NYT: College Panel Calls for Less Focus on SATs

Parents Forum
101

<p>Re Post 100:
Since one of my own did well, the other not reflective of her in-school work, my opinion is not biased one way or another. My opinion is formed by a lifetime of work in education, including comparing standardized test results of all kinds of students vs. their real performance in the classroom, where the rubber meets the road.</p>

<p>Standardized tests in general are not worthless or evil to me: they're just incomplete, & sometimes the scores can mislead. As blue said, the SAT I is a less helpful piece of information for a right-brained person than it is for a left-brained learner, for whom the test was designed. Yet many right-brained students are brilliant. I value both ends of the spectrum, and many differences & preferences in learning, as should colleges.</p>

<p>Taken with other indicators, they can confirm academic promise if supported by matching achievements. Viewed in contrasting light, high scores can reveal lack of purpose & commitment in a student whose grades do not match.</p>

<p>Like grades, however, they can be subject to corruption. Thousands of students who are anxious about admissions, or whose parents threaten them with rejection, have cheated on the SAT I, & will again this year. Other families will spend whatever they can to improve already respectable scores, in an effort to defeat the competition which has less money or different priorities.</p>

<p>There are parents on this forum whose S's and D's performed imperfectly on one or more sections or tests, yet soared or are soaring in college & winning famous awards.</p>

<p>The value of the SAT I is at best relative & comparative within the student's own profile: nothing more. It is not in itself a "more pure" indicator of success or ability than other factors.</p>

102

<p>I have taught the SAT for a number of years. My observation is that there is very little corelation between college success and SAT scores. I think that the College Board hides this and that colleges themselves are seeing this occurance. There is a huge number of kids with strong GPAs and mediocre SAT who have done exceedingly well in college. I have also seen a number of high performing kids with top notch SATs and great scholarships resulting from their SAT underperform the expectations for them. In fact, from my observations, this seems to be more the rule than the exception.</p>

<p>Even worse are certain graduate level tests sucha s MCATS and LSAT. My son who bombed the MCAT graduated valedictorian of his masters program. My other son who also bombed the MCATs did very well in a masters of accounting.</p>

<p>We have a friend who had a very strong GPA from Univeristy of Maryland who bombed the LSAT. In fact, he didn't get into most law schools because of it. However, he graduated from Maryland Law School ( heck they couldn't turn down someone who was in their top 5 as an undergrad) being in the top 5% despite having LSATs that were probably bottom of the class.</p>

<p>You have to compare large numbers of kids with GPAs and scores to realize that there is something wrong with the predictibility of these tests.</p>

103

<p>FWIW - my oldest - now a freshman at an Ivy - scored equally well on the SAT I the ACT, and four SAT II subject tests. She also carried the only unweighted 4.0 in her graduating class and completed 14 AP classes - all 5s except one 4. And she had some impact in the EC department, as well. So I'm not coming from a position where my kids only or singular strength is the SAT. She's about as balanced as you're going to find in terms of academics - and would obviously do extremely well if the entire thing rested just on subject tests. In fact, she considered that part of the experience the easiest. Why? Because she was fortunate enough to attend a superb high school where the AP classes prepared very, very well for the SAT II subjects and APs. The prepping happened in the classroom.</p>

<p>And this is my problem with the move to turn away from the SAT reasoning to the SAT II subjects or some other subject type testing exclusively. I think doing well on such tests is more dependent on high school quality than with the SAT I. So the argument that this would make the playing field more level just doen't make any sense at all to me.</p>

<p>And I also think that the SAT I reasoning is a good test to have in the mix because it does allow a very balanced kid with excellent reading and and logic skills to stand out. Is that really so bad? There are many opportunities for the lopsided math genius kids to display their prowess through a whole host of testing avenues. </p>

<p>What I do think would be a very good move would be to expand and refine the written essay on the ACT and SAT I. It's a good idea but imperfectly implemented. I think kids should have more time if they want it. I think the prompts could be better conceived. I think kids should be allowed to type their essays. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing more than one essay and less multiple choice on grammar. I think giving all kids a real chance to express their perspective and voice in a controlled setting without paid ghost writers and English teacher editing would be an excellent way to identify more kids in less-than-perfect circumstances with something special in them.</p>

104

<p>
[quote]
The prepping happened in the classroom.

[/quote]

This is exactly the reason of the new proposal.</p>

<p>My kids and I are annoyed by the SAT prep ads coming from schools, mail, PTA. The kids did well on the SAT since they were in middle schools but don't find the challenge in it when they are in highschool and they loathe it. Many of their friends pay for expensive SAT prep classes.</p>

105

<p>^ well fine but how about kids in classrooms that don't prepare them for subject tests? Do you think every high school in this country does the same job of teaching advanced chemistry? calculus? us history?</p>

<p>And regarding the prep classes - the ads are annoying and yes, it's a business. But so are a zillion other things in our society like sports performance camps, language immersion programs, summer programs at Dartmouth in Policy debate, etc. Like anything, the stupid will fall for this stuff and hand over a lot of money to charlatans promising 2400s. If the testing morphs into 100% subject testing you will very quickly see the very same sort of businesses emerging to "help" families get their kids top scores on those.</p>

<p>Here's what else you will see - a much bigger push to get your kids into the top performing school districts and private high schools because that will be the real edge to acing subject tests. Short of moving to some sort of nonverbal test of puzzles or figurative codes, the SAT is really not so bad at indicating intellectual ability. It tests reading comprehension and math problem solving through advanced algebra. No need to go to Exeter or Andover or Stuyvesant to prep for that. Just read a lot and pay attention in math class. Buy a $20 copy of the blue book and you're set.</p>

<p>Honestly, in the past two years that I've been paying attention to the whole college admissions scene the emperors are usually more naked than not.</p>

106

<p>"the SAT is really not so bad at indicating intellectual ability"</p>

<p>I think most people would not argue with this, though I'm not sure there's necessarily much difference between SAT 2150 and 2250 (or other such comparisons) in indicating intellectual ability - especially when you factor in differences in K-12 background and test prep.</p>

<p>One of the genuine concerns seems to be, however, that intellectual ability, alone, is not necessarily a great predictor of success in college and beyond. In my experience, the "elbow grease" factor, as well as an individual's creativity and genuine enthusiasm for learning, may well be equally or even more important.</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
One of the genuine concerns seems to be, however, that intellectual ability, alone, is not necessarily a great predictor of success in college and beyond.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. In fact I think elbow grease is more important than aptitude. But aptitude does have a place in the mix when the elbow grease is measured by scores on subject tests and gpa alone. Those are also imperfect measures and prone to all kinds of political gamesmanship, wealth advantages, etc.</p>

<p>So I guess I'm arguing for the status quo - painful as it all is. I think AP and SAT II subject tests belong in the mix. As well as, gpa. And yes, also the ACT or SAT. The more diversity of opportunity the student has to differentiate the better.</p>

108

<p>"The more diversity of opportunity the student has to differentiate the better."</p>

<p>I agree. In thinking a bit more about this, though, I suppose there can be a downside: at some point, students should be able to feel that they have done enough to demonstrate their passions and who they are. For some students, it seems they can never rest easy, thinking: what else should I be doing? Ideally, students should be able to remain true to themselves in this process. That probably sounds really naive: college admissions is not an ideal world.</p>

109

<p>"The prepping happened in the classroom."</p>

<p>You related this comment to the SAT II, but what you don't see is that this relates similarly to the SAT I. Again, it's about pedagogy in addition to ability. Reasoning is something that is taught. Also, test-taking is something that great schools teach. I don't mean "teaching to the test" (in either case). I mean general test-taking strategies, which the publics in my area, as well as the non-Catholic Christian-titled schools do <em>not</em> each. For lots of reasons way too boring to go into here, schools up & down my vast state tend to approach "learning" as a gas-station stop: Open brain, fill up with temporary facts, regurgitate said identical facts on a lame objective test, and move on to the next station.</p>

<p>It is not universally practiced in this country. There are some great schools & regions of schools in the MidWest & the East. There are fab privates in the east & west which begin grooming for the SAT I indirectly long before that test's season. By middle school the reasoning process is well established in the students' brains (as well it should be), so whatever the eventual score, it is likely to be reflective of the best that student would have been able to do on this (very left-brained) test. There is further direct teaching to the SAT I within some schools in the east (& not as a supplemental commercial program). </p>

<p>And do these disparities, when known, result in vicious competition to attend such schools -- be they public or private? (Something mammall alluded to.) Yes! And already. And the fewer such schools in whatever region, the more intense the competition. It's beyond the SAT I. It just <em>is</em>.</p>

<p>"Just read a lot and pay attention in math class."</p>

<p>No, not if you have a rotten math teacher -- a series of them -- which is the situation in my state. Maybe 5% of the math teachers in my region are capable of teaching the quantitative <em>reasoning</em> necessary to relate the <em>questions</em> on the SAT I quantitative to the <em>classroom material</em> being taught (& taught poorly). When you have 6-figure-earning careers for mathematicians next door to most of the suburban school districts, good luck finding willing, excellent teachers. They have to be both altruistic & competent to resist that.</p>

<p>Geometry is taught particularly poorly. This is true for most of the students I see. One public school in my area is lucky enough to have an "old school" geometry teacher that actually insists on proofs & teaches from theorems, but most do not, & almost no one teaches logic or teaches logically, which is essential. At my D's otherwise outstanding private, geometry was virtually untaught. Thus, while she aced the verbal, as well as the algebraic reasoning on the SAT I, the subscore on the geometric reasoning for her & all the classmates on her level hovered around 75%. (Many private schools base their core curriculum on "the State's standards." Well, that works when the standards are very high. Check out some states in the Union & you'll find the expectations are not so high.)</p>

<p>For these & other reasons, relying on an SAT I as the most important or winnowing factor for college admissions, is a poor decision. This is why SAT I is and should only be, one factor. It should be looked at in context of the students' other academic indicators. So although my own D & a couple of her classmates did not get perfect SAT I quantitative scores, 2 of them got 800 on the verbal and were offered promotion to AP Calc BC, over the math-type students who finished AB but were <em>not</em> promoted to BC. This is an example of reading everything in context (holistically), and why a data point in itself is meaningless, & it is also why those 2 students were admitted to 4 Ivies.</p>

110

<p>Placing more emphasis on content-based testing like SATIIs or the ACT has lots going for it. Such tests allow angular students to showcase their areas of strength; allow some minority students to submit tests in a language spoken at home; reward hard work and "prepping" of materials that are part of most high school curricula; may be less subject to effects of income than the SAT (though recent research has called this one into question); and still predict college grades about as well as the SAT.</p>

<p>I'd also note that most serious attempts to replace the added predictive power of standardized tests under SAT-optional policies do so by either using regression equations that factor in things like gender, ethnicity, and estimated family contribution, or by simply imputing low scores to non-submitters. So it's not as though all SAT-optional institutions use idealistic, noble, holistic procedures, despite a lot of the public rhetoric about test bias, pernicious testing culture, and the lack of validity to the SAT.</p>

111

<p>epiphany - I agree with your entire post.</p>

112

<p>If anything, the SATI should have more impact in the ELITE college admissions process. At that point you've got to have more than "elbow grease."</p>

113

<p>Yes, you need a lot more than elbow grease to succeed at elite colleges.</p>

114

<p>Kicharo, the SAT I is already (and always has been) more impactful in the elite college admissions process, but so are all other measures examined carefully, & in relation to one another. Thus, the elite colleges like to see achievement & advancement in both left-brained & right-brained spheres, in science/math as well as literature/arts, in analysis & as well as intuition -- because all are needed to master the distribution requirements in Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, & all are needed to succeed in the reasoning necessary at these institutions. That is why I gave the example above. It was the non-math/science students who were advanced to Calc BC, not the math-oriented ones. The Elites look at the whole student, examining their abilities on and off campus, in and out of class, on tests and not on tests. They look for ability across the board, which the SAT I does not reveal, but which the whole package does reveal.</p>

115

<p>So, can someone here parse what we can really expect to happen? Will the SAT and ACT become optional at elite schools soon? Will USNWR start reporting SAT II subject test score averages? And if so, in what subjects? Will there be a limit imposed on how many SAT II subject or AP tests students are allowed to submit? If not then wealthier kids who can afford to sit for more exams and of course get tutoring in the subjects will once again have a big edge. Will they have score choice for those? For those highly verbal kids - like Epiphany's and my own - this may be a mixed bag. The AP english language and composition tests seem pretty easy with a gentle curve allowing very little differentiation for top verbal students. The SAT II lit test is a killer - very tough to get an 800, but dependent more on skill in literary devices and techniques than reading comprehension. And the SAT II math II test is notoriously easy, even for non-math kids like mine. Ditto the AP calc exams, if you have a good hs teacher.</p>

<p>Things will get very, very complicated. That's my guess. The market for college admissions consultants is about to get even better. </p>

<p>My personal concern for my ninth grader coming up? Her biggest strength is just plain reading comprehension - I don't see any subject or AP exam that will allow her to demonstrate this talent as well as the SAT and ACT reading sections. Oh well.</p>

116

<p>"....allowing very little differentiation for top verbal students."</p>

<p>^That's where the recs come into play. Teachers ought to be differentiating among those top verbal students as to who really has the goods. This can be fleshed out qualitatively, and with concrete examples, (and with attachments, as I've suggested numerous times), demonstrating more about the range of ability than a single score sitting can provide.</p>

117

<h1>115 -
[quote]
And if so, in what subjects? Will there be a limit imposed on how many SAT II subject or AP tests students are allowed to submit?

[/quote]
</h1>

<p>I think there should be a limit on number of tests that cover the core subjects and the tests should not be as the same as the current SAT-II or AP tests. I hope the tests can provide more room for students to show depth in understanding, reasoning, and creativity.</p>

118

<p>What's done in some other countries is that there is a battery of "core" subjects that all college-bound high school graduates are expected to know. (This often includes English as a foreign language in non-English-speaking countries.) Then it may be that a would-be business major has a few optional subjects in the college entrance test that are different from the would-be electrical engineering major, both of which are different from the optional tests for a would-be pre-medicine major. (In a lot of countries, medicine is a subject studied in an extended undergraduate program, lasting perhaps five or six years.) There are many possibilities for this. If the reform proposal advocated by the panel mentioned in the thread-opening post succeeds in giving more emphasis to subject-specific knowledge as a college-entrance requirement, there are plenty of international examples to look at.</p>

119

<p>^ Here's what's truly awful about this, imo - it sounds very much as if it will force kids early in their high school careers to specialize and then pitch themselves as electrical engineering or premed or whatever majors in their college applications. Moreover, I fail to see what is so wonderful about how foreign countries handle this - our universities are the envy of the world, and the ones where the overwhelming bulk of innovation takes place. Why on earth would we want to move to a testing model that narrows rather than broadens kids perspectives so early in their academic careers and that will be very prone to rote memorization and cramming rather than a model that emphasizes what powers success in all fields - critical reading and mathematical reasoning. Since when have European or Asian universities dominated research breakthroughs? </p>

<p>Our system works the best - messy and painful as it is. </p>

<p>I think this is just a bunch of posturing to deflect criticism that tends to focus on the SAT but in fact is just resentment of a highly competitive system no matter how you slice and dice it.</p>

120

<p>"That's where the recs come into play. Teachers ought to be differentiating among those top verbal students as to who really has the goods. "</p>

<p>Teacher rec can be very subjective, depending on teacher's ability to write and your relationship with the teacher. The Public School in US, especially the low-income ones do not usually have high capable teachers. This gives rich kids edge again.</p>