<p>I say give them the SAT once with no prep. College Addmissions nowadays seems to be measured on who can best take a standardized test. High school grades would have more pull if I were an adcom.</p>
<p>I didn't say "it's a riot," I said "you're a riot!" It's the same idea that Tookie suggests, (and I can't disagree with) expressed in a hilarious way. So there!</p>
<p>Tookie, after a couple of "seasons" on CC, and based on reading the fine print of the USNEWS and accounts of successful applicants, I believe that, from all the objectively measurable statistics, the combination of GPA and rank carry the most weight. Schools, however, cannot rely on GPA alone because there is a great variance in the quality of the schools and integrity of the GPA calculations. That is why most schools need another set of data to be able to draw comparisons. Despite its shortcomings, the SAT and the ACT are still the best equalizers on a nationwide basis.</p>
<p>As far as allowing a single sitting, one should not forget that the PSAT already provides a one sitting/one score yardstick. Another possible misconception is that a single test would help the less fortunate students. The reality is that students with better resources would be the biggest beneficiaries because better prepared students need fewer chances to earn a high score. Poor students can take the tests multiple times at no cost, but may not have access to outside paid assistance. A single sitting would increase the need for professional help, not diminish it. Limiting the amount of outside help is simply not feasible.</p>
<p>"I didn't say "it's a riot," I said "you're a riot!" It's the same idea that Tookie suggests, (and I can't disagree with) expressed in a hilarious way. So there!."</p>
<p>Sorry! (yeah, I can be a funny guy!)</p>
<p>Nope. There is data on relationship between number of times one takes the test and highest scores, and between income and number of times one takes the test. It would be easy to require a signed pledge that no outside help has been provided, but it would destroy their own industry, wouldn't it? (much like correcting SAT scores for family income/years of parental education - it is not difficult to do, but would offend the prime customers.)</p>
<p>But taking the lowest score might be simpler, as a start.</p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi completely, especially on the idea that a single sitting would be more advantageous to low income students.<br>
The greatest advantage of having high SES, well-educated parents does not come from having access to SAT tutors, but from having access to educational resources from BEFORE even starting school: being read to when younger, having books to read later on, being taken to museums and other enrichment activities, having parents who engage one in learning. These are far more important to educational success than cram courses.</p>
<p>Edited after reading Mini's post:
Number of times S took SAT:1. Number times S took SAT-IIs: 2 (first time: chemistry; second tim:e Writing and Math2c).<br>
SAT resources used by S: 10Real SATs, Strunk & White (which I already owned) and Xiggi's tips. However, S's bookshelves overflow with books on a very wide range of topics.</p>
<p>"These are far more important to educational success than cram courses."</p>
<p>Maybe. But the cram courses have demonstrated actual effectiveness in raising scores significantly. Of course, you could conduct an experiment. Ban all of the cram courses from those who have all the advantages you stated, and let them only take the test once. Provide the cram courses to those who lack the advantages, and let them take the tests thrice. </p>
<p>I don't think you'll want to see the results. The cram courses do prey on middle-class family fears - that's how they initially attract customers. But they keep the customers because they work. At 16 years old, a kid can't go back and redo his early childhood and home life; but he could take the cram course. So your point is irrelevant.</p>
<p>I am not saying that cram courses cannot help. But the advantages of having high SES, well-educated parents give students a far greater advantage. Attending good, often suburban or private schools give a far greater advantage. such an advantage can be squandered, to be sure, but on the whole, forcing all students to take the SATs in one sitting will not eradicate it. </p>
<p>People who try to think up ways of compensating for the correlation between high SAT scores and high SES often act as if the high SES materialized only in the few months before students take the SATs in the form of cram courses. Yet know that children of poorly educated and low income parents start school with a vocabulary deficit. Look at the way middle class parents interact with their children, and see how often they unwittingly practice the Socratic approach to teaching. </p>
<p>What could help would be to provide SAT support in the schools so as to make it available to all students rather than to the few whose parents can afford PR or Kaplan. Alas, there is a downside to this, as my S could tell you. Every single one of his high school classes seems to be a SAT review session, whether it is AP-US History or Spanish 4 or a class in semiotics. His only respite from all this SAT prep is the two college classes he is taking.</p>
<p>Mini, I assume that the nope was directed at my earlier statement ... so bear with me for the rebuttal. :)</p>
<p>I also believe that taking the test multiple times yield increases in scores. I probably would go farther than ETS/TCB and acknowledge a HIGHER increase than the published gain of 15 points per subject. I also agree with the data that supports that students who come from higher SES backgrounds score higher on the SAT. However, all of that is not relevant to the impact of a single test. </p>
<p>Let's draw a comparison to a hypothetical admission audition for a fresh horn player at Juilliard. If it was a single, one chance only test would you not agree that the student who has benefitted from years of private tutoring, access to private evaluations -that mimic the testing conditions- from experienced teachers would stand a better chance because of his superior training? On the other hand, if he competes against a lesser prepared student who receives unlimited chances, his advantage diminishes. </p>
<p>Mini, you have to consider that the SAT test has long lost its aura of secrecy. Past tests are widely available and one does not need to take the official test as a practice. If you were to make it one test per person, the access to "emulated" testing conditions would become more valuable. Richer students could easily go through monitored practice rounds and gain additional testing experience, an experience that is very valuable for the SAT. </p>
<p>As far as relying on a pledge of "no-outside-help", I think that it would be impossible to monitor. After all, would a private English tutor that specializes in grammar and writing be considered a SAT tutor? Where would you draw the line between a regular high school tutor and a specialized tutor? </p>
<p>Just some food for thought!</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>"These are far more important to educational success than cram courses." <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree. This will still overide taking the test multiple times or cramming for the SAT I test. There is a limit to this. One must not forget that a certain amount of innate intelligence is necessary to score high on the SAT I. There were only about 900 perfect scores of 1600 on the SAT I last year, out of 1.5 million test takers. Hundreds of thousands of the 1.5 million test takers took test prep and took the test mulitple times, but ONLY about 900 had a perfect score. So, what does this mean? It means no amount test prep or no matter how many times you take this test will give you a higher score than what you are capable of. </p>
<p>NOT EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF A HIGH SCORE. NOT EVERYONE IS CREATED EQUAL. ONLY EQUALS ARE EQUAL TO EQUALS. ONE CANNOT CREATE EQUALS.</p>
<p>To achieve a 1500+ score is an achievement with high distinction, and to achieve a 1600 score is exponentially more difficult, which no amount of test prep will help, if you do not have the prerequisites to score high to begin with. </p>
<p>An excellent study of high scorers on the SAT I test can be obtained from the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth, which uses the SAT I to place students younger than 12 into college level courses. The Johns Hopkins CTY, also follows a subset of its highest scorers called SET or "Study of Exceptional Talent"</p>
<p>"The Study of Exceptional Talent (SET) was created to help extremely talented students achieve their full potential. Since 1980, SET has assisted students throughout the U.S. who exhibit extraordinary mathematical or verbal reasoning ability by scoring at least 700 on either the mathematical or verbal part of the SAT I before the age of 13."</p>
<p>Our son was part of SET at Johns Hopkins CTY. They don't trivialize the SAT I test. They don't demonize the test as worthless, but they identify exceptional talent with this test, by giving it to students under the age of 13 without any test prep for decades. </p>
<p>Please click on: <a href="http://www.jhu.edu/gifted/set/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.jhu.edu/gifted/set/index.html</a></p>
<p>[Research Activities</p>
<p>By following the academic progress and careers of its members, SETs staff studies talent development and evaluates the effectiveness of various educational strategies and interventions in meeting the individual needs of exceptional youths. We hope to better understand the needs of highly able students and to identify effective ways for such individuals to meet those needs. For more about research on the SET population, see CTYs Research Bibliography and the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) at Vanderbilt University.]</p>
<p>"I am not saying that cram courses cannot help. But the advantages of having high SES, well-educated parents give students a far greater advantage. Attending good, often suburban or private schools give a far greater advantage. such an advantage can be squandered, to be sure, but on the whole, forcing all students to take the SATs in one sitting will not eradicate it.'</p>
<p>The easiest way of course is to do what the SAT people already know how to do. They already know that the SAT doesn't measure "aptitude" or "achievement", and has not been shown to effectively measure first-year college performance (which is all they claimed for it.) What it does objectively measure is also well documented: income of families of students in the geographic area around the school (or, in the case of private schools - the student body, which is why low-income students do well at Andover) and highest number of years of parental education of one parent. So the simplest thing to do is make a correction based on the objective measures - it isn't hard to do, and they might actually end up with what they claim: predictor of first-year college performance.</p>
<p>But they'll never do it - the current test, which is just the opposite of need-blind, is what many of their major customers need.</p>
<p>Oh - the "no-outside-help" thing is no harder to monitor than school grades, cheating on tests, etc. is now. Will there be cheaters? Why of course! Will there be gaming? You bet! Will it work for 90% of the population? Yup.</p>
<p>Mini said, </p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>What it does objectively measure is also well documented: income of families of students in the geographic area around the school (or, in the case of private schools - the student body, which is why low-income students do well at Andover) and highest number of years of parental education of one parent. So the simplest thing to do is make a correction based on the objective measures - it isn't hard to do, and they might actually end up with what they claim: predictor of first-year college performance. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Really? Mini, you have not acknowledged the following yet. </p>
<p>HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING? </p>
<p>The POOREST Asian Americans from family incomes of less than $20k/year with parents with a high school diploma or less outperform on the SAT I and achieve higher GPAs, and take more difficult courses than the richest blacks from family incomes of $100k/year and parents with college and graduate degrees. In fact, the poorest Asian Americans living in the poorest neighborhoods outperform many whites in more affluent neighborhoods. That's the well known DARK secret that the politically correct refuse to acknowledge.</p>
<p>Source; The College Board</p>
<p>Fact #1</p>
<p>Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children and Asian Americans from families below the poverty line.</p>
<p>Fact #2 </p>
<p>Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white and Asian American children of parents with a high-school diploma or less. </p>
<p>From the College Board data, you will discover that Asians mostly sit on top of the heap; that whites, Mexican Americans and blacks follow in that order. Some details prove interesting. For example, whites enjoy a verbal advantage over Asians that disappears at high levels of income and social advantage. Regrettably, the College Board no longer discloses these data. In 1996, they stopped publishing performance by income and parental education disaggregated by race and ethnicity.</p>
<p>Check out;</p>
<p>APPENDIX B. SAT 1995 DATA AND GRAPHS</p>
<p>1995 SAT Scores vs. Family Income</p>
<p>1995 SAT Scores vs. Parental Education </p>
<p>for the actual data verify the facts above.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>There are three aspects to the SAT. 1 its content. 2. its use as a nation-wide gauge; 3. its use as predictor of performance. 1 & 2 are closely related. I don't like the format or the content, and I agree that it is a poor predictor of performance because of the contents and the grading issue. But I like the fact that it is a nation-wide instrument that can help interpret GPAs. So I would support altering the SAT (and have in the past argued at CB meetings). But if the SAT did not exist, it would have to be invented. Having lived with the Baccalaureat (in which I did very well, thank you kindly), I prefer the American system of multiple gauges, some of which are local, and some of which such as the SAT, ACT and APs are national.</p>
<p>You want one sitting? Why? GPA is not contingent on just the final exam, but on a semester or year long performance, so that it is possible for a student who started out weak to improve during the year, and a student who slacks off for some reason after starting out strong gets his comeuppance later on. If a student can take the SAT only once, I suspect that it will assume even more mythic importance than it does now. I can still remember the classmates who told me they stayed up until 2 or 3 every day and lost 7kgs by the time the baccalaureat rolled around. One of my classmate actually had a nervous breakdown.</p>
<p>Let's not kid ourselves, though, that reforming the SAT or its epigones will eliminate SES-based educational inequalities.</p>
<p>Mini, the problem with statistics is that you can make them say about anything you want. Do you really believe that ALL poor people do poorly on the SAT? The statistics hide the fact that for a vast majority of lower income people the PSAT/SAT means absolutely nothing except that it represents a waste of several hours. Students simply go through the routine and answer the questions without heart or desire. At the other end of the spectrum, there are students who see the merit of scoring very high on the SAT, since it may represent the best way to break the cycle of poverty. While the overall statistics correctly report a correlation of SAT and income, or SAT and educational background of the parents, they are much more obscure when it gets to the high end scores. The poor students who perform well on the SAT are simply drown in a sea of uninspired students who go through the motions. If you doubt that poor students are able to score very high on the SAT, you do not need to look far ... just check the CC SAT Preparation forum. </p>
<p>Moving away from misleading statistics, I can assure you that most students are capable to increase their scores through practice. While the degree of the increase depends from student to student, there is an unbelievable correlation between the amount of repetition and the score variances. The problem is that a great number of students believe in the existence of a SAT Holy Grail and that short and quick strategies are the only things that separate them from a great score. The reality is that an increase in scores require little more than desire and a small budget for a book or two. I know it is possible because I have witnessed it countless times.</p>
<p>The problem does not lie in what the SAT is or is not. The problem starts with a blatant lack of motivation to do well. Students who fail to see the benefits of a higher education won't make the necessary efforts, regardless of income or family standards. </p>
<p>The SAT is not a perfect test but it is one of the best tools available. Rather than spending energy to look for its inherent faults, I'd rather focus on beating the beast. And it is not that hard!</p>
<p>I like the idea of 2 sittings. The first time my S took SAT, he was sick with bad cold. Two weeks later, he took SAT2s, and scored so much better. (I'm not including the 7th grade try).
I wish I could say that eliminating the SAT would make a difference. The same kids who took prep courses are also the ones spending $2500 for help in preparing applications, including essays. Some of these families aren't middle-class, and they want to 'package' their kids for best schools and merit money. Even if essays were done in a supervised setting, these same kids would have tutoring on how to answer a variety of topics. Its naive to think the admissions people can tell the packaged students from the rest, unless there exists a discrepancy between Sats, APs, GPA, essays, & recoms.
Whether one is taking law boards, national or state boards for other professions, it really helps to know that they can be repeated. Again, many people would benefit from timed practice settings, in a setting similar to actual test experience. Having just taken boards in another state, I can't tell you how anxious I was.</p>
<p>Returning to the origianl question (while I stifle or refine my reaction the continual flow of detritis regarding SATs as an income measurement) the best thing would be to haev taken the hardest courses, sith a high rank and therefore high grades. I would rank being a recruited athlete as being very high, but it depends on having acceptanle academic performance including scores. ECs are important if you are the best in the country at doing something the school values, like playing the violin or singing. Being pretty good is interesting but not worth very much compared to the academic parts. SAT scores are very important, but unless you are over the upper quartile significantly, there are a lot like you. Legacy is absolutely at the bottom, especially at HYP. Veronwe's comment actually highlights that the legacy aplicants are held to a higher standard at those schools today, and are evaluated in a pool of similar applicants. There is a limit on their numbers, not a minimum quota. At other schools the legacy "advantage" may exist to a degree. But its not worth nearly as much as both legacies and non-legacies want to believe.</p>
<p>The comments about money are complete tripe. IF it were true, people like George Soros' sons would all go to HYP. They do not because they cannot get in.</p>
<p>"The SAT is not a perfect test but it is one of the best tools available. Rather than spending energy to look for its inherent faults, I'd rather focus on beating the beast. And it is not that hard!"</p>
<p>Xiggi - I don't believe "all" do anything. That's why I believe in the data, what the authors of the test say about the data, and what the largest consumer of the data (the UC system) has to say about them. The SAT IS a perfect tool for what it is known to measure. And that is what many schools want, some don't (UCs), and some find foreign to their institutional mission. Let's just remember what limited claims the authors of the test make for it, and what it is known to objectively measure. In aggregate, it quickly helps take the "blind" out of "need-blind" admissions.</p>
<p>(For the record, my d. took it once, in 8th grade, and that was the end of that. (We nicknamed her the "Bubble Queen".) But she suffers from too many years of one parent's education - MINE! and she is still in recovery....)</p>
<p>Mini said,</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>(For the record, my d. took it once, in 8th grade, and that was the end of that. (We nicknamed her the "Bubble Queen".) But she suffers from too many years of one parent's education - MINE! and she is still in recovery....) <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>It is my understanding that the College Board does not count the SAT I scores for college admissions until it is taken in the 9th grade or above. In fact, all scores before the 9th grade are not recorded and submitted to the colleges. If your D applied to college, she would have to take the SAT I again after the 8th grade, when it counts for college admissions. Our son also took the SAT I in the 8th grade, scoring 1540 for the Johns Hopkins CTY, but he was required to retake it for college admissions. He took the test again in the 10th grade.</p>
<p>Mini said, </p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>And that is what many schools want, some don't (UCs), and some find foreign to their institutional mission. Let's just remember what limited claims the authors of the test make for it, and what it is known to objectively measure. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>What is it that the UC wants?</p>
<p>You should read "Keep the SAT as a UC Admissions Requirement" from ACTION ALERT, No. 65, February 27, 2001, by Lance Izumi, an essay in support of the SAT I test, which debunks your arguments regarding the "mission" of the UC. </p>
<p>Please click on:</p>
<p>Mini, let's agree to disagree about the validity and usage of the SAT.</p>
<p>I believe that we discussed this issue in the past. I happen to believe that the UC system is fighting its own demons and is still struggling to design admission policies that are more appropriate for the changing demographics of California's students.</p>
<p>Mini,
Your D only took in 8th grade? That was only score she needed?</p>