<p>Ohiomom: then you agree with the article's drift, right?</p>
<p>In absence of SAT I exams what criterion will be the used by college to evaluate kids?</p>
<p>In my kids elite prep school, most of the kids who have the toughest possible course load do not fair more than 3.5-3.7/4.0, which still put them around top 5%. To give you an example what will happen to kids if the highest grade is only a B Plus. However, many kids score 800 in SAT II and 5 on AP Exam. His public school GPA was non-weighted GPA 4.0.</p>
<p>"Bluebayou: (love the screen name, it inspired me to download the Linda Ronstadt song, it's heavenly) I don't know about 20 years, but if you go back 50 you would certainly find a different social class makeup at those schools. How much can be attributed to SAT is debatable, but it was a big factor"</p>
<p>Tis true. At my alma mater, 35 years ago there was a higher percentage of public school admits, and low-income students, than there are today.</p>
<p>(My d. got an 800 on verbal at age 12, and couldn't have written a decent four-paragraph essay. Didn't hurt her in the least in first-year pre-med chemistry.)</p>
<p>The College Board knows very well how to correct scores to reflect the impact of low-income/poor scores so that they are truly predictive of first-year college performance. They PAY people very good money to know these things. But they wouldn't dare use it.</p>
<p>If you want to know what is going on, just follow the money.</p>
<p>Idler, you first accuse me to speak up without reading the article, then you accuse me of nitpicking. :) </p>
<p>By juxtaposing my two posts, you'll see my problem with the type of reporting we have witnessed in the past year: baseless sensationalism and gross generalization. </p>
<p>As I said the SAT provided an excuse to write an article. At no time did the author used verifiable or correct facts to further his theory. The problem was not my nitpicking, but the affection of the author for tautology and lack of logic. How could I possibly appreciate his commentary if I know his facts are questionable? The author knew what his conclusions should be; developing a logical basis for his conclusions was not that critical!</p>
<p>We know that discussions about the SAT open all kinds of doors for subjective reasoning and grand-standing. It happens on CC with great regularity, where we see little differentiation between correlation and causality -for example, in the relation of income and SAT scores that is so dear to Mini! </p>
<p>Before going into a few details, it may good to point out that the term "meritocracy was first used in a pejorative sense in Michael Young's 1958 book "The Rise of the Meritocracy". It is unclear if the TE' author sides with the Confucian view that "In teaching there should be no distinction of classes.", or with the views of Michael Young that "placing formal educational qualifications over all other considerations would lead to the permanent rejection of anybody who was unable to jump through the educational hoops, including many otherwise able working-class men and women", or with a number of yet different views of the term "meritocracy". </p>
<p>You were correct that The Economist has embarked on a campaign to denounce the social changes -or lack thereof- in what the magazine still consider to be the Colonies. A lengthier article of The Economist (see <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560%5B/url%5D">http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560</a> ) illustrates the position of the magazine, including the picture of Queen Elizabeth with the presidential family that earned the caption, "Liz meet the Royals". </p>
<p>As far as the position that the "new" SAT represents a shift towards the testing of achievement ... My main issue with such a statement is that the changes of the SAT are NOT a drastic as they tend to be represented in the daily press. The focus on Reading Comprehension is not new, it was the basis of the old test. The introduction of the Writing sections is an alignment with the PSAT. The introduction of Algebra II questions raises the bar of the math SAT from a seventh grade level to an 9th grade level. Does that represent a revolution? Frankly, the SAT of 2005 tests the same ability, capability, achievement, intelligence -whichever you prefer- than the tests of 2003 or 2004. With or without analogies or QC, a student needs to prepare in the SAME way as before. I have stated time after time that focusing on the rote memorization of vocabulary was not a smart investment in time and efforts. The techniques needed to excel at analogies were not that different from the techniques needed for sentence completion and reading comprehension. </p>
<p>In the end, the reaction to the SAT is universal: people tend to see it as much more than a simple standardized test whose sole purpose is to help making admissions' decisions.</p>
<p>Marite: * Indeed, my S's 7th grade SAT score showed academic promise. But had he achieved the same SAT-V as a junior rather than a 7th grader, I would have been concerned as to his college-preparedness given the percentage of errors he made on the critical reading portion of the test. This despite the fact that his SAT-V was quite respectable, even for a high school senior. *</p>
<p>I don't know how much one can really infer about preparedness from these scores. </p>
<p>I know a very bright student who had been excelling in humanities courses (English, history, and philosophy) taken at local colleges under a dual enrollment plan during all four years of high school. </p>
<p>In 11th grade, she was taken aback when she got a 60 verbal on the PSAT, with a particular weakness in critical reading. </p>
<p>I suggested that she might be overthinking the somewhat inane questions and suggested she relax a bit, read a PR book from the library, and take some practice tests from Real SATs to see how the test-takers' minds work and what they consider "the best answer." </p>
<p>Two months later she took the SATs and scored a near-perfect 790 on verbal. I don't think anything dramatic happened to her underlying "college preparedness" in those 2 months--her success in challenging local college courses taken under dual enrollment over the previous three years had already demonstrated her readiness. </p>
<p>What changed in those 2 months was simply her ability to think inside-the-box-of-the-testcreators'-mind, her ability to work quickly and efficiently through the maze of questions, knowing how to allocate her time, not wasting too much time agonizing over subtleties in the early questions within each section, leaving more time for the more challenging ones. </p>
<p>In her senior year, she was admitted to a top 3 LAC ED and also won high honors in a national history essay contest.</p>
<p>"We know that discussions about the SAT open all kinds of doors for subjective reasoning and grand-standing. It happens on CC with great regularity, where we see little differentiation between correlation and causality -for example, in the relation of income and SAT scores that is so dear to Mini!"</p>
<p>On the contrary, I think admissions officers use SAT scores as part and parcel of what they intend. I think they are very smart people, professional people, with years of experience in doing what they are doing, and doing it very well. I think you should give them more credit than that.</p>
<p>There are likely fewer low-income students at Harvard (for example) than there were 35 years ago. That median SAT scores are higher is only happenstance. ;)</p>
<p>The fact is that the "prestige" schools are under tremendous presssure from high-income candidates. They have many more legacies to deal with, the fancy prep schools have become larger (and there are more of them in California and such), more GCs at feeder schools to keep happy, there are likely more developmental admits, and there are needs to fill in women's sports that previously didn't exist at all-men's schools. They can use SATs as they currently are as a cover to fulfill their institutional missions.</p>
<p>But it didn't work for the University of California, which is why the College Board is in a bind.</p>
<p>Follow the money....</p>
<p>Since I am not a parent, I may be out of place here. However, I think one significant point that hasn't been mentioned is the increased use of technical terms in the math sections. I'm not sure why that would be necessary, and it does affect scores, probably depending on secondary school quality. The use of Algebra II material is also quite relevant, in that Algebra I will have been learned in late middle school or the first year of high school and used as the basis for math since then, while Algebra II is not taught until the sophomore or junior year and would be much less ingrained in people taking the SAT. It's not really testing the same kind of knowledge.</p>
<p>I agree that the extent of the changes to the verbal section has been overstated.</p>
<p>"Follow the money"</p>
<p>... all the way to the coffers of TCB, ETS, and Pearsons. </p>
<p>I am not sure if The College Board is in a bind or not. The infinite wisdom of the actions of Atkinson has in fact given TCB a shiny new armor, and years of peace. Present TCB some ciriticisms, and they can point out to the results of their focus groups and the apparent contentment of their major client. </p>
<p>When all is said and done, the joke is still on California. They are still saddled with unraveling the effects of their asinine admission policies. Do you know any state that shows more imbalance between its population distribution and the population at its colleges? Sooner or later, the issue of growing deficits will explode in California, and new revenues for education will have to be extracted from the same taxpayer base that has suffered from dwindling admissions. There are limits to social engineering, and California is well past that limit. </p>
<p>While the UC system may be able to shove some of the blame due to their own ineptitude in the lap of the inedaquate TCB, that does not solve their own problem and lack of direction. </p>
<p>In the meantime, look what has happened to the revenues of TCB: they are now earning extra fees from the increase in SAT costs. If before, a few thousand students presented the SAT-II writing, now everyone is forced to take the extra essay, and pay $41.50. </p>
<p>Indeed, follow the money from Sacramento to Princeton!</p>
<p>idler,
I agree with the drift of the article, but your synopsis is better than the article (which is sloppy). </p>
<p>I suppose the thing that distresses me the most is the myth the the cream invariably rises to the top in America. Well, it doesn't always, and at who knows what cost to society in terms of wasted talent. Many of us parents have had to poke, prod and threaten our scions into completing homework assignments. And, had to help our own and other friend's kids understand said homework. What I worry about is, what about the kids that don't have the dad that brings in the bicycle wheel to demonstrate how torque operates? Of course, some of them, if so inclined, see the teacher and do extra work and so on. But you lose some if the inclination isn't there at the proper time.</p>
<p>ilya1,
welcome to CC, just be ready to duck. The parent's board has been known to get a little rowdy at times.</p>
<p>Well, either the Big Test is predictive of first-year college performance or it is not. Since it has already been shown not to be, at least for minority and low-income admits, and every admissions officer at every major college and university in the country knows it, it must be used for other purposes. Is, too.</p>
<p>Follow the money. (The pressure from high-income candidates is intense!)</p>
<p>ilya:</p>
<p>welcome! Jump in anytime...all opinions are encouraged, preferably with data to back them up, not like many of fact-free consultants. ha-ha.</p>
<p>Mini: I'm a big believer that income does drive SAT scores. But, two reasons that H has higher scores than 20 years ago is that: there are just more kids (thousands more) applying to schools, which means more 1500's in sheer numbers, and not necessarily percenteniles; and 2) CB recentered the test, which raised verbal, primarily, and allowed kids to miss 3 and still earn an 800 math. Thus, the selective schools can be more selective.</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>perchance I'll move to our 1%.....what segments of California's high school graduating class eligible for UC (~top 12.5%) is NOT in attendance (ignoring those that go elsewhere by choice)? Same question for the Cal States?</p>
<p><<the parent's="" board="" has="" been="" known="" to="" get="" a="" little="" rowdy="" at="" times="">></the></p>
<p>Compared to the student boards??? :)</p>
<p>"Thus, the selective schools can be more selective."</p>
<p>Well, it's another way of saying the same thing - competition among high-income students, developmental admits, legacies, etc. has become more intense, so that would tend to raise scores, and would overwhelm (and has overwhelmed) any efforts to admit more low-income ones. Mortenson's data shows that, even in the past 10 years, virtually all of the Ivies and many of the top LACs have, despite their rhetoric, admitted fewer rather than more Pell Grant students, and percentages of students from private schools has increased slightly. I don't have the data, but I'd bet you'd also find the percentage of students receiving financial assistance has gone down rather than up at most, which is interesting, given rising tuitions. Under these circumstances, the SATs serve a very useful purpose for admissions officers, even if they don't predict first-year college performance.</p>
<p>(Mortenson's data show some notable exceptions as well.)</p>
<p>Iderochi,
actually, I do think the parents get more rowdy at times. That supporting data stings when you get smacked with it:-(</p>
<p>I'm always intrigued and slightly perturbed when I read something that generalizes all minorities ( including myself). The implications are hard to ignore especially when the basic premise of the article is that by taking analogies off the SAT, minority verbal scores are going to hell in a handbasket. Basically,we can compare two similar things, but when it comes to critical reading or analyzing a secton of reading, forget about it. </p>
<p>With that in mind, I am torn about the SAT's purpose and usefulness as a whole. I believe that it plays a critical role in differentiating between students whose stats may be similar in regard to GPA, EC's, etc., but anyone who does a comprehensive review of the test beforehand can succeed and most people who do this kind of reviewing employ a tutor so in that regard it benefits those who can afford it. </p>
<p>Also, I don't think the SAT has played as instrumental a role in the in the implementation of a more economically and racially diverse student body of America's finest academic institutions. It's all a result of the changing social attitudes.</p>
<p>Well guys, I'm off to CA tomorrow am to go touring with my darlin' son on his spring break for the next 10 days, but I'll miss the rowdy parents on CC (Xiggi, you're an honorary parent). I read that essay yesterday, and thought, wow, they'll tear this up on CC. I've read so much boring crap about the new SAT recently, and when I read it I just thought, well there's somebody trying to think big. And the SAT is big, I certainly agree with the essayist that it's one of the major pieces of social engineering of the last century, and I kind of agree with him that for all its flaws it's a hugely sucessful one. Mini, I don't believe for an instant that it's all about predicting success in freshman year, that's just the hyper-defensive rhetoric that ETS (my onetime employer) fall back on, because there's something about their enterprise that subjects them to constant attack. Ohiomom, I'm very sympathetic to your point of view. Xiggi, I was hoping to get a rise out of you. Marite, I love ya, you're so much like mi esposa. Cheers to all!</p>
<p>When there are more thoroughbred horses, and a limited number of tracks, the competition among those thoroughbred horses to get to compete on those tracks gets more intense, especially when a certain number of places on the track are reserved for previous winners or their offspring. Since the ultimate speed of any of these horses on that particular track can't be known in advance, they are trained in developing a skill which they hope will help them get selected to run. The training tends to cost money, lots of it. And it goes without saying that these folks can afford the entry fees, which go up as demand radically outstrips supply.</p>
<p>Then there are horses who are not thoroughbreds, and there isn't much in the way of funds for their training. If/when they actually got on the track, they tend to do pretty well. They just happen to be fast, even if they've spent most of their track-training time pulling milkcarts. But for the most part, it sure is a helluva lot more efficient just to pretend they don't exist, preferably by ruling them out for lack of the surrogate skill, especially as the track would have to pay the entry fees for them.</p>
<p>Hey, it works for me. If I ran the racetrack, why would I do it any differently?</p>
<p>idler:</p>
<p>welcome to paradise. Weather in SoCal is sunny, clear, slightly windy, and 76 degrees.</p>