<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an interesting comment. I guess children can see how interested scouts are by what comes in the mail during college recruitment season.</p>
<p>
Sure, there are geniuses out there that aren’t great at standardized tests. I hope that the admissions process will figure out a way to identify these people. But there are not idiots who are very good at standardized tests. There are plenty of idiots with a 4.0 - the highest possible distinction at many grade-inflated high schools.</p>
<p>Has anyone ever thought that there is a reason that schools have minimums with regard to admissions for SAT/ACT? Test prep may help to boost a score to help a student gain admission, but I think the question should be whether that student is truly capable of the work and can indeed finish college. Sure a high score and even one that is gained by tutors/test prep looks good on paper, but in the end, it is all about ability to finish school. Why would one want to attend a college where you can’t even make the minimum score to gain admission? Would you be able to be successful enough to graduate-and graduate in four years? Or, how about the kids that are admitted to elite schools with less than stellar scores and are offered tutors, etc to help them graduate from college? There really is no easy answer to the problem of tutor assistance for high scores on the SAT/ACT other than admissions offices that need to be more holistic in their approach to admissions and less focused on the scores.</p>
<p>i can’t believe you just said that!!! Intelligence has nothing to do with coming from upper income. Look at James Baldwin (one of the most brilliant writers of the 20th century), Malcom X (never got a high school education and was completely self taught), Richard Wright, oh where to start?? Abraham Lincoln??? Intelligence is not something you can purchase. Please behave yourself and don’t post prejudiced statements that make all of us look like imbeciles.</p>
<p>I have to say what I always say when people start complaining about standardized tests: they are the one credential a kid can present that they earned ANONYMOUSLY. No teacher or administrator had to like them. It didn’t matter if they were a sports hero or the president of the student council or a rebel. They went into the room with their #2 pencils and earned what they earned.</p>
<p>In their life up to that point, adults got to hand out almost all of the goodies that eventually make a kid look good on an application: places on teams, NHS, awards, grades, and so on. Great SATs are something that can be earned by the kid who is not an apple-polisher, sociable, compliant, good-looking, talented on the soccer field, or anything else that pleases adults or peers. </p>
<p>Yes, they also took into that room what they had learned in their life up to that point. No test prep course can make up for 11 years of reading widely and deeply. No test prep course can make up for actually paying attention in math class for years.</p>
<p>The SAT/ACT and other standardized tests are simply part of the picture. Those who would do away with them would strip certain kids of the only area in which they have an advantage.</p>
<p>Hmmm…I would say that the SAT scores are heavily influenced by the adults in that child’s life. The adults that interacted with the baby, helping to develop the baby’s brain in a way that reflects our modern view of “intelligence”, feeding that baby the best diet, obtaining the best health care, seeding the house with those books, filling the summers with those enrichment activities…
All of which is not to say that I think all standardized testing should be tossed out. But I do believe that tests are only one part of the process and I think it is perfectly reasonable that test results be evaluated by admissions officers in the context of the applicant’s entire background and with the open acknowledgement that environment heavily influences test scores.</p>
<p>The feeding frenzy around college admissions is in overdrive, as it usually is this time of year.</p>
<p>For my money (and yours) a kid’s ambition will set him (or her) apart in college as in life. Half the kids entering college never get a degree. It seems to me that many of them probably would not have gone if their parents hadn’t “insisted.” Who says college is for everyone? It’s reached a cult status.</p>
<p>Many kids who do get degrees find that they would have been just as happy as hair stylists or carpenters. </p>
<p>Bottom Line? I don’t think enough thought goes into whether college is “right,” for kids in general.</p>
<p>A couple of observations:
First, frankly, I don’t see why anyone should have any “god given right” for a private school. Public universities do have a mandate to take the less fortunate,but this isn’t true for private schools. </p>
<p>Secondly, SAT and ACT preparation has been going on for quite a while. In the same school that the article noted, (Wootton), I know of parents who provided group SAT training for their kids for over two years! Yes, you read it right: two years of SAT review on a weekly basis. Moreover, this intensive, long training did seem to pay off with high SATs from everyone in the group.</p>
<p>If college admission folks don’t know that this happens, they are just dim-witted.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Unfortunately, you can’t know the cause of these high SATs without having run a control group.</p>
<p>ellemenope notes,“Unfortunately, you can’t know the cause of these high SATs without having run a control group”</p>
<p>Response; Yup, you are correct. I do know, however, that everyone in that two- year intensive SAT group did very well on the SATs. Thus, it certainly didn’t hurt them!</p>
<p>Moreover, as a bit of an aside, I used to tutor folks for the SAT many years ago. Yes, a highly motivated kid who goes through a number of SAt books ( think Xiggi method) can also do well. However, I have found that a long term, intensive course should be able to increase SAT scores significantly. This would be particularly true for subject matter tests akin to the ACT, the English part of the SAt etc.</p>
<p>Short term prep courses can also help with scores but not nearly as signifantly as that of long term preparation</p>
<p>^And I guess that is why SAT prep sells–it doesn’t seem to hurt and may actually help. Besides time and money, not much downside.</p>
<p>Clearly, we are reaching the point in all our wisdom where we must proceed to the Final Solution: take every child away from their impoverished or middle-class or affluent homes at birth and raise them up in a state run institution where absolute equality is enforced. Then finally, FINALLY we will be a fair society.</p>
<p>Wait. No, that won’t quite work. There’s that troubling issue of maternal health. </p>
<p>Final Soution, Version II: Take every woman out of her impoverished or middle class or affluent home immediately upon learning that she is pregnant, enforce absolutely fair nutrition and prenatal healthcare upon all pregnant women. And then proceed with Final Solution, Part I (see above).</p>
<p>Our school’s average SAT score went up about 50 points in each section when they offered a heavily subsidized Kaplan course. While the course was more than worthless for the oldest (who really only wanted to practice essays), I think it’s pretty significant how much the school average went up, in just one year. The school has over 3000 students. I think it helped kids at the low end of the scores the most.</p>
<p>Well the Harlem Children’s Zone is doing a pretty good job of addressing some of the inequities: [Harlem</a> Children’s Zone](<a href=“http://www.hcz.org/]Harlem”>http://www.hcz.org/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My considered opinion is that SAT prep can hurt if it takes time away from independent reading. I’m not impressed by the “after” scores boasted by most alumni of time-consuming prep classes. I’m glad my son is an avid reader and writer who likes to solve math problems.</p>
<p>Problem with Final Solutions I and II is that an unacceptable variation in innate ability and motivation might still persist . . . </p>
<p>Final Solution III: Observe children until assessments of ability and motivation can be conducted then surgically or pharmacologically intervene to enforce absolute fairness among all children in our society.</p>
<p>Ahhhh . . . now we’re getting somewhere.</p>
<p>Seems like every month or two a new study gets published or a new article gets written that purports to blow the lid off the scandalous college admissions racket by demonstrating, with highly-variable degrees of rigor, that rich people can afford to buy more advantages for themselves and their children than poor people can. And the good citizens of CC are once again shocked – shocked to find out that this is the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How long was the course? I put my foot down when I found that the 10th grade Honors English teacher seemed to think that the class was a year-long preparation for the SAT test. In four months, the students had not finished reading the text assigned to them after Labor Day because so much time was spent on vocabulary lists. Still, any course that lasts more than a few days or a week ought to boost students’ scores by the simple fact of forcing them to read.</p>
<p>First Point: Although I do understand that a 30 to 50 point increase is significant, it almost seems inaccurate b/c many SAT prep companies have 300 point increase guarantees. To have only 30 to 50 more AFTER taking SAT prep seems misleading. I myself have taken an SAT prep class and I instantaneously saw improvement of 50+ points. All I’m saying is that the SAT score increases need to be revisited.</p>
<p>Second point: Like some other posters who have already stated, SAT prep can now be found for FREE if you go to the library or just search online. The only true advantage that I see the affluent have over the impoverished is the ability of the affluent to get more resources to practice with. Besides that, I believe a kid from a poor community can very well compete with a rich student when it comes to the SAT and other standardized test, if the poor kid is truly determined to succeed.</p>
<p><em>Self-determination is the key to success (well at least in my case)</em></p>
<p>Paying for extensive test prep can be taken as a type of proxy for other likely advantages a students has had including, paid tutors, summer academic programs, and travel. This is the built in Affirmative Action that wealthier folks have had for a long time. That is why I don’t oppose economic or racial AA to make up for it a bit.</p>