Has everyone read this?
So according to the NY Times, the new SAT is…harder?
Guess they haven’t seen the latest PSAT score distribution…
The poor speak a different language at home?
I think students should take ACT this year.
^ that is my advice too, actually, to anyone, rich or poor.
Life is not adjusted for the poor so why should standardized tests be any different? Is it unfair that more affluent families can afford extensive SAT test prep? Is it unfair that more affluent families typically can afford to live in areas with better schools systems that better prepare their child for the SAT?
Or one of each in 11th grade, and use whatever is better (allowing for a retry in 12th grade if desired).
^ yeah if they have time. For juniors this year it’s close.
But if they have to choose one? I’d go ACT all the way.
I wonder if many more students will take it now,and what impact that may have on the curve, top % scores, etc.
It’s too late. Standardized tests already “penalize” the poor; SAT scores are highly correlated to household income already.
The SAT CR section is also relatively easy. I don’t think making it harder is necessarily a bad thing; it will allow for more score differentiation on the top end. Ability to deal with huge reading assignments is an important skill at a top college. The verbal portion is also less “studiable” than math, because you can’t develop a deep extensive vocabulary and ease of comprehension in 6 months of test prep if you don’t already have these things laid down in childhood by living in a reading-rich environment.
ACT remains the test of champions.
^^^^^
But if one is trying for NMF SAT is a must.
My understanding was that math is being taught with more word problems than just memorizing equations. By now I would suspect this method of teaching is more familiar to students and they should be used to decoding and taking things in context instead of just numbers.
SAT and ACT tests both have their uses. Eons ago it was unfair, I thought, that instate students needed ACT results but OOS could submit the SAT they took for other schools instead. That was an era of snail mail and needing to do each application separately so far fewer apps were done (and people knew about far fewer schools outside their area). Also- back in the day it was “once and done” with those tests. No fancy prep courses either. And lower test score- getting top scores was much harder (I heard when they rescaled things those old scores got improved). Time to get back to fewer students doing as well. Perhaps more thinking skills will be tested, the ones prep courses can’t finagle as easily (if they do the students learn real, usable skills from). In the old, old days there were the SAT analogies to contend with- and the more you could figure out vocabulary the better you could do.
The big marketing splash with the new SAT was that it was supposed to level the playing field between rich and poor. Less susceptible to prep, partnership with Kahn Academy for prep. The first one has not even been administered and already it is being criticized for the same problem it is supposedly correcting?
For you and yours truly, perhaps.
However, with the exception of those who are already proficient in college-level reading, most high school students taking the SAT back when I was in high school and nowadays tend to dread CR.
According to several friends who taught SAT prep classes and my own experience as a volunteer for an SAT prep program for low-income students, CR was the section where most were likely to get dinged the most for points. It was no different with my public magnet HS classmates…despite the fact most had no issues achieving high verbal scores to go with their high math scores.
Actually, YMMV depending on the individual student and his/her ability to memorize and integrate new vocabulary into his/her speech and writing patterns effectively. Most HS classmates…even those who hated/felt uncomfortable with reading heavy assignments and writing long papers found memorizing the vocabulary and playing with its meanings to be the easiest part of SAT verbal.
However, I do agree that reading comprehension is much more than knowing advanced vocabulary and IS less “studiable” as shown by how CR was considered the most dreaded section on the verbal SAT.
The problem with the reading comprehension is that some of the questions are poorly written. Of course that creates anxiety.
“The shift is leading some educators and college admissions officers to fear that the revised test will penalize students who have not been exposed to a lot of reading, or who speak a different language at home — like immigrants and the poor.”
College grades do this too. Students unprepared for college because they speak a different language at home or have not been exposed to a lot of reading simply do poorly. No it is not fair. Yes everyone deserves an education. But come on. If you have not been exposed to a lot of reading that is your fault and the fault of your parents. People brought up in a hovel in some isolated island can find reading material in the US. Colleges are and should be trying to enroll poor but prepared students. But they should not be enrolling students who have not been exposed to and can not tackle reading. Those students need to be in a remedial setting until they can.
Studies have shown that bilingual students are penalized in the sense that their SAT scores underpredict their college grades. In college they can use a dictionary. Kids who go to school in a different language are not exposed to as much reading in English, even if the kids are great readers. The SAT does not measure this well.
So, it’s less amenable to memorizing large lists of words, but more closely tailored to measuring students’ preparation for college-level texts.
What if high schools moved away from reading small samples of texts to reading whole novels? Thus the entire field moves from cramming for a 3 hour logic game to building the skills needed to pass real college courses?
I think that the “new” style of reading tests a certain type of reading comprehension, but that it does not actually test ability to do well in college. I think the tests are a contest, and for admission to the most competitive schools you must win. The admissions committees cut a break to certain underrepresented groups that they wish to admit by often allowing lower scores than for “overrepresented” groups. The students who are at a disadvantage are the group of students who have done well in their local school district, want to attend elite schools, but can not get close to perfect scores. I am not convinced that this is worth crying about, although for the individuals it is quite frustrating. While I have great sympathy for the poor who often get a lousy public education, I don’t think these students are prepared for an “elite” education, and it would be great if they were able to attend any college, let alone an “elite” college.
The questions on these critical reading tests usually follow a certain formula such as - in paragraph x the author suggests two main points and then four choices with two points each from which the student has to select the correct two points. In literature, history, social science etc. a good education is supposed to teach you that the answers are not binary yes or no or analog (eg. choice C and no other). If you study Melville for example, you are supposed to find symbolism, nuances etc. that are not distilled down to one sentence. What if you don’t agree with any of the choices or what if you need more time to think about Moby Dick (after all it is a very difficult book that most college students don’t read at all). What about those who can write a great paper about Moby Dick but don’t get many of the multiple choice questions correct? Those students exist as well. The good news is that there are more varieties of college than just the top ones, and that even with an average score most people have fairly good options. Poor Melville, he is probably rolling over in his grave.
I did read Moby Dick and Locke in college, but that had a lot to do with what I chose to study, not general requirements to graduate. I think of 19th century authors and early political philosophers as educational substance of a bygone era. Today’s usual economics, business or computer science student is unlikely to have any of this. Yes maybe at HYPS they still get this as part of a well rounded education (I wouldn’t know, as I am not familiar with the curriculum), but I know many business students and engineers who had none of this.
Far too many high school English lit classes don’t get into enough depth to teach finding nuances and symbolism adequately because instructors often need to tackle more fundamental reading issues. Those issues range from basic literacy to getting students adjusted to reading lengthier materials than what they’re used to reading in K-8.
This issue affects most college bound students…including some who attend the most elite colleges as i’ve observed sitting in some HS classmates’ classrooms and from tutoring some elite college students after undergrad.
One novel I had to read sophomore year in HS which can arguably match or exceed Melville in the difficulties of finding symbolism and nuances was Henry James’ “Turning of the Screw”. I would have found Melville or Homer to be easier going…
The problem is at some point college or university can not hand hold you through your education. Is it unfair? Absolutely. But then that person should be placed in remedial classes to get up to speed before enrolling in college courses.