<p>bluebayou - I was really surprised by the 20 to 30 point reference in the piece. It's not my perception either. I see many families sending kids to these classes and they do it because they hear from other families that it helps. Another thing I see is lots of kids getting the extra time somewhere during high school - suddenly they get a learning disability diagnosed. I've heard of SAT tutors actually explaining to parents how to go about that. </p>
<p>I still maintain that the impact of tutoring is much greater for the subject tests, though.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>That would mean the typical senior at our hs would go sit for at least eight of these tests.>>></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Maybe similar colleges would combine forces and offer one test. Maybe students would no longer apply to 8 different schools. I don't know how it would end up and whether it would be better. But I think it would not be a bad idea for colleges to have a greater say in what goes into the entrance tests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think colleges are fairly honest aboout their institutional goals and using admissions to achieve those goals. Elite schools want a diverse, accomplished class - - that means if the school has/wants an orchestra, the oboe player get a bit of a boost; if it has/want a football team, the linebacker gets a bit of a boost; if wants to be meaningfully co-ed boys will ge a boost and becasue the long-term economic health of the institution is always a factor donor apps will also get a boost.
[/quote]
Ummm...aren't you forgetting a big group that gets a boost with lower SATs? URMs!!!</p>
<p>Isn't it obvious that this is all about outcomes and not about the process?</p>
<p>Admissions counselors know that the SAT is a blunt instrument and that they must incorporate this as part of an overall evaluation and not as the defining element. Adcomms take these numbers as a single data point of a college application that further illuminates the strength and preparedness of an individual student. Getting rid of the SAT may be politically correct, but it will not improve the admission evaluation process. </p>
<p>Thirty years ago, SATs were characterized as a leveler of the playing field that allowed Jewish students or other high achieving, but poorly represented, groups of students to show their abilities and gain acceptance over the traditional WASPy attenders of elite universities.</p>
<p>Now Harvard, and other educators with a liberal disposition, are making a large effort at social re-engineering via the college admissions process with a goal of enrolling more low income students to the elite institutions. To do so, they must discredit things like the SAT or Early Decision that they see as hurting the application chances of lower income students.</p>
<p>a couple of interesting datapoints in CB's research report:</p>
<p>12% of "coached examinees increased their SAT-verbal by 100+ points vs. 8% of the "uncoached" examinees</p>
<p>16% of coached examinees increased SAT-M by 100+ points vs. 8% of uncoached</p>
<p>"Coached students were somewhat more likely than their uncoached counterparts to exhibit large score increases on both sections of the SAT..."</p>
<p>Note, however, that the "coached" cohort includes only those kids who took an official prep class outside of school. The "uncoached" group includes anyone who may have taken a class while in-school (19%) and/or anyone who self-preps with the Blue Book or other available prep books (hopefully using the xiggi method). </p>
<p>In essence, the small point gain evidenced from the study really compares results from kids who attended test-prep companies vs. kids who may self-study in other ways. Thus, it doesn't show that there is little gain from prep, it just shows that there is little gain achieved by attending test-prep companies vs. self-prep.</p>
<p>Here is a rather esoteric attempt to discover what variables predict success in a difficult engineering course. The SAT range for the students ranged from about 600 - 800. It gives one a somewhat better understanding of what educators face in trying to predict school success.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thus, it doesn't show that there is little gain from prep, it just shows that there is little gain achieved by attending test-prep companies vs. self-prep.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which would sort of indicate that expensive test prep doesn't work very well but just getting down and dirty with a copy of the blue book from the library does. Sigh. But there's of course lots of socio-economic reasons why the disadvantaged can't do this.</p>
<p>So time to get rid of that pesky old SAT. Honestly. I think D2 is going to trade school - electrician? plumbing?</p>
<p>
[quote]
>>It was my understanding that they added the writing section at the request of colleges.<<</p>
<p>They added the writing section to mollify the president of the University of California, who was threatening to have the UCs drop the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allow me to add my usual cynical commentary on the Atkinson vs Caperton saga. The College Board added the writing component to the SAT by pretending to listen to the hollow and hypocritical threats of the UC. Caperton knew FULLY well that Atkinson did not want to drop the SAT and that the so-called research ordered by Atkinson AFTER he put his large foot in his mouth was bogus. Caperton did not even have to unwrap his meta-studies as Atkinson offered him an amazing victory, although the "media" swallowed the story how the UC brought TCB to its knees. </p>
<p>The terms of the UC Pyrrhic victory included a substantial larger share of revenues for TCB/ETS as they saw a much underutilized SAT2 Writing now imposed on EVERY student who takes the SAT (and multiple times to boot) as opposed to a one-time only by a mere "handful" of students who need a SAT SUbject score for two dozens of elite colleges. </p>
<p>Now the entire nation is paying for the follies of the UC (U of Cluelessness) as their administration plans to drop the ... SAT Subject Tests. </p>
<p>One can assume that the new luminaries at the UC found a few more "researchers" to doctor the studies to make a point that support their ever changing admission policies as they try to justify the most amazing departure between admissions and racial distribution in any state in the country.</p>
<p>Again, mammall, you conveniently skirt the larger issues.</p>
<p>I work with students k-12 who are behind in the skills needed to do well on the SAT I. I will not enroll them in our SAT program until they are up to speed (grade level, minimum). "Getting a test prep book" is rather unhelpful for students whose public schools are inadequately preparing them to think & write critically for high school, let alone college, even when the student has the potential to do well in college. The material just goes right over their heads. Prep books are meant for independent study for students who have a level of competency already, which their high schools should be providing for them. Prep books have an added value for those whose parents read widely in English & thus expose their children to a fertile vocabulary.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with whether they can take public transportation to a local library to review a book. Now, most of those in the lower income bracket will not even qualify for reach publics, let alone reach privates, but the subject we've been discussing at least tangentially is the aspect of the level playing field for those without healthy funds but with healthy brains. It will not be possible to rescue all the high-potential students in the country; many will be late bloomers or will skip academia altogether. The subject of a <em>modified</em> place for the SAT I is all that's being talked about. (Title of the thread = "less" focus, not "zero" focus.)</p>
<p>College admissions officers disagree with you that the SAT I should be of more, let alone of singular, importance in determining college potential. The experience of the colleges does not square with the SAT I as a prime determiner of college academic potential, despite the fact that you think it "should" be "the" indicator. It is one of about 11 factors. The experience of the Ivies is in fact that grades + level of achievement in e.c.'s are together more predictive of college (& beyond) success.</p>
<p>The standardized "reasoning" test is not designed to test the brain as a tabula rosa. It is assumed that the student has already been trained to reason at a high level, & is accustomed to doing so. If you are abundantly intelligent but have a lame high school (which includes the many middle class high schools I see every week which refuse to provide anything but multiple choice tests, examining factual recall only), you will not do as well as an equally intelligent, capable student from a high-performing school which teaches differential thinking & critical reasoning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
College admissions officers disagree with you that the SAT I should be of more, let alone of singular, importance in determining college potential.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not think the SAT should be the sole factor in college admissions. In fact I think that's a preposterous notion! I think it's an important part of a holistic admissions process.</p>
<p>And I'm pretty aware of the challenges low-income kids face. My daughter actually attended head start - we were below poverty line when she was young. I had my kids in a public school system with a 40 percent free school lunch populaton for nine years. I was one of those ardent volunteer moms - tutoring, mentoring, running fundraisers for library books. I have a pretty good understanding of the familiy situations and general culture that produce the kids you are talking about. And I don't think that interventions by UC Berkeley or Harvard at 18 are the answer. I think the answer is demanding a better educational system k-12. And renewed focus on the culture issues that promulgate underachievement. Then universities will be able to use the SAT or the ACT or any darn test they want and still be happy with the outcomes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The report says that the College Board’s Advanced Placement exams and Subject Tests and the International Baccalaureate exams are more closely linked to the high school curriculum than the SAT and ACT, and have little expensive test preparation associated with them.</p>
<p>The report suggests that what is needed is a new achievement test, pitched to a broad group of students, that would predict college grades as well as or better than available tests. </p>
<p>Using such an achievement test in admissions would “encourage high schools to broaden and improve curricula,” according to the report, and would also send a message to students to focus on their high school course material instead of on test preparation courses.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait! The panel did not recommend to abandon the tests. They just suggest a different kind of test directly related to the classroom materials. Did I miss something here?</p>
<p>The SAT only measures some ability of students but not everything. For many students who get less than 650 per section, the SAT is a struggle. But for students who get above 720+ per section without prep, the SAT does not accurately measure their ability and some of them hate it.</p>
<p>Just curious - is Harvard disappointed in the performance of its admitted classes? Are they failing in droves? Not up to the academic challenge? A new test is required to better ascertain who can handle it?</p>
<p>I believe the retention and graduation rates are near 100 percent. So what in so many words is wrong with the current testing? Oh, that's right - what's wrong is the composition of those who score well. Now this really is a great example of modeling character and values to the younger generations. You don't like the test results. Change the test.</p>
<p>Agree with coolweather: Why is anyone on this thread discussing the evaporation of standardized tests? That's not the thread title, nor the content of the discussion. It's merely an acknowledgement of the differential between the public's emphasis on a score (assisted by heavy marketing on the part of CB) & the value of that score, to the colleges. The score has a limit when it comes to admissions methods which are defined most often holistically (comprehensively) on many measures. Just a shift, i.m.o. from "most important" to "important."</p>
<p>I don't know what Harvard is up to. But, probably the US is the only country in the world that uses the SAT type for college admission. Most countries use the type of test related to study materials.</p>
<p>I guess some students score 780-800 in SAT writing don't write good papers in college. Many students score 800 in SAT math but don't have the problem solving skill to write math proofs. Many international students easily ace the SAT math. I think that is the limitation of the SAT. That's why MIT said students cannot dial 800 to get into MIT.</p>
<p>Just curious here...I wonder how much peoples' opinion of the worth of a standardized test is deterimed by how well they (or their kids) did on it?</p>