<p>Mom of Knight, do you have a better suggestion of how to compare kids, considering that there is literally no comparison between GPAs of different high schools? </p>
<p>It isn't a perfect test, by far, but there has got to be some kind of standardized measure.</p>
<p>Let me quote from Fair Test's web site:</p>
<p>Nearly 400 colleges and universities across the United States admit a substantial number of students without regard to test scores. Read FairTest's report Test Scores Do Not Equal Merit on-line to learn more about test-score optional admissions, or review the Executive Summary below.</p>
<p>Test Scores Do Not Equal Merit</p>
<p>Executive Summary</p>
<p>Nearly 400 four-year colleges and universities across the U.S., acting on the belief that "test scores do not equal merit," do not use the SAT or ACT to make admissions decisions about a substantial number of their incoming freshmen classes. These institutions range widely in size and mission. </p>
<p>Schools that have made standardized tests optional for admissions are widely pleased with the results. Many report their applicant pools and enrolled classes have become more diverse without any loss in academic quality. "Test score optional" policies promote both equity and excellence.
Colleges and universities that have moved away from using standardized tests to make admissions decisions have done so for a variety of reasons, but all have concerns about the impact of overreliance on the tests. Some public universities have acted to deemphasize the SAT and ACT in the face of restrictions on affirmative action; a few are developing more flexible approaches to admissions in response to changes in the K-12 sector; many have found high school classroom performance to be a markedly superior way of forecasting academic success in college. </p>
<p>Lessons learned at the wide range of "test score-optional" schools can be applied to many other institutions. These lessons include:
- Dropping tests leads to greater diversity because the focus on test scores deters otherwise qualified minority, low-income, first-generation, female and other students from applying
- Deemphasizing tests attracts more students who are academically capable
- High school performance -- expressed either as grades or class rank -- is the best available screening device for applicants</p>
<p>Institutions that still require ACT or SAT scores should review the experiences of schools that have deemphasized the tests or explicitly made them optional in the admissions process. Colleges and universities should examine their own experiences with tests and ask these questions:
- Do the tests really have predictive validity at this institution?
- Does that validity hold for all ethnic, age, and income groups as well as for both men and women?
- Do the tests add anything significant to what admissions officers already know about applicants?
- Are test score requirements deterring potential applicants who would make suitable students?</p>
<p>"So they sold their integrity for money."</p>
<p>Mini, I was talking about the integrity of the questions. ETS/TCB might be faulted for many shortcomings, but I believe that the questions they have been producing are beyond reproach. As far as the test being harder for some, I also think that it is inevitable. While the absolute results may look skewed, nothing precludes the real clients of the tests (the schools, not the students) to make adjustments for income and race. Heck, isn't what they do? The test is simply another measurement of the inequities impacting our education. TCB can identify the symptomatic differences, but cannot correct them.</p>
<p>Momofaknight, FairTest often speaks with a forked tongue, and fails to back up the overwhelming majority of its findings. Educators should continue to have dialogues about standardized tests, but FairTest does not deserve a seat at the table. Just as the clown (Jay Rosner) who heads the Princeton Review Foundation, the people working at FairTest lack the resources, knowledge, and training to give much credence to their findings and publications. </p>
<p>For all its years of activism, FairTest has not offered a single workable solution nor constructive idea.</p>
<p>Regarding people who make a living throwing stones at the SAT and masquerading as experts, here's an interesting "lifting of the veil":</p>
<p>
[quote]
THE COURT: First you better ask him and lay a foundation, because his expertise -- I mean, I let him kind of go on a lot last time, and in fact, I thought about it and thought about it and probably let him go on too much. From now on we're going to answer the questions. And I haven't heard any -- why don't you lay a foundation if he has expertise in that area.
THE COURT: **First of all, have you had any training, statistical training or anything of that nature?
THE WITNESS: I don't have any formal statistical training, no.</p>
<p>THE COURT: *Is there a paper I can read that you have done on this? Is there anything other than your anecdotal discussions with people?
THE WITNESS: Probably the -- there is a test that we will talk about that I have compiled that, in the context of this testimony, that I just compiled a couple of weeks ago and that's, I think, the only thing.
THE COURT: Just compiled a couple weeks ago?
THE WITNESS: Yes. *</p>
<p>MR. KOLBO: Your Honor, if I can just make it clear, we have an objection on foundation. We don't -- we believe this witness hasn't been qualified as an expert on test design and psychometrics and --</p>
<p>THE COURT: I agree with you, and that's what I thought we were getting into.</p>
<p>MS. MASSIE: But he doesn't have to, as an expert, to be qualified as an expert, he doesn't have to have specialized academic training. I think we agree about that.</p>
<p>THE COURT: I absolutely agree, but he has to have more than anecdotal kinds of information if he is going to testify as an expert. Anyhow, let's go. Let me -- we heard, we have heard from experts, so we know what they are, including Dr. Shapiro who testified before, who by training, by every kind of imaginable thing has the expertise to testify in testing areas and statistics and so forth. The only reason I mention it, I'm looking at your exhibits and --</p>
<p>MS. MASSIE: I think Mr. Rosner's testimony will build on Professor Shapiro's.</p>
<p>THE COURT: It may build on it, but he's got to have some expertise other than the fact that he is a lawyer and he works for a company that gives classes on testing.</p>
<p>THE COURT: Have you done any testing of your own, done anything like that?
THE WITNESS: I have talked to minority students.
THE COURT: My question is, have you done any testing?
THE WITNESS: No.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Xiggi: Good posts in defense of the SAT. But rather than hijack this thread, there seems to be a new SAT thread going so I'll go check that one out.</p>
<p>As was noted, try some of the schools that don't require the SAT. You had Moravian on the list and you could look at Franklin and Marshall in the same area. F&M does not require the SAT if your grades are above a certain level. I believe Bates in Maine also does not require it either.</p>
<p>She will probably do much better on a retake as practice taking that type of exam really helps.</p>
<p>Holy Cross and Bowdoin are 2 very good LAC'S that don't require SAT's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is my understanding that these tests are only significantly correlated with performance during the first year of college, nothing else.
[/quote]
That is true; also it is only a very slight correlation. It is statistically significant, but less significant as a predictor than high school grades.</p>
<p>zoosers, i went to york and i'm sure your daughter would love it there.. and with her act score i doubt she'd have a problem getting in..</p>