Maybe the fact that I do not agree that non native English speakers is a reason for an accommodation is why none of my interview was used in the article =P~
In regard to this:
And especially this part:
And this part:
Please see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
“Credibility” is an issue when evaluating claims of fact, especially those unsubstantiated by anything other than the speaker or writer’s own testimony.
Credibility is not an issue when evaluating arguments; arguments are valid or invalid on their own merits, irrespective of any alleged character flaws of the person advancing them.
If you are still confused after availing yourself of the resource linked above, please just let me know.
In the meantime, if you want to see how the College Board apologists perform when faced with the uncomfortable task of actually marshaling evidence and logic, please just look back at the last few pages. When challenged to identify an single actual instance of SAT cheating by adult test takers over 21, multiple posters on your side link to multiple articles that do not discuss SAT cheating by adult test test takers over 21.
If you look back at the entire thread, I think you will find that that is a recurring pattern: long, thoughtful, informative posts by some; short, uninformed, unreasoned, and often provocative posts by others.
I think someone doth protest too much B-)
Well, @jym626, I realize you’re sort of joking, but your post is yet another instance of the same phenomenon: the short, hit-and-run post that seeks deflect focus away from the substance of the discussion and to redirect it instead onto some contributor’s alleged personal shortcomings.
Let me quote back an exchange from earlier in the thread. I’m picking this one because it’s actually pretty polite.
The other poster:
And my reply:
Perhaps you, @Hunt, or anyone else can explain why you need information about my professional engagements or my “credibility” in order to ascertain the factual accuracy of the first and second points above or the logical validity of the third.
If you are planning to reference previous posts, its easier to just post the link and/or post # rather than copy the lengthy posts. Reposting your previous reply doesn’t seem to add to the conversation. JMO
If the standardization sample was to be set with the Mar 2016 administration, including tutors/teachers/test prep folks would throw off the numbers. IMO they were right to cancel their registration. But, they should have offered a refund, not just postponed their test registration.
Plotinus, can you cite an example of a “strange idiom?” It would be interesting if the new SAT were easier for US students, but harder for foreign students.
As to accommodations, that’s a big topic. There are many different kinds. The most common seems to be extended time. I found this College Board study on the effect of extended time: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-05-20.pdf.
Eventually, I think the best thing to do would be to give extended time to everyone. At present, it improves the performance of a few students, however a family’s ability to pay for lawyers and private neuropsych assessments makes an enormous difference in the chances of securing accommodations. Not all parents are able to deal with school and College Board bureaucracy, as well.
I will try to take your advice about formatting, @jym626, but your post still missed the point. I am not trying to resurrect the topic of “curving.” Rather, I am giving one example of what I consider a well-informed and well-reasoned post and giving your or anyone else the opportunity to explain why you think you need to know more about me in order to evaluate my arguments.
You are putting words in my mouth. Straw man arguments are unhelpful.
I must have misunderstood. Perhaps @Hunt will be by to explain, then.
There was a long discussion of this and surrounding issues in the New York Times article about the Redesigned SAT thread that starts here: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1859725-new-york-times-article-about-the-redesigned-sat-p1.html
I don’t want to repeat all those arguments, but here are just a few examples of “strange” idioms. There are many others.
(1) The effect, however, 1 CAME UP SHORT, lasting for only about ten to fifteen minutes after the listening period.
A. NO CHANGE
B. was a flash in the pan,
C. proved temporary,
D. had a short shelf life,
(Reading Section, October 14, 2015 PSAT)
(2) Frederick Douglass speech on the October 14 PSAT:
Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the “lame man leap as an hart."1
Footnote included on the test:
1 In this quotation from the Bible, a “hart” is a type of deer.
(3) Strange math language in the Redesigned Official Practice Test 3 Section 4 Question 30
3x + b = 5x−7
3y + c = 5y − 7
In the equations above, b and c are constants. If b is c minus 1/2 , which of the following is true?
A) x is y minus 1/4.
B) x is y minus 1
C) x is y minus 1/2
D) x is y plus 1/2
(4) (October 28, 2015 PSAT math question)
“Which of the following is an equivalent form of the expression above that displays the zeroes of the function as constants or coefficients in the expression?”
English translation: Put the equation into x-intercept form.
Many students who know perfectly well how to put the equation into x-intercept form will have difficulty understanding the verbiage.
Indeed. Thanks for the linked report. If the SAT moves to an extended-time-for-everyone or even an untimed test, that would be a big change. Either it would become just a proficiency test, or it would have to be much harder.
My experience has been that extra time made an even bigger difference for the ACT. Now that the SAT is more like the ACT, maybe extra time will make a bigger difference for this test too.
There is a lot of room for unfairness and abuse of accommodations. All the parents who are up in arms about tutors sitting the test should also consider that issue.
It’s not that I think putting limits on adults sitting the test is wrong. It’s that I think it’s just PR. It’s not going to change things for the better in any significant way.
Without taking any sides, I would like to make a suggestion to those joining this thread in its latter stages: it pays to read all the previous pages so as not to bring up again points and arguments presented - often repeatedly - in prior posts.
Also: introducing a new topic deserves a separate thread; this discussion, as long as it is already, is flowing now in more than one direction.
Gosh darn it, I guess I must be confused because I’m a lawyer, and always evaluate arguments in terms of the interests of the people making them. Of course, this is an anonymous forum, and nobody can make you reveal your personal interests–or even tell the truth about them.
By the way, what’s the source of your knowledge that people routinely ignore the restrictions on discussing tests to which they agree? Are there some studies that show that? Or is your statement based on personal knowledge?
There has been a lot of coverage of this in the blogosphere and popular press. Try googling it.
@Plotinus, for the examples in #269, examples 1 and 2 are not “strange idioms.” I would expect someone ready for college-level study either to understand such expressions, be able to figure them out, or to be able to learn them. Literature, politics, history, philosophy, semiotics, theology, political science, and other humanities fields all require the ability to read standard English, particularly as written by educated people. All college-level texts will (and should) assume the readers are competent.
Examples 3 and 4 are indefensible. I believe they arise from the current fads in math instruction in this country.
@Hunt, perhaps people are more likely to ignore restrictions if they believe they won’t face consequences.
I agree that a well-read, monolingual person should not have trouble with these readings.
There is a very long discussion of the issue of how idiomatic language creates bias against bilingual students in the other thread, so if you are interested, I suggest you take a look at that. Let me just say that College Board promised that the new SAT would have “ordinary language that students use everyday”. I don’t know any students who talk about “swelling the hallelujahs” and “leaping as an hart [sic]” every day.
Some students studied the Frederick Douglass speech in their classes BEFORE it was put on the PSAT (this is called “pre-exposure”). The speech was also prominently displayed on the internet on David Coleman’s Achieve the Core website. Other students (especially students not in Common Core programs) don’t study speeches in school at all. Is this fair?
Nah, I’ll just keep on repeatedly asking the OP what the source of his information is, and then discount whatever he comes up with. Actually, I won’t, but you probably get the point.
Actually, the College Board did not promise that the new SAT would have “ordinary language that students use everyday.” That’s a fallacious misreading of what the CB wrote.
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/inside-the-test/reading
This is not a promise to use everyday vernacular, nor to use a limited vocabulary. Words “you’ll use in college and the workplace” could perhaps be translated to, “the vocabulary used by today’s professionals.”
So there is an explicit bias against cramming. The test is perhaps structured not to be “crammable” (not a word.)
However, the time spent memorizing tricks and word lists for the old SAT should perhaps be spent studying and discussing the Core texts enumerated for use in the Common Core. It’s not a long list. It’s also not a secret list. In the amount of time spent on ordinary SAT prep classes, tutors could guide their charges through those documents.
Of course, since the documents are not secret, there shouldn’t be a premium paid for access to “insider knowledge” of what’ll be on the test.
@Periwinkle Do you think professionale talk about swelling hallelujahs and leaping as an hart? This is language students use in college? I went to undergrad and graduate school.
I taught undergraduate and graduate students for many years. In 25 years of daily university life, not once did I ever hear or read anyone use those idioms.
Do you have a reference to the Core list of readings?
I am a native English speaker and I never used “hart”. But didn’t CB provide a definition footnote in the example given above?