<p>Before I write the rest of my post, I'd like to point out that Maine's proposal to the federal government for the SAT to be a measurement of student success was NOT approved and is therefore back to the drawing board. Under NCLB, states are required to utilize a test that tracks student achievement, NOT reasoning ability.</p>
<p>With that being said, I'd like to respond to:</p>
<p>stalker- I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Your comment about the SAT correlating to freshman year success is incorrect and actually very invalid. Admission to some of the top schools in the country do not even require SAT / ACT scores. For example, Bates and Bowdoin (which are top LACs in the country and also happen to be in Maine do not even require these tests for admission). This New York Times article speaks to that effect: </p>
<p>oracle- I must disagree with you that the SATs / College Board are surmountable as a wide statement (and anyone who feels that this test is fair to students as a blanket bar of achievement). I took a similar approach to the test as you did. I took a prep course, had a few books and took 6 full length practice tests on Saturday mornings. My scores barely increased. With that being said, these scores ARE OK to compare geographical areas (i e an underachieving urban district to an upscale suburban area). With that being said, it is not fair to compare them to other students. The single most important piece of information for college admissions is a transcript followed by the decile students rank in their class. </p>
<p>MarathonMan- you raise a fantastic point. CO + IL require the ACT since it is a measure of achievement. Meanwhile, MI is in the process of implementing them. The ACT is a better measurement.</p>
<p>Yep, the news is new. I am not so sure how good idea it is to use the SAT for assessment, but using it very well may encourage college applications from students whose parents didn't attend college.</p>
<p>From my house, applications are going to McGill, Macalester, Smith, Brown, NYU and UMass-Amherst - unfortunately, no schools in the great state of Maine. I would really like an application to the University of Maine which has a good honors college and also to one of the Maine privates, but like many Maine kids, there's interest in looking outside the state. </p>
<p>I was accepted ED to Colorado College in Colorado Springs. I applied EA and was accepted to UVM, St. Mike's, and Babson and looked at everything from Bowdoin, to Dartmouth, to Hamilton to Trinity (CT) but the block plan and location won me over.</p>
<p>One of the advantages of going with one of these companies for your student testing is that they are equipped to handle the load. </p>
<p>In Michigan, schools used to get their test scores (from the statewide test) back months after students took them--which didn't leave the schools much time to make meaningful changes in curriculum or teaching for those students who needed it. The advantage of the ACT (or SAT) is that the turnaround is quick. It may be objectionable to some to spend state money on outside testing agencies, but what you may get in terms of efficiency and standardization may be worth it.</p>
<p>I'm not sure where you're from, but in CT the percentage of people taking the ACTs is steadily on the rise. 3 times the number of states that use the SAT as a grad requirement use the ACT. Furthermore, an increasing number of small selective liberal arts schools are not requiring either test. Although I think you're right that on the whole that testing is here to stay, I'd say the College Board is about to get a real run for their money - literally.</p>
<p>Would it be a good idea to judge a person, however standardized, on just math and english? Also this issue can also bring out the worst in socio-economic differences. People can't compete in equal settings. While the more affluent gain access to better testing preparation and beforehand knowledge, some people wouldn't even know what the testing categories are. Don't we already have enough "standardized" testing in school?</p>
<p>I don't know what everyone is complaining about. Think about it, if there are more students taking the ACT/SAT than ever before that means if you managed to score decently on either test, your percentile ranking will be much higher than before (due to so much more students filling in the lower-percentile spots). This is a Machiavellian way to look at the issue, but it helps the mediocre kids at the expense of the dumbs (sarcasm?)</p>
<p>re oracle1's SAT comments. No study is required to get a perfect 2400 on the SAT for some rare individuals who only have gone over one practice test. I checked out several SAT and ACT books from the library for son's use, the only parts he MAY have read were the strategy pages. I also know of 8th graders in the Midwest Talent Search who have had perfect scores. Most students have to work hard to get the scores that a few can do without study, but there are gifted kids out there. The best use of one's SAT study time is in learning the material presented by the schools and beyond; this is not the same as getting an A in a course. Those who study hard to get the knowledge deserve the good test scores as much as those for whom the knowledge/reasoning power comes easily. BTW, my son got the magic 2400 after having taken the test before, his teachers did not give A's unless the homework was done and handed in, therefore his grades were not all A's. Also, we're in the Midwest, where most do not bother with the SAT and there is no teaching to the test by the schools. End of sermon.</p>
<p>It seems like the SAT works for Maine and its population better than not doing it. I hadn't thought about the students who are pleasantly surprised by their results, hopefully this will make a long term difference in the state's college attendance rates. I had thought about the kids who should not consider college being required to take the test, not the other pool. It is easy to forget how much the individual states do vary, and why national control of so many things should not be attempted. BTW, remember the SAT and ACT are private, not governmental, even though they are used on a national basis.</p>
<p>wis75- I totally agree with you. I was part of a 7th grade talent search a few years back and got 1240/1600 by only doing the one practice booklet they give you. Good score for a 7th grader! But in school, I always got mid 80s to low 90s because I never did homework. School grades are really important (although I understand that they can vary from school to school and state to state). They show more that just what the SAT measures, like speaking skills and responsibility.</p>
<p>How about almost-mandatory testing? The default being that you take it, but you can sign a form "waiving your free opportunity t o take it" or something. Then most people would take it and get the discussed benefits, but it wouldn't be forced.</p>
<p>I got a perfect score on my High School Exit Exam, which had a writing section (w/essay), math section, and reading section. I hope I can get in Harvard now!!</p>
<p>"Van Buren will give its 40 juniors a special breakfast when they arrive and a pizza party after the test ends. Taking the SAT earns the juniors the following Monday off and "senior privileges," like being able to leave campus during the school day, Corbin said."</p>
<p>It's not like they expell you from school if you refuse to take it.</p>
<p>I personally think it is unfair to ACT and the students that would like to take it instead of the SAT.</p>
<p>I am assuming the state is covering the cost of taking the test? And when you consider the cost of formulating, administring, scoring etc their state assesment test, I bet it's a bargain. And has the added bonus of the kids taking it more seriously and changing a few minds that thought they didn't have what it took to get into college. I think it's a great idea. Wish my state would do it.</p>