<p>The fact that US universities feel that they need to use external standardized tests to supplement applicants’ high school academic credentials indicates that they believe that the K-12 school curricula in the US are not very standardized as far as quality and grading goes, even though the course names and subject delineations may be superficially similar.</p>
<p>Of course, one can argue that this problem is even more extreme in countries where the universities’ sole criteria for admission is a standardized test, indicating that they do not trust high school records at all.</p>
<p>Really? Well that is would explain why a really small number study for the SAT, like the 11% of US students have taken a SAT prep course and another 7% have had a private tutor. It also explains why no one sells SAT prep books on Amazon. Can’t find those books anywhere and they never even update them from year to year.</p>
<p>I don’t like your whole study, and I’ve been trying to figure out why.</p>
<p>After all, to be fair to you, it should be perfectly OK for you to investigate anything you want.</p>
<p>I think I’ve figured out what’s bothering me. Focusing on the results of your study would tend to emphasize the differences among the three groups, but I think the differences between individuals in each group are likely to be more important to academic success – and that people need to focus more on those individual differences rather than the group ones.</p>
<p>But as I said, you can, of course, study whatever interests you.</p>
<p>You might be amazed that there are entire large states in the middle of the country where, indeed, relatively few students take the SAT unless they are applying to a small handful of schools. And you might be amazed that the <em>general population,</em> indeed, is not spending too much time studying for standardized testing, and is basing college decisions based on finances, specific major offered and distance from home, not “is this the very most prestigious and best school I can get into.”</p>
<p>Let’s suppose that your hypothesis is true. What should be done about it, and who should be responsible for doing those things? And if Korean students indeed have been rewarded all their lives for studying hard, not doing extracurriculars, etc., what is to entice them to do things differently? </p>
<p>Different people have different definitions of success, which is a factor you aren’t taking into account. Maybe one student considers his college life a “success” if he gets a 4.0 and frequents the library and doesn’t care about social life. Maybe another student considers his college life a “success” if he gets a 3.5 but has time to pursue an extracurricular interest or have an active social life.</p>
<p>I think it would be wise, ccdaddio, to remember that the vast majority of kids who are still studying for the SAT aren’t doing so because visions of Harvard and other elite schools are dancing through their heads. Sure, some are doing so to raise their 750’s to 800’s … and some are doing so to raise their 550’s to 600’s. I think you <em>are</em> betraying some cultural bias on your part to presuppose that the vast majority of students in the US even <em>think</em> about elite colleges or have them on their radar screen or have an overwhelming desire to get in. It just doesn’t work that way. Because American students can look around them and see that an elite college is a nice thing, but it’s not some ticket that needs to be punched to have a fairly nice life. There are subgroups in the US for which that is a concern, but not the average American student, who couldn’t name the Ivy League schools if you held a gun to his head (nor could his parents).</p>
<p>I think it is useful to look at extrinsic versus intrinsic motivators. High school often involves the former, while hopefully as kids mature, college involves more of the latter.</p>
<p>The book “The Smartest Kids in the World”, while quite superficial, looks at students and educational systems in the U.S., South Korea, Poland and Finland. It touches on some of these issues.</p>
<p>It is interesting to note that in the international test that book is based on (I forget the name, but it is supposed to measure critical and creative thinking) the U.S. did not fare wel. However, a top scoring country, China, announced that it would be curtailing homework in the schools for all ages, in the interest of mental health, including presumably extracurriculars and time for social and emotional development.</p>
<p>Just to add that the hagwans described in that book as being the primary part of South Korean education, which consist of privately arranged tutoring, go on to all hours of the night. Students wear a gizmo that is a pillow on an armband and according to the author, sleep on their arms during regular school out of exhaustion.</p>
<p>“Focusing on the results of your study would tend to emphasize the differences among the three groups, but I think the differences between individuals in each group are likely to be more important to academic success”</p>
<p>OK I got it. My focus is Korean education and want to find implications from American one. For this three-group comparison story began. However, your focus is American education and are bothered by comparative thinking emphasizing differences between groups, coming to mind sensitive issue. </p>
<p>If your focus is Korean education, why is the “marker of success” how such students do in American universities? Or perhaps I’m missing something. Perhaps the population of Korean natives who choose to go to American universities have something different about them in the first place, so they are systematically different from Korean-students-as-a-whole?</p>
<p>It seems that you have something politically incorrect to say and instead of just saying it, you are dancing around it. Just say it. We can handle it.</p>
<p>If Passkey does not have actual data with statistically significant p values to back up his conclusions then all the ideas he presented here are his personal opinions. As many have pointed out these appear to be racially biased.</p>
<p>I guess I’m wondering that if you find the hagwans / IV drips / constant round-the-clock study-til-exhaustion to be the wrong thing … why you need a study to confirm it. Isn’t that just the wrong thing because it’s the wrong thing, regardless of the results? Likewise, using Adderall (etc) when one doesn’t have a medical diagnosis or reason to use it is the wrong thing to do because it’s just … the wrong thing to do. It doesn’t matter if it actually “works” or not. Writing the answers on my arm is also the wrong thing to do, whether or not doing so actually increases my test scores. It’s like there is no morality outside of results.</p>