<p>But they could be well-served by developing their reasoning and thinking cells; not to mention the lost art to write a coherent sentence. All facets of our education should be intertwined. For instance, the results of laboratory research are in dire need of clear communication and cogent description. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, there is such a misconception (stemming from an obvious poor knowledge of the test itself) about what the verbal components of the SAT really test. Hint … it is not a strict vocabulary. If it were, the scores would be much higher and the test less resilient to extended preparation in the form of rote memorization.</p>
<p>What would Math III be? An even dumber test than the current Math Level 2, which is mostly a test that rewards the mastery of a graphic calculator? A test that is easier than the Math Level 1? </p>
<p>Why is there a need to bring the old writing SATII? It has been incorporated in the SAT Reasoning Test with only cosmetic changes. </p>
<p>By the way, expanding the current SAT does in fact entail absorbing the valuable SAT Subject Tests. Not the silly ones that could be transformed in more AP junk. </p>
<p>Why do we need a multitude of angular tests when we fail to provide and measure the basic education that will be needed in college? Thinking, counting, reading, and writing should be the cornerstone of our secondary education, and not some misguided notion that focused specialty trumps basic knowledge.</p>
<p>The prestigious colleges should fight the College Board tooth-and-nail to prevent the changes to the SAT. If a revised SAT actually reflected “the kind of academic work expected of students in high school and college” then the colleges would no longer have the default “cover” in holistic admissions practices to reject high-scorers in favor of whatever the demographic flavor-of-day is.</p>
<p>^ The SAT a crucial factor that restores balance. Some schools, for example, may be extremely lenient. On the other hand, a private school offering the same course may assign much more homework and have a stricter curve. I suppose the ACT serves this purpose as well, but from a student with two 36’s and only a 2240, I feel that the SAT tests actual <em>thinking</em> more.</p>
<p>^^only because you are conditioned to think that the SAT tests ‘thinking’ more. The reality is that a kid who scores a 36 and a 2240 should be capable of completing a college degree and that is really all that is important. It does not tell a college that the 36/2240 kid is going to have a higher GPA than a 32/2100 kid at college graduation or that the 36/2240 will excel in all the classes over a 32/2100 kid or that the 32/2100 has higher critical thinking capabilities…that is why there is no reason to pick one student over the other based solely on test scores.</p>
<p>Nope, nothing to do with being conditioned, but everything to do with analyzing the two tests. While it does NOT mean that students who do better on the ACT than on the SAT are “poor thinkers” it remains that the SAT does reward critical thinking and reasoning over speed. There are few differences in the overall tests, but those are the primary differences. </p>
<p>All in all, the bottom line is that students should try the test that corresponds the best to their own “aptitude” and not worry about comparisons or concordance tables. Especially since the schools no longer make any distinction.</p>
<p>I have just perused this site very quickly so maybe this has already come up but aligning the SAT with the core standards just puts the education of our children in the hands of a very few. The core standards are being taught by materials put out by one publisher - the same one that is also responsible for the new teacher certification tests in our state coming out next year. It’s going to be a real cookie cutter educational model. Glad my kids are grown.</p>
And what of the budding English major who has very little math skills? </p>
<p>Both, in order to succeed in college, need the other skills. An effective mathematician/scientist/engineer still needs to know how to communicate effectively.</p>
<p>The words are not that obscure - ask any kid who takes Latin (or any of the romance languages for that matter). By the time we covered what must have been considered advanced grammar in 11th grade, I had already learned most of it in my Spanish classes, as did my D in her Latin classes. The kids who didn’t take a foreign language struggled with many of the concepts. The same applied to vocabulary - most of the strange vocab on the SAT can be figured out either by its roots, or from context. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? When a student reads a textbook, is he going to flip to the glossary or have a dictionary open next to the text, or is he going to learn to figure most of it out from context, and refer to those resources only when he can’t do so?</p>
<p>Let me correct the Higher Ed Morning blogger …</p>
<p>In “Crossing the Finish Line,” co-authors William Bowen, Matthew Chingos and Michael McPherson analyzed the educational records of more than 200,000 students who entered four-year PUBLIC colleges in 1999.</p>
<p>The devil is in the (small) details! This said why would anyone find it odd that the higher the GPA, the better chance there is for a student to be better prepared for college lige and perform adequately? And, just about the same could be said for students who demonstrate a superior performance on the SAT or ACT? </p>
<p>Would it really surprise anyone that the best predictor of academic success might be a combination of GPA and standardized tests? Something that incidentally is pretty much a standard yardstick at every school that uses a holistic approach in its admissions’ policies. </p>
<p>The GPA seems to be the most reliable factor- it’s determined by four years of work, rather than by a 4 hour test- but what if one school is much more lenient or strict than another? How can you compare an “A” from a public school in an impoverished area that scores low on the high school proficiency exam, to an “A” from a strict elite boarding school with teachers who hold Ph’D’s?</p>
<p>Oh please. It was just about time for the College Board to update their SAT anyway. Last time it was done was to add the writing section (I totally agree with xiggi that this was in response to the UC/Cal state schools that were thinking about discontinuing the SAT as a requirement…big waste of time and money). </p>
<p>They are using the Common Core as their reason, but if that hadn’t been the case, something else would have been. And what took them so long? The Common Core is being implemented now…if they really wanted to align with this, those standards have been out and available for two years.</p>
<p>@Catria says: These tests weren’t meant to discriminate at the extremes…</p>
<p>That’s an excellent observation, and one that I think is lost on a lot of people, including, unfortunately, some who are working in college admissions.</p>
<p>The SAT had a pretty high ceiling when it had analogy questions (highly g-loaded) and before it was recentered. Mensa and other high IQ societies accept scores on the old (but not the current) SAT as a qualification for membership.</p>
<p>They used to do a much better job at that. The mid 90’s recentering resulted in a stupendous expansion of the kids scoring 800s in math and verbal. </p>
<p>My read on all these changes is that they are aimed at creating a measurement that allows more flexibility to admissions officers. Nothing makes them more unhappy than seeing someone whom they wish to admit, and finding an SAT or ACT score that marginalizes the applicant (and the school’s ranking, if they admit him anyway). If they could get away with it, they’d have separate tests for different categories of applicants.</p>
<p>^I agree. My hope is that at the very least they would make the math and verbal portions equivalent in difficulty. IOW, I think there are far more students maxing out on the math portion than the verbal portion. I am sure this is done to allow the elites to admit those they want to admit without appearing as though they have to lower the standard to do so.</p>
<p>Maybe kids should do enough reading that they aren’t flummoxed by the vocabulary. My kids did not study for the SAT CR section at all, but found it a breeze. More sci-fi! More fantasy! Less facebook!</p>