<p>Surely that last question of yours is rhetorical.</p>
<p>Hasn't the use of erotema become a lost art?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>There was a girl in my area whose scores were reported as being 300 points lower, so she didn't apply to a lot of places.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This is why I always believe that kids should plan their SAT testing schedule so that they'll be able to take the test twice. You never know if you'll feel sick that day, your test will be scored by monkeys, whatever...</p>
<p>Of course that's always optimal, ellen, but the point is, why should all students feel that they need to do this, because of major Quality Control problems at the CB? You would be amazed at how many students do not have the luxury of taking the test twice -- for a variety of reasons. Some of those students attend private schools, too. Further, for those students who are acommodated, it's enough of a pain to take it once. Taking it twice is a form of moderate torture.</p>
<p>There is also the issue that some students have no reason to think the SAT scores they receive are not an accurate measure of their abilities because they have not taken the SAT before or they do not compare their scores against those of their peers. When S1 took the SAT, we had no idea what scores he should be getting. We knew he was an excellent student, but how did that translate into SAT scores, especially since the format was unlike the tests he was taking in class? If his scores had been off by as much as 300 points, we might not have known they were inaccurate. Although he took the SAT at the end of his junior year, we would not have reschedule another SAT test.</p>
<p>There is and has indeed been a lot of complaining about the SAT on CC. But until the last couple of years, it was mostly about its format, content and use by colleges, not about scoring or non-delivery of scores. These are very very different types of complaint.</p>
<p>^^Marite's point is a valid one, similar to our S's, and exactly the type of circumstance I had in mind in my earlier post. Many different kids, many different scenarios. In S's case, he only wanted to know if he needed to prep for the SAT or not; so it was more a matter of convenience--well, that and a minimum threshold of a very reasonable 1250/1600 for admission to the college and a full-tuition scholarship from the state.</p>
<p>I honestly had no idea, xiggi, that there were ever problems with the timeliness of reporting the PSAT scores other than the year S took it, way back in fall 2001. Of course, we all know what else happened that fall. The CB blamed the delay on the postal service and national security concerns, an anthrax scare to be specific--although many of the scores did get reported without any delay and not in a predictable fashion according to postal zones. I'm quite sure it wasn't the HS's fault as S (due to his unusual circumstance) was in frequent contact with the head of guidance, who I know did check with the CB and other schools in our area that got scores. Still, it may very well have been beyond the CB's ability to control.</p>
<p>
[quote]
because of major Quality Control problems at the CB?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Epiphany, at the risk of posing yet another rethorical question, aren't you pushing this issue well beyond the reasonable? What is your yardstick for an acceptable level of errors? With what kind of enterprise or organization do you compare the College Board? The United Postal Service? The IRS? H.R. Block? Your phone company? How many letters do you believe the US Postal Service lose per annum? One percent? Two percent? More? </p>
<p>Again, nobody disputes that errors were made, and the court has ruled that the College Board should pay several million dollars for the problems. However, there is no reason to elevate the extent of the problems in the manner you do. While a bit of hyperbole is acceptable, calling the College Board an institution mired in **major **Quality Control issues is uncalled for.</p>
<p>Why are you singling me out, xiggi? Have you not read the other responses here? Many others also do not think that the frequent "level of errors" by CB is "acceptable." What burns me more (and I'm glad Mudder's brought it up) is the b<em>s</em> that CB puts forth. She mentioned one instance. One of CB's favorite excuses is when scores are delayed: 'It must have been because the student [singular] didn't fill the bubbles in correctly.' Never mind that in those instances of delay there were students plural, in the hundreds, and that generally the inability to bubble in correctly and the voluntary enrollment in AP classes are not well correlated.</p>
<p>No, I'm not being unreasonable, but you are. You seem willing to excuse much more in the CB than you are willing to excuse in the variations of GC expertise/service, not to mention other situations that you have a low tolerance for. Again the difference being that there is no alternate route for CB. The student consumer is essentially trapped, due to the mostly non-optional college gatekeeper requirement of that essential testing source.</p>