<p>CB states that the readers do not grade for content but for style, and your D seems to have benefitted from that policy. There are many courses in college for which essays are required and they range from the humanities to the sciences. </p>
<p>You would be surprised at how many college students produce run-on sentences, allow participles to dangle, do not observe subject-verb correspondence, switch tenses in mid-stream, etc... If your D can produce a grammatically acceptable essay, it's at least half the battle.</p>
<p>"You would be surprised at how many college students produce run-on sentences, allow participles to dangle, do not observe subject-verb correspondence, switch tenses in mid-stream, etc... If your D can produce a grammatically acceptable essay, it's at least half the battle."</p>
<p>I bet you're right. I would have expected at least a level of sophistication but I guess I'm wrong about that.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, you're probably way too hard on your daughter's performance. I understand that you find the final outcome of her writing -after being coached- to be underwhelming. However, one has to place the task and the way to perform the task in a clear context. Look how you describe her work: </p>
<p>"The reason she did as well as she did was that she was tutored (yep) on a very specific model, including a general opening statement and closing, and the use of three literary examples, one real life example, and one example from the American Revolution (a particular interest of hers) that she could adapt to any situation."</p>
<p>The reason the exercise has been decried by English professors is that what you describe in ... about the perfect approach to ensure a high grade on the much maligned essay. The essay is NOT about being a great writer or being a master of literary devices. It is about deleivering a competent but forrmulaic essay that fits a ... standardized grading system. The graders are approaching the final product as it had been painted "by-the-numbers": read for 60 to 90 seconds, form a general opinion, and count the "must-have" elements. No rereading is allowed, spelling does not matter, and the accuracy of examples is not important. No wonder professors and teaching fellows are unhappy with the SAT Essay! </p>
<p>My take is that your daughter, if she is a gifted technical writer, did in fact earn her score of 8. I believe that the earlier graders, especially if they are high school teachers, did not really understand the nature of the beast produced by the Princeton boys!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have a question about the low-scoring men and women being more risk-averse and the relationship this question has to the other questions.
[/quote]
I found the difference in risk-taking among high scoring women vs. men to be most interesting actually....(It confirms the joke, "Behind every successful man is a surprised woman.")</p>
<p>As a female who has no problem immediately spotting the distractor and getting each question right, I can see the connection between the higher score and slightly greater degree of risk taking at the level exhibited by women: it seems to make sense in terms of understanding mathematical probability. At it's simplest, unless your personal level of need is dire, it is always better to opt for the strategy likely to lead to the greatest gain, IF the odds of increased gain are more than 50%. If the odds are less than 50%, then it's better to stick with what you have. Any reasonably good blackjack player ought to know this. Of course in real life the problem is accurately gauging the odds ... I have a lot of smart friends who unfortunately wouldn't believe me in the late 90's when I told them the tech bubble was about to burst. Some times what looks like a sure-thing really isn't. </p>
<p>But it is those smart men going for the longshot odds that amaze me. Yes, they can potentially gain the most, but their odds of losing are far greater than the odds of winning. So why would they do it? I haven't a clue.</p>
<p>Well, put Calmon, however, Marite's questions do bring up important points. Frederick's cognitive ability test is a test that primarily aims to assess decision making ability - but does any one test, no matter how short or long, really offer a substantial improvement over the good old (and new) SAT? Even the CB questions the viablity of any one test type as setting a norm of what is "true" and "right" and seeks to develop other IQ/aptitude tests that would offer other parameters to supplement the SAT and provide other markers of academic aptitude that can be used to predict success on the college level. </p>
<p>HH, regarding your post 175, what I was talking about is not as simple as a GPA. It's more complex than that. It's the kinds of colleges 3.2's are often attracted to (in larger numbers) vs. 3.8's; it's the (once again) curriculum offered at those schools; requirements once admitted; level of challenge in the classes; high school curriculum completed (quality, depth, challenge of that); academic orientation & drive of the student body as a whole -- esp. relevant to a student quite influenced by peer norms. (Some are less influenced; depends on the student.). I'm actually <em>not</em> going by "numbers," as you say, but by quality & content.</p>
<p>The particular cases I reference have nothing to do with LD. These are not LD students who are the 3.8's & disqualified from very challenging colleges, by virtue of a score. In fact, interestingly enough, my close-to-3.8 LD student may end up at a mid-level U (I hope), where she would indeed be among the highest tier there. She'll be in the first quintile of her h.s. but the colleges I'm looking at for her, the majority of acceptees would be in the 2nd & 3rd quintiles. That would be good for her because it would increase her confidence & relax her: major components in her ability to self-manage, to organize (reducing those negative LD factors). I didn't want to get off on this, as this is not an LD thread, but an SAT thread.</p>
<p>I just don't buy that it's snobby or arrogant to want to be challenged in classes with peer-ability students. In fact if anything, it shows to me that the student is not an egomaniac but looks at learning as a collaborative enterprise & adventure. None of these students said to me the equivalent of, "Oh, horrors, I cannot lower myself to attend a school with a single low-life 3.2." Like them, I look at the whole picture & investigate the <em>range</em> of students admitted & enrolled; a broad range is one thing, & makes for an interesting mix; a dominant trend is another.</p>
<p>I am truely ambivalent about the SAT's and standardized tests in general. But if I were on an adcom, I would prefer to see them in the context of adding another pixel defining the picture of each particular student.</p>
<p>*, Thanks for the link to the alternate test possibility. I'd prefer to see an entire sample test before making a judgment, but intially the concept looks intriguing as an add'l marker.</p>
<p>epiphany:
I think you will enjoy reading these articles on Sternberg's Rainbow Project and his concept of "Successful Intelligence" - which is based on an integrated concept of three kinds of intelligence : analytical, practical and creative. It is worth noting again that the CB sponsored his research.</p>
<p>epiphany: You better be careful about those flagship state U's for your young friends. A lot of the kids there start out at (horrors) <em>branch</em> campuses (with 3.2 gpa's) and then transfer to the main campus. I don't think these kids degrade the level of academics offered by virtue of their being in the classrooms, as far as I know. Some kids are able to rise to the challenge once they're out of high school.</p>
<p>And your characterization of kids as 3.8's and 3.2's is still offensive.</p>
<p>epiphany: In addition, there was no need to lecture me about the college admissions process, thanks very much. I have a kid in college as most of us here do, which means I'm somehwat familiar with the various complexities involved. And, oh, I have a 4.0+ gpa high school son, who will probably be at a college with students above the caliber of your 3.8's (you know, the places you are longing for), I suppose, and guess what, I still do not label kids.</p>
<p>Whoa --
You, HH, are taking this all much too far. You are the one who challenged me as having "only" a focus on numbers: thus, the further explanation as to what was being considered. No "lecture," merely a fuller fleshing out. I find your tone, your accusations, your attacks, your snide & superior tone, entirely uncalled for, extremely offensive in the worst kind of way (because they spring from nowhere). I guess you're "offended," too, that I believe will my D will do well & learn a lot (& be challenged by) a college where plenty of 3.2's where probably enroll along with here. No, I guess you didn't see the words "I'm hoping" in my post. Please do not address me further. I have nothing to say to you. You do not read posts carefully, nor do you post carefully, apparently. You didn't do so earlier, by your own admission; you haven't done so now, either.</p>
<p>I apologized twice to you (when I really didn't have to) and you in turn lectured me on the college admissions process and "snidely" stated how you had to repeat yourself to me and how the thread was about SAT's. Nice try,but your original posts were not about your daughter, but about "friends" of yours who had to "leave the country" to get a decent education.I was taking you to task for your disparaging assumptions and connotations about "3.2's". I retract my apology - good luck to your daughter. P.S. I will try to post more carefully in the future - at your order.</p>
<p>Now, can we get back to the SAT and the burning questions related to "fix it, not ditch it"? Sternberg's Rainbow Project based on his ideas about Successful Intelligence sets out to recognize the different types of intelligence that make great students (plural - placing an emphasis on diversity) and even attempts to put some fun back into the college admissions process. Not a bad idea. </p>
<p>Thanks, <em>. As I mentioned earlier, I do see these referenced articles as positive signs. I would have only a couple of (tentative?) reservations. One would be adding a *third</em> test to the already test-beleagured & process-beleagured applicants. I guess I would prefer to see it experimentally implemented as an add-on for a short period, until a choice (2 out of 3 or 1 out of 3 tests) were made. If the analytic portion were similar to the current SAT I, I don't see the need to <em>require</em> both the SAT I and a tri-part or triarchic test as well. Again, I'm for optional packages. Those who choose, & who score particularly well in SAT I, it seems should be allowed to include those scores. This would put the unrecognized high schools on the map for consideration of their students. It would further validate certain aspects of a student's profile that he/she may very well want validated (such as those applying for analytical category majors!).</p>
<p>I continue to be a tiny bit troubled by the assertions of Penn State (& probably most other colleges) who state they have no time to read complete packages. Then I vote for a fee for more comprehensive reading, to be credited back to the student's account if admitted & if enrolled. I do think that plenty of students cannot be adequately evaluated by any test formats. (Not speaking of my own, necessarily, just in general among a variety of known high school students; don't need the re-flames over & over.) It seems to me that colleges who ask & even "demand" thoughtful, complete, careful application packages would do well to grant the courtesy of a complete read to the students who do comply with that in spades. (Unless the dismissal of apps is after an elimination on the basis of stats not meeting a firm standard.)</p>
<p>Noted in this thread have been a variety of colleges in the United States, the country with over 1,000 (or, by some definitions, over 3,000) colleges. Maybe there is already a place in our pluralistic nonsystem for every kind of special case, and there is less to worry about here than we suppose. I don't see anyone here arguing that a determined high school graduate, or even a smart high school dropout, has any trouble getting into college. I don't even see a carefully evidenced statement that there are many high school students, at any rank in the high school class or rank by SAT I score, who can't find an affordable college. Inasmuch as colleges consciously differ from one another in whom they admit, where is the problem here? There are colleges that completely disregard SAT I scores, and there are colleges that highly regard high school G.P.A.s, so what's left to worry about?</p>
<p>Well, I don't really know if there is a whole lot to worry about since so many colleges are going SAT optional but I am still concerned about the issue of over-prepping and the almost unavoidable urge to equate a student's potential in terms of any standardized test result. This still seems to be the case with most parents I meet. One thing I am certain of though, standardized testing, especially the SAT, is going to be around for a long time to come and it is more important than ever to keep informed about the testing process as it changes and even re-invents itself.</p>
<p>SAT IIIs or just plain old SATs, educators and ad coms have a clear vision of just how this test, and standardized testing, fits into the grand scheme of college admissions at their respective institutions: "Students' strengths are not always in standardized testing. It certainly is a benchmark for success in higher education. It's not "the" benchmark." Yet, in certain instances the SAT does come into play as a tip factor. Randall C. Deike vp in charge of enrollment management at Penn State readily declares that SAT scores are taken seriously precisely because "The standardized nature of the scale really helps us in leveling the playing field."</p>