Not to mention the often heard refrain that everyone taking the SAT who has an excellent score had a tutor. This is not in fact the case.
5 Likes
Students who have the privilege of attending excellent school systems don’t need tutors. Their entire education is preparing them for these types of exams.
10 Likes
So does that discount their score if they do well? And if they do poorly is it because they test badly or something else?And does it mean that scores should be thrown out for all because someone had a great education? Just trying to understand your logic.
3 Likes
That may be, but I still find the whole prepper/non-prepper debate tiresome. If the 1310 kid could have had a 1450 with prep, then why not prep?
To be clear, I fully understand that higher-income students tend to do better and I think colleges should–and do–hold them to a higher standard than students who lack such resources when it comes to grades, scores, activities, etc.
But for @Creekland to argue that a 1310 is the same as 1450 because the 1450 prepared doesn’t make sense to me. The idea that 1450 is “less” because she prepared is a flawed argument unless we know the context. Some kids (not just wealthy ones) work hard to prepare for the test and it’s a differentiator for them, allowing some really brilliant kids to stand out, especially from a no-name HS.
I think of my husband (who I dated in HS, class of '91) and he spent months preparing for his SAT using old practice tests–no fancy tutors. He was a NMSF, scored 1500+ on the SAT, and got 800s on the math and physics subject tests. He was coming from a very mediocre HS with a 4.0. Several kids in our grade had a 4.0 GPA, but he was the only one from our class accepted by multiple ivies. Does his preparation diminish the achievement or speak to his work ethic and commitment? I would argue the latter.
There’s nothing inherently admirable about showing up for something important (a test, a job interview, a sports competition) unprepared and just hoping you wow everyone with your innate talent.
15 Likes
I disagree. Good schooling certainly helps, but if that was all it took, many more kids would score between 1400-1600. Preparation familiarizes you with the format, lets you know your strengths and weaknesses, helps you adjust your timing, etc.
1 Like
@cuppasbux Of course all sorts of advantages could be seen as “unfair” if one wanted a level playing field. It doesn’t mean any of those things are bad. It only means those without the means to get them won’t have the advantages from them.
When one is first gen college (as many of the students at my school are), they often have no idea test prep is a thing, esp to the extent those “in the know and with means” know about it. Many of those whose parents went to college a couple of decades or more ago also don’t know test prep is a thing, because it wasn’t in their day. Kids can do a practice test or ten, but I seriously doubt that’s the same advantage as a paid private tutor.
Work ethic can include test prep - no one said it didn’t. The key is, no one knows if test prep was done for that 1550 score or not. When it wasn’t, does the student have a decent work ethic or not? Some do, some don’t just as with a 1210 score.
The “good” students I’ve seen who didn’t do well in college easily did high school, but choked when they got to college often because they didn’t really know how to study and then opted to go out for a drink rather than learn. After a few days of this they felt hopelessly behind.
YMMV
2 Likes
On CC we hear people say they got great scores with no prep all the time. I think 12 years of a great education counts as prep, so I agree with you that not everyone who scores well did so with the help of a tutor. Some people don’t need to rely on tutors.
1 Like
I got an 1160 on my first PSAT. I was broken, and so I started studying. Did a ton of prep, practice tests, and even a course, and I got my score up to a 1500. I think regardless of test optional or not, people have this kind of hatred for people who prepped. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not the most naturally smart, and most of my success comes from committing myself to work. I sound very conceited here, but I just wanted to bring up how much hate there is for people who prep, despite that they’re just playing to their strengths.
To Clarify: I think test-optional is good for the kids who can’t dedicate time to prep, but I dont think people who do dedicate that time should be hated.
14 Likes
That’s right. I agree with others that prepping is great and shows grit and a work ethic. I also know that kids don’t all test the same even when they have the same education for 12 years. Some are higher some are lower.
I support test prep, but of course everyone can’t pay for it, and the free resources don’t work for everyone…so there is an access issue. With that said, no one goes into a normal HS course test unprepared or without studying and doing practice problems/tests, so why wouldn’t one do the same for SAT/ACT?
4 Likes
Than ever?
When I was in high school, my SAT preparation was 15 minutes trying the sample problems in the booklet that included the sign-up form. From what I understood then, there were SAT prep books and classes, but few students did them.
Based on forum chatter these days, the minimum preparation these days for students aspiring to more selective colleges (including state flagship level, not just HYPSM level selectivity) is at least an order of magnitude greater. That seems to factor into questions like “should I try to take the SAT?” because there is an implied large time cost of preparation that students and parents these days assume is required.
1 Like
Presumably, MIT is smart enough to sniff out the kids who don’t belong there. Recommendations, awards, etc. can help support (or not) their judgment in this case. FYI, many kids had only one early chance to take the ACT or SAT this year and that single score may or may not reflect their academic ability. Add to that the fact that test scores are not the best predictor of college success and you have much ado about nothing. Finally: Why do you care if some kid with a 1350 gets into MIT other than to gleefully anticipate dancing on his grave when, according to you, he inevitably flunks out?
Well some just might be taking it for the first time. My kids had to take the SSAT. For the oldest we took a peek the night before to see how it was graded, that’s it. 99% and perfect in one category.
Same thing for the PSAT and SAT. If you think you are a good tester you are going to take it and see how you do then study to improve.
1 Like
If 12 years of good schooling is all one needs to ace the SAT/ACT, why aren’t more students getting high scores? Either K-12 is completely broken (a topic for another thread)…or preparation helps strong students do well on a very particular type of exam.
1 Like
Good for you increasing your scores! I don’t understand people who have issues with students who prep either. I’ve seen comments from some who say they got a perfect score their first time, like that makes it better than someone who got it after a couple of tries. Others seem to not like it that students can mix and match scores from different sittings. I don’t see what difference that makes either.
I think there’s a place for both those who test and those who don’t. And if colleges want to accept kids from both groups they’re welcome to do that as far as I’m concerned. They certainly know more about their institutional needs than I do.
5 Likes
Different strokes for sure. In my area, students tend not to take official tests cold/as practice tests and that is the recommendation of many test prep tutors too. By the time the students take their first ACT or SAT, they have complete quite a bit of prep, and taken at least one full length practice exam (offered by many local tutoring companies, at least pre-covid).
The people who are being done “favors” by TO are, among others, disadvantaged students who can’t afford to fly out of state when their local testing center is closed due to COVID (twice, if they want to superscore) or who can’t afford tutors or who attend schools where they have no one to help them navigate the process remotely during the pandemic. It’s intended to help level the playing field. I guess that offends some people’s sensibilities.
4 Likes
I thought that this topic had been chewed to death in the “Was Going Test-Optional a Disservice…” thread.
In my opinion, a standardized test is a useful piece of information, to help to compare students across a wide range of high schools. In some districts with very low standards, simply showing up, handing in the work, and not being disruptive earns an A, and at the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum (you can get a real eyeful if you look at the prep school threads and the prep school’s GPA bands on the letters sent to the colleges), there is such grade inflation that about half the graduating class has a GPA over A, by their classification.
However, from the day that the standardized testing companies rolled over and refused to fight the lawsuit about flagging tests as having been given under different testing conditions, there was no longer anything “standardized” about the standardized tests, and they became at least partly an indication of whether or not the family had the resources to get the student extended time or not. The SAT and ACT COULD have gotten around this by removing the severe time limitation element from the test, by simply having given ALL the students enough time to comfortably show what they could do, but that would have taken a re-design of the test, that they clearly didn’t want to put the money into. Intelligence is not only about how fast one can think - it has a lot to do with how well one can show what one knows, without time pressure. For this reason alone, I do think that it’s best for the colleges to bid adieu to the College Board and ACT corporation at this point.
But yes, assuming that ALL students (and not just those whose parents can get their kids extra time on the test) were given enough time to comfortably complete all the questions, I DO think that standardized tests have a valued role in college admissions. As for the test prep, my kid self-studied for the ACT. By the time he was done, I said, “Well, no matter how you do on the test, you most certainly have given yourself a very comprehensive review of high school math through the end of precalculus.” So if test prep meant actually learning high school level material, instead of learning tricks, would it be such a bad thing?
It’s kind of like the National Spelling Bee, where virtually all the contestants have mastered English spelling, and the test administrator has to go to words from obscure foreign languages, that really are never used in English, in order to finally establish a winner. Perhaps it would be better if the SAT/ACT were designed to be a measure of high school knowledge, and the ability to use that knowledge, rather than a series of “tricks” under extreme time pressure. Yes, more students would hit the top of the scale, but these bogus “accommodations” would become useless, and the test would no longer serve as an invalid aptitude test, but more as an achievement test.
10 Likes
Guess I doin’t understand why someone expressing another opinion infers that it offended their sensibilities.
I think holistic admissions is great. I also think stats matter and the only national stat is the SAT ( not perfect) but its a single data point. Not going to get you in and not going to keep you out. Colleges IMO have done a lot over the last year to ensure that students could apply. They have waived lots of things and that has helped all applicants. It’s all good IMO. I also believe that TO should be a thing if you don’t want to use your scores. Just don’t ask someone else to be TO or assume the test is invalid because scores vary.
I think the 1350 MIT student would likely be fine if s/he was 780 Math and a lower English score.
My experience was a little different. I went to an underperforming high school and read my first book in college. I prepped for the SAT like crazy because I knew my grades were very good (for my part of town) but the test seemed absolutely impossible - hardest thing I ever took. I remember how happy I was when I broke 400 on the verbal and sent that in with confidence. I prepped for 2 years to get that 430. Proud to say that when my UG took less than 1% of their students below a 500 - that was me. I have about 10 points I could make, but happy to have anyone who cares to make them for me.
2 Likes