IF you use test preparation

Test Preparation
21

<p>The only thing that disgusts me is that privileged areas have MUCH higher percentages of people registered as "special" who get extra time on the SAT with respect to the national average. </p>

<p>I've accepted the reality of a free market, and the advantages wealth can provide. They no longer bother me. </p>

<p>Cheating is still cheating, however, in my mind. </p>

<p>That's something I wouldn't equivocate about. </p>

<p>I feel like you equate the two(getting extra time and paying for prep), but I don't. Ppl can pay high school tutors or prep in whatever way they want; I sort of understand ur point since I imagine you view these things as the same. I just don't.</p>

22

<p>"Depends how you define the purpose of the test. I think the test is meant to provide colleges a metric to determine the smartest students. Test prep skews the results in favor of the wealthy at the expense of the poor."</p>

<p>That's nice. If adcoms don't mind test prep courses being taken, then your opinion really doesn't matter at all. There is one purpose of the test: That which the adcoms like. Whatever they say goes, because the test is being created for their benefit (and to generate profit for CB). So while you say the purpose of the test is to give a metric, the adcoms say that it's part of their application. I would let them decide how they want to use it. They don't mind test-prep courses. I don't see why there's any discussion at all.</p>

<p>"Really, you need me to Google some stats for you to admit that test prep raises scores? Maybe the problem here is deeper than I thought..."</p>

<p>I would LOVE that. For every result you bring up, I'll find one that says that prep courses raise the SAT scores by less than fifty points (an insignificant change, yes?). I have not seen any study that suggests that prep courses raise scores a lot; all show otherwise. Yes, show them to me. And not from the Kaplan or PR websites, please.</p>

<p>"EXCEPT: Tyler's parents make $250k/year more than Pepe's, and Tyler gets sent to Princeton Review classes, while Pepe is forced to do his best SAT preparation at the local public library. As a result, Tyler scores 2350 on the SAT while Pepe scores 2130. Tyler gains admission to School XYZ, Pepe does not. SOLELY as a function of parental income."</p>

<p>Flaw 1: The PR class leads to the difference in scores, which is an assumption you haven't proved.</p>

<p>Flaw 2: The admissions decision was made purely because of the SAT score, an assumption you haven't proved.</p>

<p>Flaw 3: Adcoms know who can afford test prep and who cannot.</p>

23

<p>Do you live in a cave? Since when does taking PR classes ensure higher score increases than borrowing SAT books from a library? In what way does this diminish the purpose of the test? The existence of these test preparatory programs also give way to the distribution of, as you mentioned, SAT prep books in local libraries- Thus giving everyone access to these testing "secrets". These preparatory programs, especially the private tutoring, may have an edge in terms of the rate of improvement. However, keep in mind that the benefits of these "classes" are largely dependent on the individual taking the class. A lack of commitment or "intelligence" on behalf of the student would obviously render the classes useless. The poor can also go out and purchase a couple of SAT books or borrow them from the library, but many DON'T. Those who take the time to study the wide variety of SAT books available to them have no reason to complain. In the end it all comes down to whose committed- so if you still think that a student taking PR classes will significantly outscore a student studying Prep books, then your, as i mentioned earlier, deeply confused. The availability of prep books and testing programs have not defeat the purpose of the test, rather than minimize the margin of errors for each question. In which case there really much of a difference since it's just like a curve. Instead of crying about how the underprivileged stand no chance against the rich kids in Kaplan classes, do something about it. As kungfumaster mentioned, go tutor a poor kid. oh wait, wouldn't that make you somewhat responsible for this testing imbalance? There's a difference between paying for after school help and paying for a guaranteed admission into a college/university. </p>

<p>The SAT test has been RE MODIFIED as a result of the emergence of preparatory classes. Questions that have appeared on the exam 30 years ago are no longer in existence-why? one reason is BECAUSE GRAPHING CALCULATORS WERENT ALLOWED IN THAT PERIOD. These calculators provide as much help as the preparatory classes, and its not much. tutors can't teach you intelligence, you either have it or you don't. Super computers won't help you solve SAT problems- and money sure as hell won't make you better than any hardworking and smart individual. This is how a capitalist society works, and this is how the world works. i rest my case.</p>

24

<p>


Whatever the adcoms say goes? Wow. I knew people on CC were focused on getting into college but some of you make it seem like you'd jump off a bridge if only a Harvard adcom told you to. They don't mind test prep classes -- that much I'll give you. But even if the adcoms told applicants not to take them, how would they ever know whether the applicants had listened? With the system in place as it currently stands, there's not much else for an adcom to say than that they're OK with test prep. </p>

<p>But I maintain that test prep classes distort whatever meritocratic properties are inherent in the college admissions process and move them toward a rich-get-richer scenario. It benefits the wealthy applicant and the school itself at the expense of the poorer student who is forced to matriculate at a second-choice school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For every result you bring up, I'll find one that says that prep courses raise the SAT scores

[/quote]
'Nuff said.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Flaw 1: The PR class leads to the difference in scores, which is an assumption you haven't proved.

[/quote]
Listen to yourself. Your only argument is that classes are not more valuable preparation than a book would be. This barely even makes sense, and it is at best a specious claim that you have not substantiated.

[quote]

Flaw 2: The admissions decision was made purely because of the SAT score, an assumption you haven't proved.

[/quote]
It's not an assumption I have to PROVE -- I created the scenario. I said to assume all other things equal. Doesn't PR offer classes in reading comprehension?

[quote]
Flaw 3: Adcoms know who can afford test prep and who cannot.

[/quote]
So they assume every wealthy applicant has taken test prep? Puh-lease.</p>

25

<p>"Whatever the adcoms say goes? Wow."</p>

<p>That's right.</p>

<p>"I knew people on CC were focused on getting into college but some of you make it seem like you'd jump off a bridge if only a Harvard adcom told you to."</p>

<p>Stop strawmanning me, and adding ad hominem attacks just to make sure you are indeed using logical fallacies.</p>

<p>"They don't mind test prep classes -- that much I'll give you. But even if the adcoms told applicants not to take them, how would they ever know whether they had?"</p>

<p>That's irrelevant. Adcoms don't mind them. The end. That's all that matters.</p>

<p>"With the system in place as it currently stands, there's not much to do."</p>

<p>Thanks for establishing that you were just trolling, and there's no purpose to this thread at all. Discussion is fine, but it's nice if it can at least lead somewhere. You just made the discussion insignificant.</p>

<p>"But I maintain that test prep classes distort the whatever meritocratic properties are inherent in the college admissions process and move them toward a rich-get-richer scenario."</p>

<p>If adcoms don't mind, then it doesn't matter. Really. Given that the test is used BY THEM for whatever purpose THEY DESIRE, their opinion is the only one that matters.</p>

<p>"'Nuff said."</p>

<p>Ooh! More selective quoting! It's one of my favorites! Read the rest of my sentence, silly. Any fool can pick up a book and raise his score by 50 points, which means that the prep class does NOTHING. You can do not extra prep and have scores that differ by 50 points doing the same thing on each test. That increase is insignificant.</p>

<p>"Listen to yourself. Your only argument is that classes are not more valuable preparation than a book would be. This barely even makes sense, and it is at best a specious claim that you have not substantiated."</p>

<p>Hello? Are you oblivious to your own inability to form a coherent argument? I never claimed that, please stop putting words in my mouth. YOU said that prep courses raised scores. I said that you hadn't proved that.</p>

<p>You still haven't. I see no evidence. The onus is on YOU, my dear. Not me.</p>

<p>"It's not an assumption I have to PROVE -- I created the scenario. I said to assume all other things equal. Doesn't PR offer classes in reading comprehension?"</p>

<p>You never said that. You said they looked the same on paper. Do you know how the process even works? Interview, essays? Hello?</p>

<p>Man, it's like you post and then forget what you write entirely. Try re-reading your posts, once in a while.</p>

<p>The scenario is so contrived that it is useless. For all we know, the poorer child could gain admission for overcoming obstacles. You're speaking as if the scenario is fact and could happen, when we don't even know if it's realistic or not.</p>

<p>"So they assume every weathly applicant has taken test prep? Puh-lease."</p>

<p>I didn't say that. I said that they know who can and cannot afford test prep.</p>

<p>I suggest more reading, less fabrication.</p>

26

<p>


I misspoke. Please see my edit. I meant to say there's nothing for adcoms to do.</p>

<p>


Again, if you're wholly self-interested and perfectly fine with poor kids getting screwed over, sure.</p>

<p>


Perhaps you should learn what statistical significance really means. Here is an academic paper by researchers at Duke, Emory, and OSU, which states, in part: "The use of books and other study aids appears to have no significant beneficial impact on scores, but all other forms of college exam prep have very large effects, with Private Classes increasing SAT scores by an average of 60 points."</p>

<p>The</a> Myth of Meritocracy? SAT Preparation, College Enrollment, Class and Race in the United States</p>

<p>There are, I daresay, dozens of similar papers and studies just waiting for you to find.</p>

<p>


See above.</p>

<p>


You know what I meant to suggest. Do you honestly think that there are no decisions that can be attributed solely to scores? I've worked in an admissions office (NOT as an adcom), and you're fooling yourself if you discount the significance of test scores in relation to other admissions criteria.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I didn't say that. I said that they know who can and cannot afford test prep.

[/quote]
OK, they "know" who can afford it. How do they apply this magical data? Here's a clue: they don't at all.</p>

27

<p>"If all you're concerned with in the world is your own admission status at one particular college, then sure."</p>

<p>What are you talking about? If adcoms didn't care about the SAT at all, would it still exist? No. What is this "purpose" you talk about? The only purpose the SAT has is to be a tool for adcoms and a money-making idea for CB. The latter don't care how the test is used. The former do. The meaning, the significance, the importance, etc. are ALL determined solely by the adcoms, because they are the ones who use it.</p>

<p>Oh, and scholarships, etc., but let's stick to one thing for right now.</p>

<p>"Again, if you're wholly self-interested and perfectly fine with poor kids getting screwed over, sure."</p>

<p>I'm not self-centered, nor do I want poor kids to get screwed over. Remember, adcoms know the income level of the parents. Many colleges, including Amherst, adjust SAT scores to reflect socioeconomic levels.</p>

<p>"The use of books and other study aids appears to have no significant beneficial impact on scores, but all other forms of college exam prep have very large effects, with Private Classes increasing SAT scores by an average of 60 points."</p>

<p>An article from prep courses about the old SAT:
Study</a> Casts Doubt on the Benefits of S.A.T.-Coaching Courses - New York Times</p>

<p>Go on, give me another one. We'll exchange articles until someone can't find any more.</p>

<p>"See above."</p>

<p>See above.</p>

<p>"You know what I meant to suggest. Do you honestly think that there are no decisions that can be attributed solely to scores? I've worked in an admissions office (NOT as an adcom), and you're fooling yourself if you discount the significance of test scores in relation to other admissions criteria."</p>

<p>Of course they can. I'm not fooling myself, I'm hoping that my SAT score will get me into many colleges. But I don't delude myself to think that adcoms don't consider everything in context. I know what you meant, but what you meant was an impossibility. Adcoms don't ignore opportunities that are deprived to some because of socioeconomic standing.</p>

<p>"OK, they "know" who can afford it. How do they apply this magical data? Here's a clue: they don't at all."</p>

<p>Prove it. They know the parents' incomes. Would you like me to dig up quotes by adcoms that show that your statement is false? Ask, and ye shall receive.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
You are not only participating in the weakening of the test itself and the meaningfulness of its results, but also perpetuating the selfsame class system that many of you claim to abhor.

[/quote]

I completely agree, but I'm not about to argue about it.</p>

29

<p>Why is anyone even bothering with this silliness?</p>

30

<p>Boys and girls, don't be naive or narrow-minded. Don't be naive in thinking SAT scores aren't viewed very importantly in the college admissions process and can't change the decision between admission and rejection. Don't be naive in thinking that SAT courses (and especially private tutoring) don't raise SAT scores. That being said, don't be narrow-minded either. Poor students already have a disadvantage way before fall senior year. They didn't go to the best high schools, don't have great gc's, don't have college educated parents, can't afford a lot of colleges, etc.-indeed a 200 point difference on the SAT between a rich student is likely the least of their worries. Luckily, top colleges give more leeway on SAT scores when a student comes from a rather underprivileged background and require almost top-notch SAT scores from rich students. If you don't believe me, I can find a video interview with the Dean of Admissions from Amherst college on this issue. He basically said that the SAT is very important for wealthy kids, and its purpose varies for less-wealthy kids. With all this in consideration, it would not behoove a wealthy kid to refuse to prepare for the SATs because admissions officers will ask more of them. “For of those to whom much is given, much is required”. Bible (Luke 12:48)</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
What are you talking about? If adcoms didn't care about the SAT at all, would it still exist? No. What is this "purpose" you talk about? The only purpose the SAT has is to be a tool for adcoms and a money-making idea for CB. The latter don't care how the test is used. The former do. The meaning, the significance, the importance, etc. are ALL determined solely by the adcoms, because they are the ones who use it.

[/quote]
Part of the purpose of the SAT, as intended by Carl Brigham and its other original creators, was to democratize the higher education process in the United States, and to give the Ivy League a method to analyze students from across America in relation to one another, rather than admitting most students from New England prep schools like they had in the past. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not self-centered, nor do I want poor kids to get screwed over. Remember, adcoms know the income level of the parents. Many colleges, including Amherst, adjust SAT scores to reflect socioeconomic levels.

[/quote]
I don't have evidence for this, but I would wager that MOST colleges do not do this. Maybe it's corrected for by a "class diversity" factor, but not in most cases. What about the poor white kid?</p>

<p>
[quote]
An article from prep courses about the old SAT:
Study Casts Doubt on the Benefits of S.A.T.-Coaching Courses - New York Times

[/quote]
You're really going to cite a study funded by the College Board itself? Obviously they want their test to seem as fair as possible... and anyway, EVEN that study shows a larger increase in scores by coached test takers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Go on, give me another one. We'll exchange articles until someone can't find any more.

[/quote]
Here is another scholarly paper that does not agree with your hypothesis. </p>

<p>An</a> Analysis of the Impact of Commercial Test Preparation Courses on SAT Scores -- Sesnowitz et al. 19 (3): 429 -- American Educational Research Journal</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course they can. I'm not fooling myself, I'm hoping that my SAT score will get me into many colleges. But I don't delude myself to think that adcoms don't consider everything in context. I know what you meant, but what you meant was an impossibility. Adcoms don't ignore opportunities that are deprived to some because of socioeconomic standing.

[/quote]
Sure, but they often simply automatically reject applications that doesn't meet their score criteria. In that case, the poorer student that could not afford prep is at a definite disadvantage.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Prove it. They know the parents' incomes. Would you like me to dig up quotes by adcoms that show that your statement is false? Ask, and ye shall receive.

[/quote]
If anything they're more likely to admit wealthier students, all other things equal. That way they can offer less financial aid and be assured a higher yield.</p>

32

<p>"Part of the purpose of the SAT, as intended by Carl Brigham and its other original creators, was to democratize the higher education process in the United States, and to give the Ivy League a method to analyze students from across America in relation to one another, rather than admitting most students from New England prep schools like they had in the past."</p>

<p>In other words, to use in college admissions. If the adcoms are aware of all forms of preparation, then their opinion on preparation determines whether prep is or is not appropriate. Because they are the ones who use the SAT.</p>

<p>"You're really going to cite a study funded by the College Board itself? Obviously they want their test to seem as fair as possible... and anyway, EVEN that study shows a larger increase in scores by coached test takers."</p>

<p>No, no, no. The increase was not big. Again, we're looking for increases that couldn't occur naturally, i.e. people taking the test twice and getting two different scores.</p>

<p>"Here is another scholarly paper that does not agree with your hypothesis."</p>

<p>Testing:</a> Impact of Test Preparation Programs: Information from Answers.com</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the relevant section is not cited, but there is a bibliography (which includes Sesnowitz's paper).</p>

<p>"Sure, but they often simply automatically reject applications that doesn't meet their score criteria. In that case, the poorer student that could not afford prep is at a definite disadvantage."</p>

<p>Which schools? There's a huge difference between state schools and HYPS. HYPS wouldn't, unless the score was abysmally low. With state schools, we're still talking about really low scores here. But test prep is not the only way in which poor people are disadvantaged, as Cervantes pointed out.</p>

<p>"If anything they're more likely to admit wealthier students, all other things equal. That way they can offer less financial aid and be assured a higher yield."</p>

<p>Then why are there less wealthy students at top college and universities at all? Okay statement, but woefully unsubstantiated.</p>