<p>
+1, Sir Mint.</p>
<p>+3 my dear Niquii. Have some rep.</p>
<p>Unfortunately I have to spread it around. Serenity, want some?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can always care less until you couldn’t care less…</p>
<p>But if they are college readiness tests, why not replicate college work conditions? Untimed, collaborative, but still graded individually.</p>
<p>This does still call upon your intelligence and past memory–each person in this collaborative group will have to speak up at one point. Colleges not only learn how well you do in collaborative environments, but also, to a degree less than that of the timed and restrictive tests, how much you yourself can bring to your table. And then imagine a reflective portion at the end, in which you reflect on your and others’ performance in said group.</p>
<p>That, to me, is a fair display of how a student works, how much they know, and their metacognitive reflection abilities. Colleges need to know that students can spot their own mistakes and commit to fixing them in the future, which a collaborative/reflective examination environment would provide.</p>
<p>It seems radical, but is it not more logical since the exams test your performance in college?</p>
<p>I’m a little discouraged listening to the people who so blindly follow what they’re given. You admit it’s unfair (some of you), but make no indication that you will act. I don’t know about you, but when I see something I know is not right, I will act on it. We’ll see how far I can get on this standardized testing issue. :)</p>
<p>Except everyone would be huddled around the smart kids, bribing the quizbowlers, slipping chalk into the proctors coffee, looking up the answers on College Confidential, and tweeting about how they just wrote a 12 essay whilst being illiterate. </p>
<p>It would no longer be a standardized test, because each student would have a unique testing experience. It encounters the same problems and untrustworthiness as GPA.</p>
<p>It is not logical; it is Khmer-Rouge testing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your absurdity leaves me no choice. I am flipping the switch so that the train hits me.</p>
<p>Aha–then strategic grouping. One would be required to report GPAs, and the testing agency would group students automatically. Each room could work collaboratively, so long as the proctor does not give answers. Students of extremely diverse academic background would be grouped.</p>
<p>And collaboration would be part of the score. The proctor could score the students throughout as they participate (or don’t, for that matter).</p>
<p>And the test WOULD be entirely different. On the math section, there would be fewer questions but they would be more time-consuming. Mostly word problems. English sections would seldom ask about punctuation and more about vocabulary and grammar. Reading and Science would be the same because they already fit with the collaborative concept. The essay section would be such that you would have sources (it’s stupid that you don’t already have sources and are expected to write a “persuasive” essay…they got it right with AP Lang) and collaboration would only be allowed during brainstorming. After that, you are on your own for writing the essay.</p>
<p>And who said anything about electronics? Internet access is not necessary if there is collaboration going on. It’s one or the other–if you’re working alone, internet. In a group, pure collaboration.</p>
<p>This idea may just work…</p>
<p>Oh dear, I am crying with laughter. You must be joking. Collaborative testing? </p>
<p>Who needs a testing-double anymore? You can just hire a testing-twin. </p>
<p>I will probably write a more serious response later, but you may need a few more refinements. :)</p>
<p>I’m glad you find it hilarious that I’m trying to find solutions to an obvious problem I see.</p>
<p>You are undoubtedly going nowhere with your blind acceptance of the system.</p>
<p>Whether or not you agree with me is another matter entirely; but “crying of laughter” is a response I would expect from an utter moron. I may have misinterpreted exactly what you were at first since you come across as educated, but that doesn’t always mean that you are a free thinker.</p>
<p>I’m sorry you are not blessed with the gift of radical thought, the same radical thought that so many in the history of math and science were laughed at for having but that led said mathematicians and scientists to the greatest discoveries.</p>
<p>But see, they had to take a timed test in 3/4 different subjects before attending university and eventually coming to their discoveries.</p>
<p>Thank you, have a nice day.</p>
<p>"It indicates that:
- You can work well under pressure.
- You manage your time well.
- You know how to study.
- You have a good command of algebra and geometry; you can think logically.
- You have a good command of English grammar rules and vocabulary; you know how to put a decent sentence together.</p>
<p>High test scores typically go along with other stats that confirm these points."</p>
<p>1.) Some people don’t really experience pressure when they wake up in the morning (possibly earlier than they go to school). The SAT/ACT doesn’t implement pressure on the test takers.
2.) I disagree with this point. I’m not sure our it indicates you manage time well when you take into account: Reading speed, writing speed, and the length of the passage and direction. It’s not about managing your time wisely, it’s about how fast you can finish.
3.) I disagree with this point too. Some people are natural test takers and can get a high score without studying. And also not everyone can study such as a poor person with no access to internet or someone who’s busy doing other stuffs.
4.)I agree with this part. But they tend to “trick” test takers. And let’s be honest most of the stuff on there you may never see in college.
5.)Your strongest point.</p>
<p>Comparing a high school test or let say Finals, is like comparing a an elephant to a mammoth: you could see they’re nearly similar but both have different size and a different set of husks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol omg. it’s not a blind acceptance of the system. and it’s hardly even a system. collegeboard might be corrupt and inefficient in weird ways, but their tests <em>must</em> serve their purpose to the universities pretty well. </p>
<p>if collectively the universities were not satisfied with the assessments (it’s true that some aren’t) they would lobby collegeboard to change them. the assessments have to be relevant to the universities to be successful, or no one would bother taking them. and if they are relevant to the universities then i think we can trust they work fairly well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Universities are the ones that only care about letting the best students in. It is only the test takers who would actually proclaim reform of the testing system. The testing systems we have now is outdated. Our way of education is outdated.</p>
<p>“I’m sorry you are not blessed with the gift of radical thought, the same radical thought that so many in the history of math and science were laughed at for having but that led said mathematicians and scientists to the greatest discoveries.”</p>
<p>For every inspirational story about someone thinking outside the box, there are many more dismal failures - which is fine, because that’s how science works. We learn through trial and error. I’m certainly not trying to discourage free thought, but just because something is radical doesn’t mean it’s any good.</p>
<p>Look at Harvard’s admissions test from 1869 lol
<a href=“http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf[/url]”>http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf</a>
I’d much rather have the SAT than this.
Edit:
This was the material covered in Columbia’s exam:
<a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50A16FE385811738DDDA10A94DB405B8885F0D3[/url]”>http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50A16FE385811738DDDA10A94DB405B8885F0D3</a>
Good luck with all those languages!</p>
<p>That’s from a different time period where education was far different than it is today though. In 1869, education was almost solely for the wealthy. A normal person could almost never afford college in the 1800s.</p>
<p>I think they’re necessary evils, but we should no be forced to be $50+ for them, or at least pay to send them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm, why so serious? I suppose that I overestimated the lightheartedness of your post. I thought you were entertaining, rather than earnestly proposing, a solution to the SAT. I apologize, it was not very nice of me to laugh at your theory. After contemplating whether studying is immoral and if the SAT should be untimed, the Kumbaya reformation struck me as the piece de resistance to a day of iconoclasm. </p>
<p>However, you jumped rather quickly from JuniorMint to utter moron. You may be something of a sure-shot at first impressions, but when you suggested that I am uneducated, I sniffled a little and cried inside. That hurt my feelings. I am not an automaton Zurg sent by College Board to stifle dissent and enforce collectivization. My opinions on the SAT are hardly enough to disqualify me from being a free-thinker or a radical-theorist, especially because I was clearly kidding around. </p>
<p>Maybe the status quo is there not because it is a conspiracy theory to preserve elitists and close-minded progress-murderers, but because it is the best system established thus far.</p>
<p>Have a nice day!</p>
<p>By the way purmou, if you are 15, have you taken the SAT yet?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>if the universities thought the tests didn’t help them determine who the best students were, they would care for them though. but most of them value the SAT or ACT for admissions quite a lot.</p>
<p>yeah and the SAT is kind of linked to our education system. if education is reformed, the SAT might no longer be very appropriate. but i think it is fairly well optimized for the increasingly outdated education system that we have.</p>
<p>I keep giving rep around but the stupid socialistic Rep system wont let me give it to Junior and Ald0Fig!!!</p>
<p>Oh by the way, according to what ive seen, the ACT is now more popular than the SAT.<br>
So the ACT is bigger than the SAT.
So the ACT is more Evil than the SAT.</p>
<p>Think about it…</p>