<p>Maine is currently the only state where taking the SAT is mandatory for high school juniors, but not everyone is sold on the idea:</p>
<p>Well, shame on Maine for filling the coffers of the college board with the public's money. Just as many institutions are seeing the SATs as an increasingly imperfect measurement of one's ability to succeed in college, along comes a state government granting the seal of approval to it as a one-size-fits-all assessment....just as more and more colleges are NOT requiring it...The money going to the college board would much better be spent on more teachers and improved opportunities/curriculum enrichment.</p>
<p>oh what a great argument against standardization.... yeah lets measure student capability at our nations higher level institutions based on blind assessments of over valued inflated meaningless GPA, and since your average student coming out of high school has lived such a fulfilling life lets measure his acceptance college based on life long commitments and accomplishments, without the aide of an assessment that a college can use with its own discretion to select from a myriad of otherwise qualified applicants... oh joy</p>
<p>A friend of mine who teaches remedial English at a local CC has horror stories to tell about grammar atrocities & sheer ignorance. Her students complain "Why are you so hard on me? I got As and Bs in high school!"</p>
<p>I am not a friend of blanket testing, but it seems this would show kids what they do and do not know. But on the other hand, SAT standards may be too high for some of them, so testing would be pointless...</p>
<p>Michigan is implementing a mandatory ACT requirement for juniors. Currently, there is a statewide test in place; it is widely considered to be worthless. In response to criticism of this test, beginning this spring, every public school in the state will administer --- during the school day --- the ACT (AND some additional tests, such as Work Keys & a couple state-made tests).</p>
<p>I think it's a waste of time and money. It will be interesting to see how low each school's average ACT becomes now that EVERYONE --- including special ed & ESL students --- will have to take the ACT.</p>
<p>This is all in response to No Child Left Behind, by the way. In addition, students will qualify for a $4000 scholarship if they perform at a certain level (the scholarship is for use in in-state public or private colleges only).</p>
<p>Perfect point. Without standerization \ there will be no standards and as and bs in high school will translate to mystifyed expressions on students faces as they stare at their failing 1st semester english papers. Whats the big deal its a test, you can take it again if you do bad. If you have other strengths show them on the application. If a college doesnt want them, or feels they are unnessary let them not ask for the scores. IF enough colleges all of a sudden decide they are going to now do admissions on a trivial and random guessing game based on only student GPAs then god help collegeboard, the excexs there might go hungrey.</p>
<p>I think it's a good idea; it forces kids who otherwise wouldn't consider college to at least give it a thought. I don't buy what babar is saying about how the SAT is an imperfect measurement. By and large, it distinguishes good students from bad ones. Special needs students could benefit from a change in policy, but for your average student, the SAT is a good measure. Certainly, it is better than forcing colleges to intuit the difference between an A at one high school and a B at another.</p>
<p>I live in Maine and took the mandatory SAT in my junior year. I think it was very beneficial to the students who were not considering going to college beforehand. I go to a school with a senior class of 325, and hardly half of us go to 4-year colleges, and when some students (whose plans did not include postsecondary education) got their SAT scores back, they said to themselves "hey, my scores aren't that bad. I bet I could could actually get into college."
the mandatory SAT gave many of my peers some assurance and hope. It's a great idea.</p>
<p>I think should get rid of it, it spointless and just a way to make college board filthy rich.</p>
<p>I don't see what the big problem is; my state requires the ACT and I'm pretty sure we're not the only one. Most of the students who truly don't care about college just fill in all C's on their answer sheets anyway.</p>
<p>Our popular Maine paper, The Sun Journal, had an article about this today. The commissioner of this porogram believes the switch to the SAT is having a positive impact on students, who didn't understand the relevance of the "Maine Educational Assessment" (MEAs), but take the SATs "very seriously." The commissioner also said that "We think it's changing the thinking of many students in their senior year."</p>
<p>mandatory testing is a great idea. for those who are against SAT/ACT, go invent a test that tests better, and then come back whining about life.</p>
<p>The SAT is the best alternative to those meaningless MEAs in Maine. Students actually care about this test and take it seriously. The testing day back in April, being administered on a Saturday, also allowed teachers three more days of class time which they otherwise would have lost. Though the NCLB Act has many flaws, this is really the optimal way to deal with it.</p>
<p>I live in Michigan and believe that mandatory ACTs (not SATs) is a good idea, but only for people who were planning on going to college beforehand. I know from experience that if someone isn't planning on going to college, they probably won't change their minds, and it's best to save taxpayer money in that respect.</p>
<p>I think SAT is a good standard to distinguish between an A of one school and an A of another school for college admission purposes, but I would be ****ed if I didn't want to go to college and had to pay 30 bucks for this test.</p>
<p>In Illiniois, it's mandatory for all juniors to take the ACT. I think it's a good idea; it makes all the kids who wouldn't necessarily care required to take it and possibly see their potential.</p>
<p>Here in Missouri, all students have to take a test called the MAP. The state uses the results of the MAP to help determine how state funding will be distributed among high schools. I think they should replace the MAP with the ACT or SAT. The ACT is a much better test than the MAP, students actually care about the ACT, and performing well on the ACT is very meaningful in college admissions whereas MAP scores don't mean anything. I got a perfect score on the MAP math test yet that will mean absolutely nothing to colleges. That's annoying.</p>
<p>To clarify: The state is paying for the SAT for all juniors and it replaces their state-based assessment exam for juniors.</p>
<p>I live in CO, which is the other state besides IL with an ACT requirement for juniors. For us, it replaces the state standardized tests we would otherwise have to take junior year. That seems like a win-win situation to me. The state gets its results to make comparisons etc, and the students take a test that can actually be used for something directly relevant to them.</p>
<p>I agree. Standardized tests aren't going anywhere. If kids are gonna have to take them, why not one that actually means something? Kill two birds with one stone.</p>