I can see that prepping might have been unfair pre-Khan Academy but since they have made their test prep available, I do not think it is an issue.
Not aware of any school that only looks at SAT score so if a kid only preps for the SAT and has little else, I do not think that they would get into a top college anyway.
There seems to be a lot of support for colleges building classes however they want to, especially private schools. For example, legacies and sports bring in alumni dollars, full stop.
Yes. I agree. Tricky thing is, it’s very hard to get rid of things. I’m against all of it. But I think I’m in a tiny minority in that respect.
You are correct.
I guess I would be ok with it if the privates were truly private and do not benefit from taxpayer funded monies. Although I guess, local govt’s constantly offer incentives to keep/attract businesses so why should colleges be penalized…
I don’t know of many private colleges (just talking Title IV colleges) that don’t receive government funds. Anyone?
hillsdale i think . . .
Hillsdale is not a Title IV school. (nor are many of the religious schools)
A few more thoughts (apologies if I am repeating from prior posts): the current SAT is not an aptitude test although it seems reasonable that some level of aptitude is involved in scoring at the high end. It supposedly measures academic skills against the Common Core standards. (College Board CEO David Coleman is most known as the “architect” of the Common Core.) CB sought a greater share of the state testing market. Perhaps this explains why the test difficulty tends to be easy for the top scorers, as the test may be more aimed at the middle, to meet state benchmarks rather than to distinguish among applicants to elite colleges. Presumably the top tail is a much smaller market than the middle, by sheer numbers of students, even though it receives a disproportionate amount of attention in the press and in forums like this one.
Coleman purposely made the test more preppable via Khan Academy so that students with a poor educational background could have access. From the very start, it was obvious that an inherent problem with measuring against school standards is that students in high schools that offer a lower quality education would be disadvantaged on the test. Prepping via Khan requires a certain level of personal initiative, among other things, though at least it is accessible.
On UChicago being test optional, if I recall, in the past couple of years around 15% applied TO. It will be interesting to hear how many applied TO this year. One can imagine that if half the pool of applicants apply without scores, that might alter the review process somewhat, compared to a mere 15%. Their statement on TO: “These tests can provide valuable information about a student which we and other colleges will consider alongside the other elements in a student’s application. We encourage students to take standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, and to share your scores with us if you think that they are reflective of your ability and potential.” So, not the be all, end all (which I don’t think anyone suggests), but “can provide valuable information.”
There probably is some correlation with natural aptitude at the higher end, although with extensive prep that gets murky.
My D21 (who fwiw is considered "highly gifted’ per a childhood IQ test) didn’t really prep for the SAT… save for a couple of Khan Academy practice tests and a few practice tests she took at home from the official SAT practice book to familiarize herself with the format in the weeks leading up to the test. We never considered doing official prep as she felt confident that she could score high enough on her own( she had taken the old version of the SAT as a 12 year old with zero prep). She scored a 1570 the first and only time she took it Oct 2019. Her school counselor asked if she was going to retake, and she was considering it (she got a 790 in math and wanted to have an 800 - stem major) but then COVID happened. For her it is was a ridiculously easy test (her own words). She now works as a tutor for a prep service.
I have two kids like that. No prep, top scores (99%).
@Happytimes2001 I have two kids too, but my second one will need to prep, for sure!
I agree with you about natural aptitude. My S is also just doing the daily SAT question and working through problems in the official SAT practice book. On his first timed practice test, he missed four questions. Extensive prep is not going to significantly affect his score and is a waste of energy that could be channeled elsewhere.
yes, definitely no need for extensive prep for some students. Luckily for my daughter, she didn’t have to prep, and with very busy schedule (at least pre-covid) as a ballet student she wouldn’t have had the time!
“Would you focus on who can answer the most simple multiple choice algebra/geometry/trig questions quickly without making careless errors?”
If the SAT Math or even Verbal were this simple, everybody would pretty much be getting over 700 which they don’t even after the test was made easier and the curve was made easier.
“Why should super STEM kid have to score equally well in reading as they do in math or science to be considered for top engineering programs (given a reasonable level of competency in reading/writing).”
First off, top stem programs the average verbal is 700 or higher, so kids at the top engineering places are not lopsided. They don’t have to score high but the competition will.
“Some people really seem to not understand what a PhD is.”
I’m not sure you do if you think exams are not there in a Phd.
“People, a PhD is not a giant test of the sum of knowledge in your field”
As 1NJparent pointed out, a qualifying exam is exactly that.
As for the GRE, you can remove it or make it optional or not have a cutoff score, I don’t think it’ll fundamentally change the makeup of students in Phd Physics programs. The students who do well in the GRE also will have research, recommendations, high GPA.
I’m curious to know the school type for those who scored in the Top 5% with no prep. I know at our average public school I’ve yet to see that happen. We get Top 5+%ers, but they tend to put significant time into prep even if it’s self-driven.
Back in my very good public school in the early 80s we had a class kids in my level had to take (required) that was SAT/ACT prep.
@Creekland My daughter goes to a highly ranked public high school (we have about 15-20 NMFs and usually 20-25 commended students each year with class size 330-350 so over 10 percent of the student population scores in the top 2 percent, at least for the PSAT). She is an anomaly however, as most of the high scorers at her school do, in fact, prep.
In the early years of the 2400 SAT, the writing section was viewed by some colleges (e.g. Harvard) as being more predictive of college performance than the other parts of the SAT (Harvard’s admissions director basically ranked AP/IB, SAT subject tests and SAT/ACT writing sections, HS GPA, SAT/ACT in that order of predictive ability). However, in the later years, test prep companies apparently reverse-engineered the grading rubric and taught students with weak English skills how to score highly on the writing section, so it presumably became less predictive and useful.
Some of the same objections (probably mainly the ones about SES-based access to preparation and other inequities) may remain, but others (such as how the format and content of the test relates to predicting college success) could be less objected to with other test designs.
My kids go to a large public HS in an affluent town in MA (but it isn’t a top 20 HS like Brookline or Lexington). Every year there are 6-12 national merit semi-finalists. A fair number of kids score 1500+ on the SAT. At a tippy top public HS like Lexington there are typically 20+ national merit semi-finalists (as a reference, last year they only had one fewer than Phillips Andover, one of the premier BS in the country) – of course they also send 10 kids to Harvard every year too. So far as I can tell the strongest correlation with high SAT scores is wealth.
Aptitude certainly affects testable achievement, but aptitude (as it is usually defined to be in this context) is difficult to measure or test for in isolation.
A few decades ago, the norm for “SAT prep” was probably trying the small sample questions in the booklet that the signup sheet came in (although test prep classes and books were available for those who wanted to do more, and some students could have benefited from learning SAT test taking techniques, probably the highest value type of preparation). I.e. what you describe as “didn’t really prep” today is probably about 50 times more time spent than the norm of a few decades ago.