<p>@synchronizer - Actually we agree, but we are addressing our statements toward different aspects of the SAT test. </p>
<p>The SAT, as any standardized test, is after the fact. It is taken after the education is done, and it is meant to test the students. Therefore, as just a testing instrument, it teaches nothing and has no effect on what the students have already learned. Thus my statement that the test will not widen or lessen the gap between the current higher caliber students and lesser caliber students is defacto factual. The education is already done and the higher students are already better educated; the SAT has no bearing on the past.</p>
<p>Where I believe our positions merge in agreement is the new SAT will make it harder for colleges to distinguish between the different levels of students. The top students will be harder to separate out based on the SAT test score when used in conjunction with transcripts. The new test will complicate the admissions process and artificially make very different caliber students look closer in acumen. That is to the peril of all students, as you stated. Lesser students will get into places where they will struggle and fail, and top students may not get into the places, which best challenge them. That is the first thing that will happen, which is a negative.</p>
<p>Now, there is a second possible shoe to drop - what if the schools start basically teaching to the test? Then the current students of higher caliber will definitely get dumbed-down because the they most likely will never get taught the more difficult material they are currently. The lesser caliber students will not be hurt at all; in fact, the result may be what I suspect the goal is - all students get taught the same average material. Here the higher caliber students again get shorted, but in a different way; they are less than they could be because they are taught lower caliber material than they should be. </p>
<p>I hope this second shoe never materializes because, at least, with just the easier test masking the differences, the top students can find ways to stand out. But, if they are never given the ways to stand out and everyone is taught the same material, then we have lowered overall standards and lowered the best students potential. I made my point elsewhere that I do not believe in lowering any students potential in favor of some false fairness theory. </p>
<p>Also, get ready for 2300+ to be the new average at the top schools. An easier test is just SAT score inflation. You stated as much as well. However, as I stated above, it could be a lot worse if schools start teaching to the test.</p>
<p>@ubcalumnus stated, “The problem is, SES or other factors besides those reflecting student ability and motivation may be used inappropriately to track students into rigorous versus less rigorous tracks”</p>
<p>Well, simple - tell the administrators stop doing that nonsense. It is not students stupidly using SES; it is school admins.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus - Yes, I know. When I said simple, I really meant it is known where the problem lies and what needs to be fixed. Devising the fix, i.e., changing the human behavior, is the hard part.</p>
<p>Many people may cringe at my proposal, but I think that the SAT needs to become more difficult. The stressful time constrain should be made less painful, but at the same time, the questions themselves should simply be more difficult: logic oriented, mathematics questions that deal with concepts rather than verbose word problems, perhaps writing sections that involve identifying and correcting more than one mistake at one, questions about paraphrasing, etc.</p>
<p>It would be easier to separate the students; unfortunately those with worse scores would be far from those with the best ones, though the gifted, but still not-so-good test-taking students would seem even farther from the top students. That is the other end of the problem.</p>
<p>I think that the ideal test should not require studying, so to re-emphasize: the difficulty should not lie in the time constraints, but in the questions themselves.</p>
<p>@synchronizer I see nothing wrong with a shorter, harder test. I still am not sure what is gained by the 4 hour endurance aspect. That becomes an issue of conditioning, not intelligence. </p>
<p>^^^ True, though I think the most exhausting aspect of the SAT is not so much the amount of time, but the frenetic pace you must maintain over that time. </p>
@SoCalDad2: If you think the SAT has a “frenetic pace,” you should take a look at the ACT. The questions are far easier on the ACT, but the time pressure is more pronounced. Essentially, the ACT achieves a normal score distribution by…speed. It just so happens that the “sharper” students tend to be able to arrive at the correct answers more quickly. I’m not sure this is the best way to achieve a normal score distribution.</p>
<p>Although I agree with several of synchronizer’s comments, I’m not so sure that a significantly shorter test is the answer. I do think increasing the difficulty level of the questions would be a step in the right direction, though.</p>
<p>In the SAT’s current manifestation, students have different paths to a high score. High-scoring students who are great standardized test-takers can put in minimal prep to hit their score target. Lower-scoring students who “don’t test well” can invest a lot of time/effort into test prep (usually over a longer period of time) to work their way up to the score target.</p>
<p>@SoCalDad2 Agreed. However, I think a test can be devised, which is 2:45 minutes that gleans the same data and cognitive testing as a the current 3:45 minute test. </p>
<p>@bartleby007 Yes, when I saw the ACT, I made sure my kids took the SAT. Talk about much easier re ACT, just more stuff. If they were going to invest time in a 4-hour test, at least really get tested was my approach.</p>
@awcntdb: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you “made sure” your kids took the SAT because it was a more intellectually challenging test than the ACT.</p>
<p>I view standardized testing as another hoop through which college applicants must jump. Students should figure out where they would like to apply, take into consideration GPA/curricular strength/ECs, and prepare for the test (ACT or SAT) which gives them the best shot of hitting their score target (and, consequently, the best chance of securing an acceptance at a top-choice school). For some kids, it’s the SAT. For others, it’s the ACT. The tests present different challenges.</p>
<p>@Bartleby007 - That is correct. I believe the SAT would tell me, as a parent, more as to where my kids were educationally. The standardized tests are a hoop for sure, but it does not mean the tests cannot be used to discern information about your kids, if you want to use them that way too. The tests do present different challenges and for my kids the ACT was clearly not as challenging.</p>
<p>I agree to some sense with a previous poster. I scored a 2210 on my SAT last year from a 1420 sophomore year PSAT; I studied, a lot. The thing is, the test can be gamed with practice. The time was initially a factor but I eventually got use to it. That being said, the questions should be harder and more time should be given in my opinion.</p>
<p>While perplexed by the comments regarding the ACT, I am extremely curious about “seen the experimental sections” from the new tests. Do you mind sharing how that happened, and even better, could you provide the source of the documents for the rest of us to form our own opinions regarding how “horrible” the new test is. </p>
<p>My personal take, based on a long term analysis of the SAT (r)evolution over the years, is that this probably much ado about nothing. Since it is important for the SAT to maintain that historical correlation, the changes will be on the subtle side as opposed to a complete overhaul of the test. </p>
<p>As far as widening the gaps, I am also afraid that the College Board keeps on missing the real opportunities to reach out to both the under AND over performing groups. While nothing wrong on the surface by hiring the Khan organization to create (yet another) online course, they could accomplish a LOT more by simply making the acquisition of past tests easier, and opening the existing online course for … public discussions. In other words, combining a community such as … this one to the timely released QAS tests would do a LOT more good than creating a whole set of boring and time-consuming videos, or incorporating a silly game process to collect badges and points. </p>
<p>@xiggi, they are testing them now. Of course they have to do this. If the changes were subtle, the kids would not be able to identify the new sections but the kids are saying they are different.</p>
<p>I’m wondering if Indiana’s withdrawl from common core will draw any attention to the fact that the changes to the SAT are tied to a curriculum which is not being used in some states. I see that as a big concern in terms of education gap. </p>
<p>Khan Academy with its original SAT format did not attack the wallet of the SAT factories a la Elite. It offered a basic approach to subset of the SAT. Despite its added resources and the collaboration with the Coleman, it is doubtful that Khan will deviate much from its current model. And, it is doubtful that the results will be better than the slew of “test prep” that exists today. </p>
<p>The real attraction of the BEST tutoring company is none other than their accumulated library of past tests, and the subsequent analyses of patterns tested. Understanding how the test is developed is nine tenth of the success. The other tenth is sharing with your students enough material to cover all the expected angles of testing, including the most precious material, namely the one that is obtained from dubious sources. </p>
<p>Again, attacking the wallets of the test prep industry could be accomplished by a total disclosure of all previous administrations, as well as allowing … discussions in the open. What the College Board has done is chasing the most productive providers of services into the underground. </p>
<p>I understand how experimental sections work, and what their objectives are. I wanted to clarify if the member above had seen the new sections as part of a recent administration, or through an organized disclosure by the College Board. We all know that ETS and TCB do not work in a totally closed vacuum. Their psychometricians will need to extend the disclosures beyond their natural inner circles to measure the reactions of test takers. Fwiw, students who recognize experimental sections because they appear too different might not provide the best reactions as they might simply “punt” that part altogether. </p>
<p>Also, the format of the new sections is not that important. The contents are. The devil is in the details! </p>