is prohibited at any time. Never give questions or answers to anyone or discuss them by any means (e.g., email, text messages, exchanges via the Internet, or any other form of communication). There is never any point in time at which you are allowed to discuss exam content unless it is released as part of a College Board service (such as the Question-and- Answer Service).
So the Question is - If there is never any time that you are allowed to discuss exam content, what can you say in a webinar about the test after you have taken it? What are you allowed to tell your clients about the tests that you took? It seems that if any discussion is a violation of the terms, a tutor can not actually gain anything by taking the test? I am now more confused about adults wanting to take the test than I was before. Why exactly do all of these thousands of tutors register and sit through the these long and difficult tests over and over again if they can’t ever discuss it?
I know a senior who is taking the March SAT. Idk why but I am assuming he is applying to a college with a very late deadline? I never knew you could take the SAT this late as a senior lol.
I am sure you know much more about the gaokao than I do, but the gaokao is not what I had in mind as a harder SAT test. The gaokao math is harder is some ways than the old SAT math, but it is still way too easy and a “one size fits all” test. As far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong), the questions are pretty rote: you don’t need to be creative or to have special math aptitude to do them; you just have to learn the material and drill it well.
The kind of test I had in mind was the math Olympics or the entrance exams for l’Ecole Normale in Paris or La Scuola Normale in Pisa. Only a few people sit these tests because most people couldn’t answer even one question on them. Clearly, these tests would not be appropriate as national school-leaving tests or general entrance exams for all students because they are not “one size fits all” tests. They are test designed to select the best of the best. Tutoring can help a little, but it can’t turn dross into gold.
One of the problems with the SAT is that it tries to do too many things for too many people, and over time this problem has gotten worse. The people with real talent suffer the most because the SAT doesn’t let them stand out. College Board wants the $$$ and has every motive to continue this negative trend.
@Plotinus - I wasn’t referring to the gaokao, but sure, if BC and Multivariable Calculus strike you as “rote,” then I guess you’re right. I’m pretty sure an AIME-style advanced problem-solving test isn’t an option at the scale of the SAT (or for its purposes!).
That said, people can definitely be tutored for AMC/AIME/USAMO, and here in Korea, they do so and it’s at least somewhat effective. Whatever can be tested can also be practiced. One may not be able to prep for a perfect score, but the more creative, difficult problem-solving questions one struggles with, the better one will be when one faces the real deal.
Jazz saxophone is very hard, but people learn to play it and get better and better. They may not become Coltrane or Dolphy, but they become very, very good at jazz.
I agree with this, but this is a function of the test’s outsized significance as well, since the higher the stakes, the higher incentive exists to game the system–there are a constellation of factors, and most of them are disheartening. Fortunately there are other ways for “the people with the real talent” (I wouldn’t use the word “talent,” but I get the gist) to stand out. The SAT is just a disqualifier at the high end, imo–high scores won’t really open the most selective doors, but low scores certainly will lock them.
But it is hard for students without a lot of money to fill their CV’s with extra-curricular activities. The SAT was supposed to be a low-cost way for students with excellent ability (or whatever you want to call it) to stand out. So in the end, an easier SAT actually DAMAGES the people with a lot of ability, not that much money, and no diversity, and HELPS the wealthy kids with less ability and a lot of money. When the test is easy, the wealthy kids with less ability and a lot of money will get the same high SAT scores as the not wealthy kids with more ability and less money, but the wealthy kids will also have a long list of impressive extra-curriculars, travel abroad, sports, clubs, charitable activities, etc. So the universities won’t be embarrassed when they admit a wealthy kid with less ability who will pay full freight instead of a middle class kid with more ability but who would get a big financial aid package based on need.
Do you think universities want an applicant pool full of middle-class kids with SAT scores that are much higher than the SAT scores of most of the wealthy kids, so that the universities would have to give everyone mega need-based financial aid? No, they want to be able to admit wealthy kids who pay full freight. Big financial aid is reserved for low income students who increase diversity. The not diverse middle class kid with ability loses out. He or she has trouble putting together an application that will be competitive with either the wealthy kid or the low income diversity kid.
The new test is not opening any doors for the middle class – it is closing them.
Who wrote the line that the Redesigned SAT opens doors, Don Draper?
I agree that tutoring can improve performance on anything, but if the test is challenging enough and challenging in the right ways, it is easier for the people with more ability to stand out, no matter how much tutoring is available. As you agree, you can’t turn people into Coltrane and Dolphy. It would be tough to turn most students into Math Olympians.
NYC is giving $250 of paid professional SAT prep to lower income kids using Title I funds. This money comes from tax payer dollars. Hey, I want $250 for SAT prep for my middle class kid too. Isn’t anyone looking out for the middle class?
I certainly agree that they are not proof, @2018eastorwest, but I’m surprised to see you take that position, since you previously cited a headline on a conservative blog as evidence. Just as a side note, your critical reading skills may have failed you here: those aren’t the words of an “admitted” (?) tutor; they’re paraphrases by the author of the article.
No idea about the “webinar,” but as I’ve already said, I think the the more information available about this heretofore rather mysterious new test format (only four practice tests released when eight were promised; experimental section apparently added without warning at the last minute; etc.) the better, for all stakeholders. I’m not sure how you think continued opacity benefits anyone.
And as we’ve already discussed, you can search the entire internet, and you will never find any evidence at all for that claim, beyond quotes tracing back to Bob Schaeffer of FairTest. No one has ever reported spotting one of these armies (how many people? Twenty people? Fifty people?) at a testing center. No one has ever explained how any Chinese tutoring company, for example, could afford to obtain visas, round trip airfare, and hotel rooms for 20 or more different adult cheaters several times per year. No one has ever been able to produce one of the tests these adult cheaters have allegedly “reconstructed” after “memorizing” materials.
Most importantly, no one has explained why anyone would bother to send “armies” of adult cheaters to test in the U.S., when (1) students have traditionally compiled answers for free on sites like College Confidential and Reddit and (2) entire PDF scans of SATs are widely available in Asia (leaked for huge amounts of money by College Board and ETS’s own people in the region) days (if not longer) before those tests are administered.
It was well known that tutors would be signing up to take the first new SAT, for a variety of reasons. And it would/could throw off the standardization of the new test. So why didn’t CB find a way sooner of declining to let them register? Oh wait- they make $$$ by letting them register. So they let them register and then postponed when the can take it. CB may not be as dumb as some think. Butt it does make them look bad, IMO.
I can’t believe all this energy we have to spend in guessing and arguing about what Collegeboard is doing with the SAT. They could have kept it simple. Why not release every single SAT that is publicly administered? This is the case with all publicly conducted large exams around the world. This would eliminate any need for people to jump through hoops to access those tests. My prediction is we will see a leaked version of March SAT in the market. When you try to prevent something from happening, someone will give enough incentive to someone to accomplish that task.
I know it costs money to conduct these tests, but if that is the case, let’s cut down on the number of times these tests are administered. How about we get rid of the Sunday testings? How about not recycling US SAT tests for international testing? How about creating different tests for the 10% of the SAT takers that are outside US? How about charging them more to cover test development fees? They could keep it really simple and truly create transparency.
I know they are planning to publicly release all of the QAS administrations going forward for the new SAT. Let’s hope they deliver on that.
Damn straight, @SATQuantum
The answer, of course, is stomach-turning: greed, pure and simple. The CB/ETS rakes in colossal revenue (on which, as a non-profit, it doesn’t even pay taxes!), and it could easily afford to produce unique tests for every sitting.
I agree, and I think it would be especially important to release the tests that are being used In SAT School Day since there is at least anecdotal evidence that the School Day test was easier.
I don’t think CB needs to prove that cheating by adult test takers has actually happened in order to try to combat cheating by adult test takers. If CB knows there is a hole in its security then actions should be taken to close that hole regardless of whether anyone actually took advantage of it.
I also agree that the tests should be publicly released. Just as I have always felt that the standardized tests given to kids from grade 3-8 in Math, ELA (and science in grades 4&8) should be publicly released.
I agree with you, but there are many gaping holes in SAT security that CB could close or try to close, but it does not. This makes it look as though defending test security is just an excuse for a good “we’re fighting inequality” photo-op.
The argument that I and some others have been making is more or less as follows:
(1) People and organizations lie, especially about their motives. When a person or organization acts from an ignoble motive, it will often dishonestly claim to have acted from a noble motive.
(2) There is good reason to think that College Board is lying about its reasons for cancelling the registrations of adult test takers. That is, there are good reasons for doubting its professed noble motive of trying to combat cheating. For example (A) there is no reason to believe that adult test takers are more than a negligible factor in SAT cheating and (B) the actions the College Board has taken are not consistent with its stated concerns about cheating; if College Board sincerely believed adult test takers posed a cheating risk, it would presumably have banned them altogether, not just reassigned them to take the test (and presumably to cheat?) on other dates.
(3) Given the College Board’s lack of transparency surrounding this new test version (only four practice tests released when eight were promised; the possible unannounced reintroduction of an experimental section at the last minute) and given its recent history of foul ups (test cancellations, scoring delays, misprints, etc.) an alternative–and, to many people, more plausible–explanation for these cancellations is that the College Board simply wants to avoid large-scale expert scrutiny. This would be the hidden ignoble motive mentioned above.
Why should any of this matter to anyone not directly affected? Well, for one thing, as Plotinus and others have pointed out just above, College Board is now essentially acting as a state contractor: it has been hired and paid by various states to provide testing for the students in those states. Yet at the moment, no one other than children appears eligible to examine the product/service the College Board has been contracted to provide.
If the taxpayers of a state are paying a contractor to provide a service/product, should they not be able to examine the quality of that product/service? If not, why not? In what other context do we simply take a contractor’s own word that it is providing a good service/product without having the opportunity to check for ourselves?
Ideally, as others have suggested above, all tests would simply be released to the public after they were used. The banning of adult test takers, even if it is only temporary, represents a step in the wrong direction–away from openness and toward the use of essentially secret tests.