<p>Another layer to the potential change being discussed - I think it will have kids trying to figure out what majors are hot and more likely to get them accepted. There's already some focus on this but it will become a really huge big deal.</p>
<p>Oh,please, I do hope those in postions of authority and responsibility on this stuff will slow down and really think hard about what they're considering. There's tons of hatred for the SAT out there - and this commission will receive lots of accolades for getting rid of it. Why? Because it's been around a long time and it's actually really tough to do really well on it - I believe there were a grand total of 290-some 2400s in the graduating class of 2008. The rage over the SAT comes from two camps - the social justice folks who keep railing that SES drives the scores. Well, SES is going to drive any test that involves reading and writing and math!! Subject tests will be not different - and most probably will accentuate the problem of "calcifying" income disparaties. I have yet to see one argument in the commission statement or on this thread that makes a solid argument to the contrary. The other camp of SAT-haters are the middle class and wealthy and extremely wealthy who pay for prep but don't get much in the way of results. If indeed they could buy high scores, they would love it. </p>
<p>Please, can we bring some clarity to this debate. I'm not that concerned as a parent. I have just one more who will go through college admissions and she tests like her big sister - equally good in aptitude and content, at least judging from state testing and the ERB exam. She'll do fine, most likely. But I think the general impact - like so many things - will be negative and not at all postiitive. Our kids will end up prepping more, testing more, devoting more time to figuring out a strategy - test companies will profit even more, the angst will increase and the chaos will step up a notch.</p>
<p>“The clear message to students would be to focus on their subjects in school...rather than spending enormous amounts of time and money trying to game the SAT and ACT,” he said.
</p>
<p>Isn't that what I said earlier in this thread, based on my reading earlier published statements by Fitzsimmons?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So, can someone here parse what we can really expect to happen? <<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't think that much of anything is actually going to happen. There have been a lot of news articles. There will be a bunch of discussion about it (such as this thread). There will be more articles pro and con published in educational journals. There will be more studies, commissions, and blue ribbon panels. A handful of colleges will join the small ranks of the test optional. And millions of high school graduates will continue to take the SATs.</p>
<p>With the European tests, can students take and retake these tests on multiple dates, year after year? Having the option of a retake seems very fair - everyone can have a bad day. But with the SAT and ACT (and now with score choice), the retake option seems to encourage gaming the system. Also, with SAT IIs, do students feel an incentive to spread these out (take one at each sitting) in order to maximize scores? Granted, in many cases, students try to take the SAT II when they are finishing the corresponding course - and the SAT IIs are not offered on all SAT test dates. </p>
<p>The abundance of SAT test dates each year (seven?) is great for giving kids flexibility, but also makes the test taking a year round preoccupation for some.</p>
<p>The tests in Taiwan can be taken more than once. And I think they can be taken without finishing high school. When I lived in Taiwan in the early 1980s, there was a story of a man who had never completed high school, and who became a bookseller. During slow times in his store, he would read the books and self-educate. He eventually tested into college when he was in his forties. The other story I heard in Taiwan in the early 1980s was that the test system was incorruptible. Taiwan was still a one-party dictatorship then, under martial law, but everyday people proudly told me that the president's son had taken the entrance exams--and failed--so that he didn't get into college through "connections."</p>
<p>The baccalaureat is usually administered in late June and covers every subject taken, even PE. This means students are tested in literature, history, math, physics, biology, chemistry, foreign languages, etc... (with both written and oral exams depending on the subject). Scores are on a scale of 20 with 10 as a passing score in each subject. The scores are weighted so that for a math-track student, the math score will count for more than for the literature student (and the math tests will be different for different tracks). No student may pass if s/he scores a zero in any of the subjects, even if the overall score, when weighted and averaged out, is above 10/20.
Students who fail the June baccalaureat may sit the "repechage" (rescue) exam given in July. If the student fails a second time or does not take the repechage, s/he has to repeat the whole grade, not just the subjects in which s/he failed. There are two parts to the baccalaureat; the first part is after 11th grade and the second part is after 12th grade. The format is the same for both.</p>
<p>When Michelle Hernandez railed against SAT1, the test must be good. She represents the pinnacle of gaming the college admission by the rich and the powerful. She lives on manipulating her clients' applications to gain advantage over the poor and the not so rich, by charging $30,000 a pop. You would wonder why she hates the test so much? Obviously, SAT1 is not corruptible and is the major obstacle for the rich but dim witted kids getting admitted into IVY league schools. </p>
<p>I also found the reasoning by Fritzsimmon of getting rid of SAT1 disingenuous. Poor kids are less likely to take any test multiple times because the costs are substantial. Why wouldn't he propose to limit the number of test to one to level the playing field? This will dramatically reduce the gaming of the test. The costs of extracurricular activities are quite high these days. Taking away the extracurricular activity in consideration for admission will ensure a dramatic leveling of the playing field, too. Instead, he proposes more subject tests while knowing big curves for many of the subject tests. Some of the subject tests have more than 50% of the test takers scoring 800. Even the hard core science subject tests such as math IIc, physics and chemistry see 10% test takers getting full scores. This will only muddle the water, makes the decision more subjective, and give more room to college consultant services such as Hernandez's to manipulate the system. In the end, taking away SAT1 will likely benefit the rich, not the poor.</p>
<p>I agree with post 123. I think mammall is getting overwrought about this. I don't see doom and gloom in the college future. I also don't see the source of the anxiety: The SAT I is one of several ability & achievement factors which admissions committees look at in total. A student who underperforms on the test may <em>not</em> get admitted if the other indicators of ability do not override that. The bar remains high. I don't know what mammall's D is telling her about Harvard: that her classmates are stupid? I know what <em>my</em> D tells me about her Ivy: her classmates are awesomely brilliant. Yet for both Ivies several intellectual components were looked at in admitting my D's class and her D's class. The SAT I is neither ignored nor singularly glorified in the admissions process. </p>
<p>Test-taking is one feature in gaming the system. The unlimited flood of applications is even more detrimental, i.m.o., to outcomes. I am not one of those overly worked up about the SAT I, for this reason. Second, both my children are now in college. I speak as an educator -- and yes, the one area in which I do agree with mammall is in regard to the high school content which should be preparing students both for standardized & for nonstandardized tests. To me, that's a far more woeful situation than whether the SAT I is over- or under-considered.</p>
<p>^ Thank you, Straightalk - your post is exactly correct.</p>
<p>And TokenAdult and Marite - thank you for the descriptions of how Taiwan and France test. Can you update us on what top-ranked universities Taiwan and France have produced and some of the recent innovations coming out of them? Perhaps their model is working - that has not been my understanding. Their students sound as if they work very hard and apply themselves to specific subject matter with intensity but can you point to evidence that students brought up in such systems are innovators and distinguish their universities on the world research stage?</p>
<p>Don't mean to be offensive with this - but my understanding is that top foreign students tend to come here to attend university where the SAT and ACT are very much a part of the admissions landscape.</p>
<p>"SAT1 is not corruptible and is the major obstacle for the rich but dim witted kids getting admitted into IVY league schools."</p>
<p>Wrong and naive. The SAT I is subject to cheating, as well as subject to paid preparation by those very rich students. Further, the rich but dim witted get admitted if they're rich enough to be Development Admits.</p>
<p>I do not agree with your assessment of Michele Hernandez. I have read her work carefully. I do not see where she counsels people that you can get admitted to an Ivy without the intellectual goods. Her goal is to describe the communication of those goods in a way that the committee can assess in light of its priorities & the way it makes decisions.</p>
<p>I can't speak to France, but Taiwan is full of initiative and innovation. When my wife was born, Taiwan was poorer that Zambia, so we are talking about a very low-income, third-world area now democratized, industrialized, and environmentally cleaned up. Extremely high rates of economic growth over the last few decades have left Taiwan with very high living standards for its region and more even distribution of income than the United States. Taiwan is still subject to a "brain drain" in the direction of top students from there filling up graduate school programs in the United States, but the people who stay there do all right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The SAT I is subject to cheating, as well as subject to paid preparation by those very rich students. Further, the rich but dim witted get admitted if they're rich enough to be Development Admits.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And with more tests and especially with content tests, the cheating and the wealth advantage will increase exponentially.</p>
<p>Actually, I didn't know there was very much cheating on the SAT. Once in a while you hear about it - maybe I'm not paying attention.</p>
<p>Allow me to repeat myself. The rich but dim-witted do fare much better in college admission, or have generally until very recently, than the poor but smart. Here are some links about the issue. The overall picture in the past decade has been that high-ability, low-income students are at a clear disadvantage in the college admission process compared to low-ability, high-income students. (The links below are in approximate chronological order of publication, from oldest to newest.) Is anything changing recently about this? </p>
<p>"Use of the SAT and ACT does not appear to be rendering a shoddy class of incoming students at Harvard."</p>
<p>Nor is it doing so for Columbia, Princeton, Penn, Yale, and their LAC cousins. What's your point? That only perfect scorers should be admitted to these schools? (Only perfect scorers are brilliant?) </p>
<p>You see, I'm not worried. I know how other educators size up students. Like coureur, I doubt that SAT I or II is on its way out, but even were it to disappear tomorrow, it would be replaced by something else "universal." And if not, there would be other ways to assess. Removing all those perfect scores from all your D's friends would nevertheless reveal quite a pattern of accomplishment & ability, undoubtedly.</p>
<p>^ Epiphany - first of all, TokenAdult has exhaustively documented for us that there aren't enough "perfect" 2400s or 36s out there to even fill half an incoming class at Harvard. My point is that emphasis on the SAT in admissions does not appear to be producing shoddy classes of freshman at these schools. And very few of them have perfect scores. My point is that it isn't necessary to have perfect scores to get into them - colleges are using holistic approaches to evaluate applicants - it is working - and the SAT and ACT are not hurting that process.</p>
<p>My other contention is that shifting away from the SAT or ACT to more emphasis on subject tests will increase the advantage of the wealthy, distract more than focus high school kids in their studies, encourage premature specialization and just generally inflate what is already too much preoccupation with testing during high school.</p>
<p>Sure, the process is imperfect right now. But killing off the ACT/SAT is not the answer. Those two tests in fact give disadvantaged kids one of their very best avenues of lifting themselves in this society, much better than achievement tests which are almost certainly going to have them trail their wealthier and better schooled peers by an even larger margin.</p>
<p>What has been a very unfortunate and little remarked development is CB's adoption of score choice for the SAT. Now the wealthy who can afford it can send their kids for repeating testing with no penalty of looking obsessive in the eyes of the admissions folk. Not good.</p>
<p>I think the point of the discussion (again, I've said it several times now) is to de-emphasize the importance of the SAT in the hierarchy of factors, not to eliminate it entirely. I don't see how that negatively impacts your own goal: which is to get students to spend <em>less</em> time focusing on it & gaming the test industry.</p>
<p>I agree with your contention about Subject Tests (and, in particular AP/IB tests) further advantaging the advantaged. Indeed, the University of California has come to a similar conclusion, particularly with regards to URMs, and is process of dropping the Subject Tests as an admissions requirement.</p>
<p>However, methinks there is absolutely litte data to support your other point:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those two tests in fact give disadvantaged kids one of their very best avenues of lifting themselves in this society...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i.e., where is the data to show that low SES kids score well and, as a result, "lift themselves" in society??</p>
<p>Epiphany: By reading some of your comments in this thread, I realized that you are a proponent of high school grade and teachers references as the major criteria for admitting a student. While this information is important, the variation is too big or too subjective. There is a need for a standard measurement. However flawed SAT1 is, it gives you a yardstick measuring the competency of English, (and much less so in math). The current SAT subject tests are flawed because of score distributions among test takers. Math IIc is quite pathetic. A test taker of physics can make a score of 800 even though leaving 20% questions unanswered. As an educator in a major research University in this country, I am having hard time to find a competent lab tech from the US born students. The undergraduate grades, sometimes even references, are quite inaccurate in assessing competency. I think that it has something to do with the water-down math curriculum in the high school in our country. I ended up hiring a lot of kids from India, Taiwan and China. Fifty percent of the faculty members in our department are foreign born. If you say that our Universities are the best in the world, it is because we have been collecting a lot of brains from other countries for sometimes, not because of having a great supply of talents from our K-12 education. In a sense, the K-12 educators in this country are failing us.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you say that our Universities are the best in the world, it is because we have been collecting a lot of brains from other countries for sometimes, not because of having a great supply of talents from our K-12 education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hear. Hear. Education reform in my state is being pushed much more by people who have to hire persons who have completed their educations than by persons currently employed in the public K-12 education system.</p>