<p>The College Board might be revamping the SAT soon (College</a> Board announces plans to redesign the SAT | Inside Higher Ed).</p>
<p>Any thoughts?</p>
<p>That has been discussed in this forum for a few months.</p>
<p>SAT is broken. Each school should have its own test. Yes, I know the logistics would be hard but I think it’s the only way. Perhaps the college board could proctor the test but that’s all.</p>
<p>“SAT is broken. Each school should have its own test. Yes, I know the logistics would be hard but I think it’s the only way. Perhaps the college board could proctor the test but that’s all.”</p>
<p>That defeats the entire point of a STANDARDIZED test rofl</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Defeating standardized testing is the point.</p>
<p>^?!?!
The only downside to the SAT, in my opinion, is that it doesn’t really cover what you learn in school. But then we also have the SAT subject tests, GPAs, and the ACT, so that problem is fixed.</p>
<p>Your proposition would lead to MAJOR headaches for colleges and students. If your goal is to defeat standardized testing, then we would abolish APs, state testing, etc. That would allow schools (especially private schools) to inflate grades all they want, or allow for favoritism (believe me, it’s a real problem).</p>
<p>Not to mention that the school would have to find the qualified people to write the test. And share the material with colleges so they know what they’re looking at. That might work for a well established private boarding school, but not for the run down, violence and drug plagued, chaotic public schools in my district.</p>
<p>Sosomenza, would you elaborate?</p>
<p>I did mention the logistics would be difficult. see above. (#3)</p>
<p>The main problem with the SAT is that it has become so standardized that people through hard work and perseverance can achieve a great score far beyond their natural abilities. In a way it’s a bit of false advertising, telling the college that they are top thinkers when in fact they are only top test takers.(Not everyone but enough to question the validity of the test). In college, once new material is introduced many of these top scorers will quickly fade to mediocrity.</p>
<p>Is there a better way. Yes I think each college should stop depending on the college board and develop its own methodology. Each college should design its own test based on the attributes that it wants in a student. A LAC might want to concentrate on the arts. An engineering school on math and science. The manner of the test probably should also be different, changing from multiple choice to that of verbal, essay and direct answer questions (oral). Also if the best schools want the future leaders of the world then emotional intelligence must also be tested. The future might hold that Stanford tests be prorated 1/3 empirical knowledge, 1/3 emotional intelligence and 1/3 creativity-real world problem solving.</p>
<p>A few things I want to address:
The SAT, and standardized tests, have advantages that college-specific tests would never be able to meet. Not everyone takes it to get into colleges. Everywhere from talent searches, homeschoolers, and private schools use it as a measurement tool. It would
Logistically it would be near impossible to implement so many tests, as well. Tests would need to be proctored and controlled, and schools would never have the money to use the tight security procedures that the Collegeboard can use.
There are many problems with oral tests as well. They would need to be one on one, and that’s simply impossible with thousands of applicants. If this is your solution to the problem of the SAT favoring certain types of students, this would be much worse. Humans are infinitely more biased than a test- a pretty blonde might get more favorable results than, say, a black male with tattoos. Some people are also more charming or will figuratively kiss the admission officer’s a**.</p>
<p>Your proposition to introduce emotional intelligence tests is equivalent to proposing IQ tests for every college applicant. Ridiculous, simply because neither EQ nor IQ can be measured by a test. Interesting idea for one so against the idea of standardized tests.</p>
<p>sosomenza: Your ideas are radical and very elitist. If each college had its own test, then years of progress that people have put into giving all people the opportunity to a post-secondary education will go to waste. We once had the system you suggest but that system led to complete control of the elite school system by the white and the affluent. I find it sick that you would even consider going back to system.</p>
<p>“Each college should design its own test based on the attributes that it wants in a student.”</p>
<p>I already feel like I’m constantly being tested (And I’m only a rising junior!). Adding a test FOR EVERY SINGLE COLLEGE? Dear lord, I can’t take 13-15 more tests! I would die!</p>
<p>^^^^^
- If there’s a big enough demand for the SAT, then it will remain even if a number of colleges drop it. </p>
<p>2)Logistics, if only there were proctored testing centers in every big city in America? Oh wait there is.</p>
<p>3)The elite universities have the best educators in the world. Are you saying that such minds can’t come up with a high school test? Testing is literally what they do.</p>
<p>4)The SAT favors no one. If it does then that’s the best argument to get rid of it.</p>
<p>5)Both EQ and IQ can be measured by a test. Obviously. </p>
<p>6)Elitist? Wrong need based aid has solved that problem. </p>
<p>7) Sick? I’m open to new ideas and change, which is the sign of health. </p>
<p>8)Don’t get too irate because SAT is not likely going anywhere, mainly because it’s only one part of the admissions puzzle that probably has at least six moving parts.</p>
<p>How is your idea not elitist? Many people in inner cities or rural cities will not take those institutional tests because many won’t even know about them. Pretty much everyone knows about the SAT because almost every college requires it.</p>
<p>“The main problem with the SAT is that it has become so standardized that people through hard work and perseverance can achieve a great score far beyond their natural abilities.”</p>
<p>Really? Colleges want to know your aptitude for hard work and perseverance, dude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it’s important. But the best candidates will be both great thinkers and hard workers. A new test will have to figure out how to find both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>???-Don’t we live in the communications age?</p>
<p>Also every argument that you have given to keep the SAT were the original arguments against the SAT.</p>
<p>2) Not everyone lives in big cities. Testing dates would have to be clumped so that out of towners don’t have to travel a ridiculous amount. And doing the tests close together impacts performance. Anyways, not everyone has the money or time to travel to a big city testing center.</p>
<p>3) What about smaller universities?</p>
<p>4) The SAT does favor certain types of students. But bias, as I said, would be even worse if tests were subjectively administered by humans.</p>
<p>5) No. IQ and EQ are much too complicated to be measured by tests. </p>
<p>Anyways, you might be able to detect personality traits, but how would you judge someone as emotionally intelligent? Would you judge a rational person as more intelligent than an emotionally driven person?</p>
<p>“Yes, it’s important. But the best candidates will be both great thinkers and hard workers. A new test will have to figure out how to find both.”</p>
<p>The SAT values both. The essay is an especially good test for the former.</p>
<p>Great thinking is not a solid concept. Artistic geniuses and scientific pioneers cannot be compared, but neither is “greater” than the other.</p>
<p>For those who are arguing against the test, you are making my exact point. How can you make the world better without the ability to question the status quo and (more importantly) recommend improvements? And if you can’t, should you be considered a top student? Again through SAT, too many people are selling themselves as top thinkers when really they are only top test takers. What’s wrong with a change? Yes, I agree for the third time that the logistics will be difficult, but certainly not impossible.</p>
<p>I think there may be a slight misunderstanding here about the nature of the SAT. </p>
<p>The SAT does not claim to be a test of intelligence or thinking ability. It is an acronym that stands for nothing at all. It used to be called an aptitude test until the Collegeboard realized that scholastic aptitude is untestable.</p>
<p>That invalidates “Again through SAT, too many people are selling themselves as top thinkers when really they are only top test takers.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that it tests very little so maybe it’s time to for the brain trusts at the likes of Stanford and MIT to give it a try. Again the goal will be improvement not perfection.</p>
<p>Also we seem to be in agreement that the SAT is a meaningless test. The problem lies in that there are a lot of people who think because that they can score a 100 points more on a questionable that it makes them the best candidate. The point is that it doesn’t. Also complaining easy is easy, I’ve posted my vision for change, but it certainly is not the best or the only vision. It’s troublesome that no one else is willing to envision change. Imagination is free.</p>
<p>How can you say it tests very little? It tests basic math skills, ability to read and analyze a passage quickly, and grammatical and syntactical knowledge and ability. These are all fundamental skills to be able to succeed in an academic environment. Hard work, tutoring, etc may raise one’s score some, but many studies have shown that on average these things barely raise your score, and merely taking the test twice gives a nearly equivalent score boost. Sure the SAT isn’t perfect, because some people are just not good at test taking, but it obviously tests basic academic skills.</p>