<p>Those graphs are widely popular. For full disclosure, I have used them in my presentations in the past. However, despite that the results are probably representative of the truth, we should not forget the TOTAL lack of scientific basis for the … data. The source is simply found in the questions answered by the test takers. The same source that yields the information that 40 percent of all students have a GPA above a B! </p>
<p>You could compare this result to the data reported by the Century Foundation regarding the income distribution at elite schools. Only three per cent of students at the hundred and forty-six most competitive colleges come from families whose levels of education, jobs, and income put them in the bottom socioeconomic quarter. Seventy-four per cent come from the top quarter.</p>
<p>Fwiw, that is akin to report the elevated temperatures of patients at the emergency room. The differences between rich and poor in SAT scores and college admissions are the measurable symptoms. They can only measure the realities of our society and its inherent disparities. Changing the way we measure the results is hardly the solution we need. Curing the patients is!</p>
<p>Considering that TCB has to report the results of every test, they really have few options. Nobody would expect to see them change the entire reporting system for 50 results. </p>
<p>Regardinf disguising the advantages, why not address the non-disclosure of the extended time testing results? Should we look deeper in the impact of multiple test taking when one takes more than 6 SATs? Do the early test vanish from the official reports? Does taking the SAT twice in middle school and twice again as a freshman and sophomore helps? And helps “cleaning” the slate? </p>
<p>No system will ever be perfect, but again, why is this considered such a tremendous problem?</p>
<p>May I suggest to make a small effort to actually read what I wrote … as in my first post in this thread (See 42!) And then understand that I specifically addressed the lack of concrete proposal from the parties I mentioned.</p>
<p>Just as strange how many California’s Asians are able to reconcile high scores for admissions and very low income for financial aid purposes! Some day this might the called the Berkeley Mystery!</p>
<p>Hey, if this controversy prompts the institution of summer testing dates, I am all for it. What I don’t get is why a “test” or “pilot” program is necessary, simply to add summer dates. It does not pass the smell test. It looks like a profit center disguised as a pilot program.</p>
<p>“They really have very few options?” I can’t tell, xiggi. Are you yanking my chain? I’m sure the Big Brains at College Board could figure something out. ;)</p>
<p>I was not yanking your chain, YDS. Regarding the other options, they could either ignore the results or report them individually. Imagine the ruckus created by reporting the results of a small 50 pool of testers, especially if the results of this (selected) group demonstrate an extraordinary performance, or even a great bonus from the … test prep. </p>
<p>All in all, I think the Big Brains in New York and Princeton opted for a safe choice. However, had I been sitting in the chair of Uncle Gaston, I would have suggested to flag the scores in the report card as non-traditional, or offer the students a specific report. </p>
<p>But heck, there are numerous things I would have done as Xiggi Caperton! Things that would have brought great dismay to the AP fanboys! In my book, the AP should be offered as the SAT Subject Tests are, and the SAT should be a multi-day test given in the high schools twice a year. :)</p>
<p>I do not think anyone would back out of the program --at least not more than the people who have bona fide reasons to obtain extra time. Fwiw, I am always fully supportive of full disclosures and full transparency, and a staunch critic of the lack of flagging of non-traditional tests, (abusively) recycled tests overseas, and score choice.</p>
<p>For decades the College Board placed an asterisk * next to the scores of all students who took the SAT under nonstandard testing conditions. Disability rights activists considered this a form of discrimination and filed multiple suits to revoke the nonstandard designation (*). </p>
<p>In 2004, beset by lawsuits, the College Board and ACT Inc., agreed to remove the nonstandard designation, meaning students test-scores would no longer be flagged as an indication that the students had received extra time or any other special accommodations on their tests. With the flag gone, the number of applications for special accommodations increased dramatically.</p>
<p>Today the Washington Post “Answer Sheet” blog summarized concerns about the Aug. 3rd “rich kids” testing date and included the letter to the College Board (urging the cancellation of this test) written by CA college counselor Elizabeth A. Stone and Bob Schaeffer, FairTest’s Public Education Director.</p>
<p>The College Board motto, from their web site:</p>
<p>“The College Board’s mission is to connect students to college success and opportunity. We are a not-for-profit membership organization committed to excellence and equity in education.”</p>