Do note that there the so-called “problem” of national standards is also addressed in the link.
Why the insistence that criterion-referenced tests are superior to norm-referenced tests, rather than allowing that each has its place in different contexts. I can see an argument that college entrance exams should be criterion-referenced (though I’d have some pointed questions for whoever made such a claim), but to simply argue that criterion-referenced tests are superior, based mainly on the fact that K-12 education is moving in that direction? That’s kind of odd.
I agree.
The purpose behind the SAT is NOT to measure what you know. It’s to compare you with the other applicants. It’s to set up a ranking where some do well and some don’t do as well.
Its point is to enable colleges to admit the number of students they need to fill the seats they have available.
The math test I’m giving my classes on Friday is to determine what my kids know. I would love it if every one of the kids in that first period class could score in the 90’s— though a few will have to hit the extra help kind of hard to make that happen.
But the SAT isn’t about determining what you know-- that was never its intention or claim.
My kid’s highschool has just announced they are dropping GEOMETRY because “it’s no longer needed on the SAT.” This is according to my son, so I will have to clarify what’s going on with the guidance counselor.
I mean, WHAT?
@Trisherella thats the craziest thing Ive heard today, now granted its early!
Does that mean that they’re also dropping writing? Or history?
@Trisherella , yes do look into that. You can not do higher math without knowing a lot of the concepts in Geometry. Also since when did schools start teaching to the SAT? Math perhaps was an area that if well covered by the school was also well covered by the SAT, but certainly it is not generally taught to do well on the test.
I believe the SAT subject test in math does require geometry. However, more importantly, the reasoning skills one gains by learning geometry, especially in writing proofs, are important and useful in other aspects of math. Furthermore, I assume many states have exams that include geometry content. In NY, we have a geometry regents exam. This is the ultimate in “teaching to the test”.
There are no big problems with the new SAT. It’s the job of the test to rank the students and it’s the job of the admissions committees to figure out how to use that information.
I tried to edit my post, but it timed out I guess, even though I was typing. I had more thoughts.
TO me, the whole standardized test thing is a game, and you must play by whatever crazy rules they give you at the time. It is not about the quality of education or even the aptitude of the student. The test is an attempt to give one value that is the same across all the students from different schools, backgrounds etc. What is also true is that with enough practice and in many cases tutoring, most people can improve their scores.
It is true that small differences may make a big difference. If you look at the “holy grail” of colleges mentioned on this website (HYPSM) or pick your own, many have the top 25% of the class filled with perfect SAT scores (superscored for many). Even though statistically, the meaning of those scores is supposed to be a range of scores, perhaps a few percent lower in the rankings, we see that the highest scores are necessary for admission - statistical significance be damned. If we look at Yale, the common data set shows 800, 800, 790 for top 25%. The cutoff for the 25th percentile is 710, 700, 710, is 96-97%, not a substantially difference statistically in the quality of the student. Yet, to be admitted with the lower set of scores, in most instances there are athletes, URM, philanthropy cases, and other special talents or cases (child of POTUS, governor, child actor etc.), eg, “hooks”. To be in the 99+ percentile, you must have a combined score of over 2300. But there are approximately 16,000 tests (not necessarily test takers) with this score! This is likely more than the number of seats available in the most elite schools. So it is an arms race for those interested in the “top” schools. No way around it, and seemingly no way to end it either.
The thing with a test of knowledge that is scored to a bell curve norm is that they will likely throw in some obscure points to see who gets it right. Should the person who knows the obscure answer really rank higher than the one who doesn’t? Maybe or not. To me, not a definite yes. I know that at some high stakes colleges core science classes test in this way. There are questions on the test that 1-2% of the class will answer correctly. (These are not multiple choice, but problems where you show work, or answer in writing.) This shows who is really special, in the opinion of those professors and/or colleges. However on multiple choice, you can guess correctly, so this may be a difference between the SAT and the college courses. If there are enough weirdo questions, then the benefit of guessing diminishes, since the probability is that you will guess wrong as much as you guess correctly. I am not enough of a statistician to know if this is correct, but it is what I have been told by professional educators.
Also it is possible to construct a test of knowledge based questions that are “tricky”. Each is a twist of the general rule in some way, and tests not only your knowledge but the ability to analyze a discrepancy in a short amount of time. I suppose these are more appropriately tests that can be “normed” to a bell curve.
Therein lies the author’s problem. The SAT is not designed to “gauge progress”. Never has been; it’s a snap-shot in time. But even if we went to criterion-testing for the masses, a curve will still be used/required by colleges as a gross sorting hat.
Btw: Of course, its kinda hypocritical for Atkinson to be making this charge since the SAT revision that occurred in '05 was solely at his doing…
I remember an op-ed piece in the NYT decades ago in which the author complained that the verbal section was biased in favor of students who had read 19th century novels and thus had been exposed to a certain vocabulary.
To which my reply would be, “And there’s a problem with that?”
“There are no big problems with the new SAT. It’s the job of the test to rank the students and it’s the job of the admissions committees to figure out how to use that information”
@justoneDad - IMO there is at least 1 potential problem with the new SAT. DS17 took the a new online version of the PSAT for the college board a couple weeks ago. They want to match his score and others against how they did on the current PSAT last fall. The potential problem is with the online test. Based on how slow DS said the program was to respond moving between screens I believe that some kids aren’t going to be able to finish the new online SAT at the speed they could for the current SAT on paper. This could result in some kids not finishing the test.
I’m old enough to remember talk about how unfair it was that some students grew up in households with access to good literature right on the shelf for the taking. Nowadays, you can put it right on your phone, generally for free.
Of course, you have to move enough videos and games to make some room…
Back when I was in high school, the SAT verbal (now critical reading) section was mostly a vocabulary test. High school English classes would give out vocabulary words for students to learn every week, in addition to the usual lessons on writing and literature. Looking back at it, that looks a lot like they were trying to improve students’ SAT verbal scores.
The argument for criterion-referencing over norm-referencing is much stronger for the SAT subject tests and AP tests, given the purpose of these tests versus the SAT reasoning test.
I still dislike the SAT (especially since it did away with analogies several years ago) as a stand-alone qualifier, coupled with subjects tests of one’s choosing. (Key words, the last three in that sentence.) The reason I dislike it is that it is so limited and so unlike college work that it does not properly sift. It should include required free-response questions (the only free responses are those within the new essay) because that will separate the clever, skilled guessers from those who can also express themselves. I also agree with the article’s point about Coleman blowing it by not requiring the essay portion.
I think subject tests should be required across the board and in several subject areas. I don’t buy the argument that students attending poor-quality schools will be at a disadvantage. You are either ready for college or you are not. I do understand, yes, that very capable, intelligent students may be able to prove their ability by taking an SAT and scoring well, despite a lousy school. However, if that student doesn’t have the subject-matter foundation for college, there is simply insufficient time to learn that all quickly during undergraduate years. Not community college, but a demanding 4-year college.
There are particular programs in certain states (NY is one) which provide special Economic Opportunity programs, and certain colleges associate with that, such as Columbia. As part of that, though, Columbia provides tutors for such students, who otherwise will be lost at an elite institution and likely fail.
I come to this as someone who committed morally and practically to the field of education some time ago. I have a zero tolerance meter when it comes to excuses for subpar schools. In fact, recently – and not in an “underprivileged” environment but one ridiculously overprivileged-- I have encountered far too many examples of inability to think critically, write thoughtfully, and read accurately by students of “elite” high schools. I have no idea how so many of you parents tolerate such neglect of essentials. My children went to private schools which insisted on levels of proficiency to qualify for Honors, AP, to matriculate to the next class, and to graduate. Both of my children were completely prepared for top 20 colleges. The students I see right now are not, i.m.o. qualified for top 50 colleges, although they attend a school which is “ranked among the top 5% of public high schools nationally.”
If I hadn’t had the choice to send my children to privates, I would have been storming the Board of Education’s office, the Superintendent’s office, the State Dept of Education’s offices. Civil disobedience and the whole megillah. Why aren’t more of you outraged? I don’t get it. You are taxpayers, paying for particular services, one of which is education. And part of that education includes not only what I listed above, but basic study skills. Do you know that I am teaching these “elite” students, right now, basic study skills? You know, how to use a dictionary (even electronic), how to review for tests, how to commit to memory, how to take notes and why it’s important to take notes, how to study and practice vocabulary. That’s on top of 5th grade (for 10th graders) grammar rules, punctuation rules, introductions and conclusions. An “elite” high school. Why aren’t you protesting in the streets and being covered by CNN?
Actually, students in poor quality schools will be at a disadvantage, because the poor quality schools will not help them become college ready. Of course, the fix is not to fiddle with testing, but to improve the quality of the schools, which is a much more difficult task in lots of ways.
While some colleges have found that the SAT subject tests are better predictors of college performance than the SAT reasoning test, the SAT reasoning test’s incumbency advantage means that a college that requires SAT subject tests could miss out on many applicants who would take the SAT reasoning test by default (since almost all colleges use it) but not realize that they have to take the SAT subject tests for a few specific colleges.
That’s what I already said. The fact that it’s “difficult” is neither here nor there, in my mind. It’s essential, that’s the point.
“Why aren’t more of you outraged?”
Because kids in elite high schools - no matter how spotty their education is – will “make it” in life. And their parents know it. And the kids who are in regular, or even mediocre/bad schools, have parents who are either in denial – or just don’t care.
This has never been a nation of intellectuals. This has always been a nation of practically oriented capitalists. With schools to match.