The Current State of SAT Subject Tests

Test Preparation SAT Subject Test Preparation
1

<p>This is a long rant, so feel free to ignore it/rebuke it, but I'd welcome criticism or feedback.</p>

<p>SAT Subject Tests appear to fufill four purposes, so far as I can see. The first, which is the official one stated by College Board, states that they exist to provide a objective measure of student readiness for high school work. To do this, they are "closely linked to the high school curriculum." However, a good majority of the subject tests available go beyond what is covered in the standard, 'college prep' courses in high school. In many cases, such as Physics, they go beyond what is covered in the equivelent AP curriculum.</p>

<p>As an example, I'm going to look at the Biology E/M subject test, compared to the new AP curriculum. The new AP curriculum does not cover plants at all; however, the Biology Subject Test has a significant portion (at least 10%, I believe) that consists of knowledge relating to plants. That's a significant chunk that will no longer be covered by AP Biology, and supposedly AP classes go into more detail and cover more information than a corresponding high school course. This example can also be seen with Phyiscs, though to a much smaller degree, with topics such as special relativity that aren't covered in AP Physics B.</p>

<p>The second role that I believe exists for the SAT Subject Tests is for schools to evaluate a students knowledge of a particular subject with much more objectivity, and much more detail, than other units of measurement such as IB exams or the AP Test. However, there's limitations to this as well, due to the uneven curves present on the SAT Subject Tests. One could miss 10 questions on Biology, and come away with a 720; however, if one missed the same amount of questions on the World History Test, they would most likely get an 800. For colleges that required a certain test, such as Math II, as part of an application submission, the person who misses 1 and the person who misses 4 are likely to get the same score. I know this is petty, but does that adequetly reflect the performance of each person?</p>

<p>The third role that exists for the SAT Subject Tests is to give credit for courses. This role is comparatively rare, but many colleges do give credit for the SAT Subject Tests. The extreme curves present on some SAT Subject Tests, however, can make this use almost absurd. Let's look at the University of Texas policy for giving credit on Math II, for example. If one makes a 530 on Math II, they recieve credit for M 305G, which is a course analogous to pre-calculus. That is akain to getting, according to sparknotes, a raw score of a 14 out of 50. In essence, one could do only the concepts covered in algebra I and geometry and still get above that score. This is a problem partially because of university policies, but also because of the large curve present on the Math II test. </p>

<p>The fourth role, as I see it, is to show understanding of a subject that cannot be shown through any other standardized exam. SAT Hebrew, for instance, is the only widespread exam that I know of that can be used to express knowledge of Hebrew. I don't have an issue with this function at all, and am only including it for the sake of completeness.</p>

<p>Now, I feel that College Board can do some things to address the issues that have been presented. Firstly, the curricula tested by the exams can be redesigned, to "reflect high school curricula," or at a minimum what is covered by AP courses. The Biology SAT Subject test, in particular, is an example of an exam that should redesigned to more adaquetly fit to what is taught in high school courses. Advanced knowledge of plant structure, for instance, should be eliminated, or at a minimum, drastically reduced to fit in line closer with what is taught in an advanced high school curiculum, in order to better fufill the criteria which SAT Subject Tests are based off of.</p>

<p>I also believe that the curves on the SAT Subject tests should be adjusted. I think that a curve of 15-17 questions on the SAT World History exam is far too large; at the same time, I believe that the curve on the SAT Math I test is way too small. I think that the curve should be made more...even, I suppose. Someone should be able to miss 1 or 2 on Math I and still pull off an 800; however, someone missing 10 on Physics shouldn't be recieving an 800.</p>

<p>Alright, that's the conclusion of my rant. I'm sure there's many holes in my logic that make many of the points that I present irrelevent; these thoughts have just been building up inside of me for the past few weeks and I needed an outlet to let them out. Criticize, comment on, or whatever else you want to do with this bundle of thoughts to your hearts content. Thanks! :)</p>

2

<p>

</p>

<p>The state of the SAT Subject Tests will be “destroyed” after I walk out the testing center on October 6, 2012.</p>

3

<p>Adjusting the curve in the way you suggested would mean that a bulk of the people taking the “harder” tests with the more generous curves would suddenly get a substantially lower score. This would make it more difficult for colleges to get a general idea of how knowledgeable someone is from one subject test to another. For example, a Math I score of 800 might be the equivalent amount of success on the test as a Physics score of 550 or something like that.</p>

<p>The real answer would be to make Math I harder or Physics easier in order to more closely align scores – then a 700 on one test would represent the same level of knowledge as a 700 on another test, which would probably make more sense. But in the end, the CB feels like their curve achieves the same thing. In your examples, the only thing that is happening is that students who are over-achieving by getting all the questions right on a test with a lenient curve are not rewarded above and beyond students who merely answered the minimum necessary to obtain a perfect score. That might seem unfair, but it probably doesn’t affect a ton of people or the curves wouldn’t be where they are. Plus the people who ARE affected still got a perfect score anyway so why complain?</p>

<p>Think of it this way… your math teacher makes some really easy tests and a lot of students do well in his class. Your chemistry teacher give you guys really difficult tests and a bulk of the students to very poorly with one or two still getting an A. Sure, if the chem teacher leaves the scores like they are with a ton of students getting a D, then the one or two who got an A will really look like geniuses. But most of them will be unhappy, plus the teacher will look like he can’t teach. So he curves the grades up.</p>

<p>As for the curriculum point… it’s probably impossible to make the tests match the coursework of schools everywhere in the country. Teachers, books, students, and courses all vary wildly from one school to the next. It’s just a matter of luck at that point. The painful fact of the matter is that if you had the misfortune of being tested on material that was not covered in your school, then you are accurately representing a lack of knowledge by doing poorly on a test that focuses on that information. It seems harsh, but it’s true. When I took the AP Biology test a long time ago, it was probably one of the most difficult tests I ever took up to that point. I prepared long and hard for it. What stinks, however, is that my biology teacher had focused so heavily on so many different aspects of the curriculum that he didn’t have time to even touch on biological classification (phylum, class, order, etc.) except to give us broad generalizations. In his opinion, it was much more important to get into the specifics of biological functions than to just talk about classification. Lo and behold when the test came, this was a key point that was tested. I got a 4… and my college only accepted a 5 for credit. I was so utterly disgusted that I didn’t even take any more AP tests despite taking all available AP courses at school. This came back and bit me in the butt because I ended up in college for an extra semester because I came in with no credits just because of my pouting.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that unfortunately life is often not fair. You need to do what’s best for you within the rules of the game to ensure the greatest chance of success. If you have a strong skill set in a particular subject, take that test. If you don’t, then take the tests with the most lenient curves to get the best scores possible. All standardized testing comes with some measure of unfairness.</p>