Not understanding how this would support your contention that non-native speakers would be at a disadvantage when confronted with these phrases. If an idiom is as unfamiliar to native English speakers as to someone for whom it is a second language wouldn’t it level the playing field, with both groups having to figure out meaning from context?
It can be difficult to distinguish between a hard question and an unfair question.
You never heard of anyone coming up short?
You don’t know what hallelujah means?
By the way, the passage from Frederick Douglass is reproduced in this document: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf[/url.] The document is entitled, common core state STANDARDS FOR English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Appendix B: Text Exemplars and Sample Performance Tasks
These are Exemplars, which means examples–but not a limited list.
The best works of 19th century statecraft and literature, as well as 18th century texts, would likely make the grade. It seems quite American-centric.
Don’t worry about “monolingual bias;” I’m sure there are lots and lots of US students who are totally lost in the 19th and 18th century’s elevated vocabulary and voluminous sentences.
Then you are indeed confused, so let me follow through on my offer to help you out.
You quoted my post:
And you replied as follows:
Let’s focus on this part:
Here you are suggesting that my argument stands or falls based on my motivations. That is, if I appear to be acting out of self-interest, then my argument is “gobbledegook.” By implication–and feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding–if I am acting from more noble motivations, then my argument is somehow more valid. With that in mind, let’s consider a thought experiment.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, not only that I am a tutor but also that I am the most egregiously unscrupulous one imaginable. I sign up for every SAT, help students cheat at the test center, and then post the answers to the test all over the internet. I then start threads like this one from purely selfish motives, in order to beat back threats to my lucrative cheating schemes. According to you, my argument is therefore “gobbledegook.”
Let’s also suppose, however, that I have a twin who is everything I am not–honest, selfless, civic-minded. He is the “watchdog” you mention in your last sentence. He comes into this thread at the same time as I do and posts the exact same argument–he wants people to be able to discuss tests in the interest of openness and accountability–in the exact same thread at exactly the same time. According to you, “it does matter” what a person’s motivations are. Because my twin’s motivations are pure, his argument is valid, even though it is exactly the same as mine and you have said mine is not valid..
Thus, the logical conclusion of your position here, @Hunt is that the exact same argument can be both valid and invalid in the same place at the same time. How can that be?
If the point is still not clear, let me give you a real life example–probably one with which you are already familiar. Al Gore has spent decades warning the world about global warming or climate change; it was his pet issue back when few others cared, and for most of his career, he had no discernible selfish interest in urging the world toward awareness and action. Since his unsuccessful 2000 presidential run, however, Gore has amassed a huge personal fortune based largely around “green investments.” Thus, Gore now seems to have a financial interest in convincing the world that climate change is real and that action must be taken. According to you, did Gore’s arguments somehow become less valid once he started making money from the “green” sector? Did his factual claims become less true? Did climate change become less real? Did it stop being true that the ice caps were melting or that the seas were rising?
I ask because these are the sorts of conclusions to which you are led when you think logic and truth change depending on people’s motivations.
Now, I have already presented you with examples of my own posts–long, detailed ones containing both arguments and sourced factual claims–and asked you to elaborate on how exactly their truth and validity could be a function of my motivations or character. You seem to have demurred, so I’m not sure what else there is to say.
Well, @Hunt, I asked a pretty simple question: given that the College Board has blocked test takers over 21 from taking the March SAT for “security” reasons, can anyone cite a single instance of cheating on the SAT involving test takers over the age of 21?
If you will look back at the thread, you will see that no one succeeded. Instead, we had a stretch where multiple people were citing multiple articles, none of which discussed cheating on the SAT involving test takers over the age of 21.
Tell me, @Hunt, when low-information posters don’t read what they cite (i.e., don’t notice that the articles are not discussing the SAT) or don’t understand what they read (i.e., don’t know what the GRE or the TOEFL are), what can a thoughtful person do but politely “discount” their contributions?
Well…
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1452366-january-2013-sat-discusion.html
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1488544-may-2013-sat-discussion-thread-p1.html
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1511117-official-sat-i-june-2013.html
etc…
And it’s not just the SAT, @Hunt–any kids at any school discuss any test at all (a quiz in their history class, a final exam in biology) as soon as the test is over, not because they want to cheat (the test is over, after all) but because they want to understand how they did, why they made the mistakes they made, and so on. This sort of discussion helps them do better in the future, and it is all the more important in the context of the SAT because, in most cases, SAT takers will never have the opportunity to review the test they have taken once it is over
And, to repeat, it is only “cheating” because the College Board wants to double-dip and resell the same test again. (If College Board used a new form each time, then discussion after the test would be a complete non-issue.) It is hard to see why the College Board’s financial interest is anyone else’s problem, though, especially when it conflicts so dramatically with the interests of everyone else involved.
I’m still a little bit confused about what the main point of this whole thread is.
CB obviously moved older test takers. They did it for some reason - which of course might be completely independent of their stated reason.
So here’s a list of possible reasons that I can come up with:
- Protect the "security" of the test.
- Make it easier for them to norm the test
- Prevent pros from taking the tests for reasons that they don't want to say out loud: 3a. Pros might criticize flaws in the tests 3b. They want pros to be ineffective, and they think blocking the test will hurt them. 3c. Other variations of the above
- PR? I think some people have speculated this, though I don't quite see how this is good for CB.
They have clearly stated (1). I think that they stated (2) also? Not sure.
You seem to be arguing (1) has to be a lie, because there aren’t any public discussions of adult cheating rings. That argument is obviously flawed, though, because it’s at least possible (and I’d argue likely) that CB would not release publicly any / all of the data it has about cheating (or suspected cheating). Bad for business and all that. So a lack of public evidence doesn’t prove anything…
If you’re most interested in discussing (1), I think there are 3 possibliity:
a. CB does have solid evidence (not released to the public) that adults are tied to cheating.
b. CB truly thinks adults are tied to cheating, but this is based on shaky or questionable evidence.
c. CB is just lying.
Is there any way to distinguish them?
CB indicated that by removing the vocab section they would be weaving their vocab words into the essays and math questions. So an understanding of the passages and math problems would require an understanding of these words.
I suppose to publicize, criticize, and otherwise discuss a significant and unprecedented move by the College Board.
Norming issue covered in some detail here:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19347758/#Comment_19347758
See link above.
No, not that it “has to be” a lie, just that it likely is. And the lack of high profile examples of cheating by adult test takers is only one component of the argument. Here’s something of a summary:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19364810/#Comment_19364810
By the way, there is plenty of adult involvement in SAT cheating. There is just no real evidence, and no real reason to believe, that any significant portion of that cheating involves adults registering for and taking the test.
If you’ll review the link above and posts that I and others have written elsewhere in the thread, you will see that many believe that one way of distinguishing them is by measuring them against College Board’s own actions. For example, many have proposed that if College Board truly believed that adult test takers posed a security risk, it would simply have banned them outright from testing. Since it instead merely transferred them to later test dates, on which they will presumably be able to cheat just as well as they would have on the March test, we infer that this explanation is, at best, incomplete.
I Hesitate to post on this thread, but I will because my kid just took the SAT for the first time. What, precisely, is the benefit of having adult tutors (or professionals if you prefer) take the test? I read all the posts about how College Board is afraid all these people will find out how bad the test is, etc, etc. But isn’t the real issue for the College Board whether colleges (or states) find the results generated by the test adequately predictive? I don’t understand how an argument over whether a question uses the term hart instead of deer moves the needle on that point?
This is the real issue if what colleges want is a test that is as predictive as possible of college grades. If what colleges want is a test that allows them to admit wealthy and diversity students, and to reject high-achieving non-diversity students who would get need-based financial aid (without being sued for reverse discrimination) then this is not the real issue.
The real issue is indeed not whether tutors can sit the test. Banning adults is just PR for CB, because it gives the appearance that CB is combatting cheating and defending students who cannot easily afford tutors.
This is mostly appearance because gaping holes in test security remain, and good tutors don’t need to sit the test to tutor effectively.
The real issue is what is happening inside undergrad admissions offices, what the criteria are, how decisions are made, why some people are admitted and others rejected. There are a lot of shady things happening here: the athletes, the legacies, the internationals who don’t get financial aid, the donors, the diversity candidates. You should put the changes in the new SAT in that context. Do the changes in the SAT make what happens in undergraduate admissions offices fairer and more transparent, or do they facilitate more unfairness and less transparency? Is the new SAT more predictive of college grades at elite universities or less predictive than was the old one? Shouldn’t that be the main question? Do students who understand the phrase “swell the hallelujahs” but don’t know the meanings of “recondite”, “diaphanous”, and “jejune” perform better at elite universities than do students who know the meanings of “recondite”, “diaphanous”, and “jejune” but don’t understand the phrase “swell the hallelujahs”? Has anyone seen any CB research that examines this question?
One of CB’s most publicized goals for the redesign is to narrow the score gap between under-privileged minorities and whites/Asians. The number of spots at elite universities is probably not going to increase. If more diversity candidates are admitted, fewer non-diversity candidates will be admitted. Do you think elite universities are going to cut the number of athletes, donors, or admitted undergraduate candidates who can pay full freight to make room for diversity candidates? Or are the universities going to cut the number of middle-class non-diversity candidates who would get financial aid? Some universities claim that admissions are need-blind, that their admissions office does not look at financial aid applications. However, it is not that hard to estimate an applicant’s financial situation from information on the main application (where he or she goes to high school, the professions of the parents, extra-curricular activities, etc.).
I don’t think PR had much to do with it since without reading this post, I never would have known that it happened.
No PR? The Today show is talking about SAT test prep as I type (though what they are talking about is the inconsistent Princeton Review test prep pricing)
@plotinus, I would assume colleges want a test as free from environmental influence as possible, so that scores across all demographics are predictive. I just don’t see the logic in a theory that the test is designed to give some kind of cover to admissions officers not wanting to admit upper middle class suburban kids. Admissions at ultra competitive schools is pretty opaque. Hard to see how a move in SAT scores changes that?
Also, is College Board really that focused on elite schools? I would think there is a heck of a lot more money to be made selling testing services to kids pointing at Ohio State and Michigan rather than Harvard and Yale.
And speaking personally as a non professional educator, I think it is a good thing that the test is moving away from rote memorization of vocabulary to an assumedly more content and context based model. I think in the second model you catch more readers, which I believe has always been a pretty good indicator of college success.
This is was the original purpose of the SAT. If the SAT can’t fill this role well, this gives more cover to the undergrad admissions offices at elite universities. I have seen a lot of high-achieving middle class non-diversity kids passed over for lower-achieving kids who are wealthy, upper middle-class, or diversity.
I did not refer to upper middle class suburban kids. I referred to middle class non-diversity kids who would qualify for substantial need-based financial aid at elite universities. If the kids would not qualify for significant need-based financial aid, they do not fall into the category I discussed.
Good readers don’t need to memorize vocabulary by rote. A good high school reader would knows all the words that were on the old SAT just from reading from a young age and using a dictionary while reading. If you don’t have high complexity vocabulary, you don’t catch good readers. I would like to see some research supporting the claim that the new test is better at picking out good readers than was the old.
It may be that they intend to only allow adults to take exams that will be released afterwards (as they say May will be). Thus, no inside info to share.
@Plotinus, upper middle class suburban kids do qualify for substantial need based aid at elite schools. Middle class, according to Pew anyway, is household income between $40-$125k. You need to be well above that not to qualify for substantial aid at elite schools. Non elite schools I have been told are a far different story
Sure, you’ve made lots of long, detailed posts, but I assume that what you’re trying to do here is to persuade people of your position. Otherwise, why bother? I’m simply pointing out that, in my experience, people who do not reveal their own personal interests in a controversy are less persuasive than those who do. Take a look at Plotinus’ posts for evidence of this point. Those posts are much more persuasive than yours, in part for this very reason.
great Job college board!
security threat is real as seen by college board for march
why?
many adults from asia booked flights to america to take exam in march both for marketing purposes and to cheat (but not all, so do not lump everyone together in the same clump of cheaters)
cheat?how?
take hidden button cameras or sophisticated hat cameras to film entire test secretly because it can be sold for BIG BUCKS and maybe it will be reused later
some chinese “carriers” (not young teens but adults in their 30s and even 40s) will even volunteer to run out of center with test for right price , i believe $3,000 or so, and fly back to china…once again, not ALL CHINESE ARE CHEATING, so do not generalize please…but this is well known cheating method in asia .the first one, second one not so much so ^^
marketing? how?
say we took the test and tell prospective clients what it is like to tackle fear of uncertainty but that does not seem to matter as some adult tutors in asia already told many that they actually “took the test” and that this ban did not apply to ALL ADULTS…that the ban is a lie restricted to only a very small handful of test takers.
the solution: don’t recycle tests anymore, especially not in ASIA, and DON’T CHEAT.