SAT stories

<p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/etc/script.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/etc/script.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"NICHOLAS LEMANN, Author, "The Big Test": The level of obsession over these tests is way out of proportion to what they actually measure. People don't realize this. It's not built to measure your innate worth or anything like that. It's built to predict 15 percent of the variants in freshman year grades in college. I mean, it's a fairly small thing for a test to do, is predict 15 percent of the variants in freshman year grades in college. But it does that.</p>

<p>"BOB SCHAEFFER, National Center for Fair and Open Testing: The sole scientific claim made by the SAT - when you get down to the bottom line and strip away all the rhetoric and nonsense - is its capacity to predict first-year grades. Well, young women get higher grades than young males across the country in colleges despite the fact that they earn lower SAT scores by about 40 points, on the average.</p>

<p>There's only two ways to square that circle. Either all the colleges in the country are wrong, they're biased towards girls and give them higher grades than they deserve, or there's something fundamentally flawed about the test."</p>

<p>"JOHN KATZMAN, Princeton Review: This is a test where everybody's saying, "Look, we're just being an incredibly fair society here. Everybody takes this test. And the better kids go to the better schools." And it's just bull****. You know, the better kids hire me."</p>

<p>"BOB SCHAEFFER, National Center for Fair and Open Testing: How do you know that the scores that you're seeing, whether they're the result of some kid walking in and taking the test cold on a Saturday morning, and the results of some other kid who's been tutored for $700 at the Princeton Review or Kaplan, or $1,500 for some tutor who comes to your house and drills you on the test? Those scores don't mean the same thing."
[<a href="http://www.pbs.org:%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.pbs.org:&lt;/a> Read reports on the score"</p>

<p>If I remember correctly, about 35 years ago, girls needed to score about 50 points higher on the SAT to do as well in college (and I think that included graduating) as boys. If true, this has changed completely. My guess is that, at that time, more boys than girls took the test (with more outstanding girls competing against the boys who took the test), and that girls were less likely to finish college.</p>

<p>dstark: although you didn't explicitly state a point here, I think I get your message. I don't fully disagree with it, either. But if I were to accept your premise that the SAT doesn't mean very much (unreliable, unfair, etc.) then I have a difficult time explaining my own experiences with various colleges: for whatever reason, those places whose students had the lower scores on average TENDED to be less academically -motivated, worked less and appeared to produce lower-quality work than at schools where the test scores were higher. My wife is a college prof. When she encounters a student having performance problems in one of her classes, one of the things she does is to investigate the student's academic background. MOST of the time, such students will have test scores significantly below ave. for the student population.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<h2>SAT Myths</h2>

<p>The Test Is a Common Yardstick</p>

<p>After years of describing the SAT as a "common yardstick," the test-makers have now flip-flopped, claiming "it is a myth that a test will provide a unitary, unequivocal yardstick for ranking on merit." The SAT has always favored students who can afford coaching over those who cannot, students from wealthy suburban schools over those from poor urban school systems, and males over females.</p>

<p>Coaching Does Not Work</p>

<p>The test-makers have backed away from their original claim that performance on the SAT could not be improved through coaching. The College Board now sells its own test prep materials. A number of studies indicate that good coaching courses can raise a student's scores by 150 points or more on the test's 2400 point scale. These courses, which often cost $900 or more, further skew scores in favor of higher-income test takers. Because college admissions officers do not know who has been coached and who has not, they cannot fairly compare two applicants' scores.</p>

<h2>SAT Misuse</h2>

<p>How Is the SAT Misused?</p>

<p>According to the testing profession's own standards, no exam should be used as the sole factor in making any decision. Nor should any test be used for a purpose for which it has not been "validated." Cutoff scores should not be used, especially for high-stakes decisions. Guidelines like these are frequently ignored, with no sanctions from ETS or the College Board. Any uses of the SAT that treat scores as precise measures are seriously flawed: the test-makers admit two students' scores must differ by at least 125 points (Critical Reading plus Math) before they can reliably be said to be different due to measurement error in the test.</p>

<p>Examples of Misuse:</p>

<p>Scholarships:
Several states impose SAT minimum score requirements on students hoping to qualify for taxpayer-funded scholarships. Using cut-off scores for such high-stakes decisions is a clear violation of the test-makers' guidelines. This practice disproportionately impacts minority students who as a group tend to score lower than white students on the SAT. The result is these students lose out on millions of dollars in financial assistance.</p>

<p>National Merit Scholarships use Preliminary SAT (nearly identical to the SAT) scores as the sole criterion to select semifinalists. The resultant pool has historically been predominantly male because boys score higher on the PSAT even though girls earn higher grades in high school (and college). In 1993, FairTest filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) charging the test-makers with illegally assisting gender bias. As part of a settlement with OCR, ETS and the College Board agreed to add a new multiple-choice "writing" component to the PSAT. This simple change in test format significantly increased the percentage of National Merit semifinalists who are female, but girls are still cheated out of a fair share of awards by bias in the unreformed portions of the exam.</p>

<p>Gifted and Talented Programs:
Many special programs for the "gifted and talented," such as the Johns Hopkins Center for the Advancement of Academically Talented Youth, use the SAT or similar tests to select participants. Not surprisingly, girls and minorities are often underrepresented in these accelerated programs.</p>

<h2>SAT Misuse</h2>

<p>How Is the SAT Misused?</p>

<p>According to the testing profession's own standards, no exam should be used as the sole factor in making any decision. Nor should any test be used for a purpose for which it has not been "validated." Cutoff scores should not be used, especially for high-stakes decisions. Guidelines like these are frequently ignored, with no sanctions from ETS or the College Board. Any uses of the SAT that treat scores as precise measures are seriously flawed: the test-makers admit two students' scores must differ by at least 125 points (Critical Reading plus Math) before they can reliably be said to be different due to measurement error in the test.</p>

<p>Examples of Misuse:</p>

<p>Scholarships:
Several states impose SAT minimum score requirements on students hoping to qualify for taxpayer-funded scholarships. Using cut-off scores for such high-stakes decisions is a clear violation of the test-makers' guidelines. This practice disproportionately impacts minority students who as a group tend to score lower than white students on the SAT. The result is these students lose out on millions of dollars in financial assistance.</p>

<p>National Merit Scholarships use Preliminary SAT (nearly identical to the SAT) scores as the sole criterion to select semifinalists. The resultant pool has historically been predominantly male because boys score higher on the PSAT even though girls earn higher grades in high school (and college). In 1993, FairTest filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) charging the test-makers with illegally assisting gender bias. As part of a settlement with OCR, ETS and the College Board agreed to add a new multiple-choice "writing" component to the PSAT. This simple change in test format significantly increased the percentage of National Merit semifinalists who are female, but girls are still cheated out of a fair share of awards by bias in the unreformed portions of the exam.</p>

<p>Gifted and Talented Programs:
Many special programs for the "gifted and talented," such as the Johns Hopkins Center for the Advancement of Academically Talented Youth, use the SAT or similar tests to select participants. Not surprisingly, girls and minorities are often underrepresented in these accelerated programs.</p>

<h2>SAT Bias</h2>

<p>The Gender Gap</p>

<p>The SAT consistently underpredicts the performance of females in college and overpredicts the performance of males. Although females earn higher grades in high school and college, their SAT scores were 26 points lower in 2006. College Board research has shown that both the Critical Reading and Math portions of the test underpredict girls' college performance. A 1994 ETS study found that, on average, males scored 33 points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the same grades in the same college math courses. Analyses of SAT gender bias cite several causes including the test's emphasis on speed over sustained reasoning and its multiple-choice format. Mathematics tests in other countries that require solutions to long problems appeared unbiased with respect to gender.</p>

<p>Bilingual Students</p>

<p>The speeded nature of the SAT imposes an unfair burden on students for whom English is not the first language. Research suggests that the SAT does not predict Hispanic students' first-year college grades as accurately as it does white students' grades. One study found that even for bilingual students whose best language was English the SAT underpredicted college performance.</p>

<p>Impact of SAT Use on Minorities</p>

<p>African American, Latino, new Asian immigrant and many other minority test-takers score significantly lower than white students. Rigid use of SATs for admissions will produce freshman classes with very few minorities and with no appreciable gain in academic quality. The SATs are very effective at eliminating academically promising minority (and low-income) students who apply with strong academic records but relatively low SAT scores. Colleges that have made the SAT optional report that their applicant pools are more diverse and that there has been no drop off in academic quality.</p>

<p>Stereotype Vulnerability What's the Alternative?</p>

<p>Several studies show that female and minority students who are aware of racial and gender stereotypes score lower on tests such as the SAT that purport to measure academic aptitude. One study defined this extra burden borne by some test-takers as "stereotype vulnerability," and warned that these findings "underscore the danger of relying too heavily on standardized test results in college admissions or otherwise."The more than 740 colleges and universities that already admit substantial numbers of freshman applicants without using any test scores have shown that class rank, high school grades, and rigor of classes taken are better tools for predicting college success than any standardized test. The ACT and SAT Subject Tests are often viewed as alternatives to the SAT. While they are more closely aligned with high school curricula, they are not necessarily better tests.</p>

<p>Click here for 2007 SAT scores by gender, race and family income.</p>

<p><a href="http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=265%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=265&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(1) HSGPA is consistently the strongest predictor of four-year college outcomes for all academic disciplines, campuses and freshman cohorts in the UC sample; (2) surprisingly, the predictive weight associated with HSGPA increases after the freshman year, accounting for a greater proportion of variance in cumulative fourth-year than first-year college grades; and (3) as an admissions criterion, HSGPA has less adverse impact than standardized tests on disadvantaged and underrepresented minority students. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for admissions policy and argues for greater emphasis on the high-school record, and a corresponding de-emphasis on standardized tests, in college admissions.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bates.edu/x150430.xml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bates.edu/x150430.xml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>