<p>Sure, here'shoping. Whatever you say. My discussion was about the SAT and ACT, as standardized tests. Not your assumption that the new or old test was better. I am more than willing to accept your expertise on the old test. </p>
<p>I was saying that some students from poorer schools CAN compete with the better high schools on the SAT and ACT. I wasn't drawing any distinction between old and new. It appeared that you were making an absolute statement that I had facts to refute.</p>
<p>Why not just use the subject tests? Maybe require more of them. I think that would compare curriculum better.</p>
<p>I understand that some kids have a problem with test-taking, and I am glad that thre are schools which are score-optional, so that those students can find other ways to show who they are.</p>
<p>For us, though, like for Curm's D, the SATS most probably made a huge difference. My S scored about 600 points higher than his high school average--with no prep, no studying, no practice. I do believe he would not be in the school he's at today if it weren't for that score drawing attention to him.</p>
<p>Basing it on high school alone would be the kiss of death for rural, city, and other area kids with sub-par high schools. Achievement? Nope, my kids didn't achieve as much--it wasn't there in their school. Which showed on their SAT 2 scores.</p>
<p>But aptitude? It's there in spades. They just needed someone to give them a chance--and both have held their own in highly rigorous schools, so giving them that chance wasn't ill-advised.</p>
<p>curmudgeon: Why would you be willing to do that? I'm just giving my sort of semi-informed opinion; sorry if I come on strong in this area! I tend to be kind of passionate about this. I'm seriously interested in your opinion (plus I'm new here!).</p>
<p>mathmom: I think that's a great idea.</p>
<p>hereshoping:</p>
<p>Right now the essay part is in a state of flux. Not only do the graders not really know how to grade, the students do not really know how to tackle the prompts and adcoms do not know how much weight to give to a brand new section of the test. But the in-class essay is supposed to be a substitute for the college app essay which is often not wholly or even partly written by the applicant. Asking for a graded writing sample (one that cannot be doctored after the fact) can disadvantage students who attend schools where little writing is required. Even students taking AP classes may be writing less than they did in 9th and 10th grades. It happened to my S. </p>
<p>I hope that in the future, the start-up problems of the new test will be gone and that the essay will be judged to be a reliable criterion. But while this is an argument in favor of improving the SAT, it is not an argument for getting rid of the SAT altogether.</p>
<p>HH, I'm not picking at you. I just don't want to get off topic and start discussing old and new and recentered. That's all. ;) Welcome, I hope you stay a while.</p>
<p>The SATs will probably hurt rather than help my son's chances but I still think a standardized test is much "fairer" than GPA. </p>
<p>Case in point- at our hs, the math dept is notorious for giving fluff end-of-quarter assignments, participation grades, homework notebooks, etc. As much as 30% of the grade is non-math related. Students regularly enter finals with grades in excess of 100, squeak by with an 80 on the cumulative exam and end up with As. I've heard of students getting As all the way through honors calc and ending up in the 500s on the math SAT. No surprise. Those kids all think the SAT is unfair, and it very well is if you measure preparedness by those grading standards.</p>
<p>Another case- everyone knows the "easy" and "hard" APs at our school. Certain science and math classes are GPA busters (brainiacs struggle for Bs), even though all students score 5s on the tests. Other classes are GPA boosters (nearly everyone gets As) and have almost 50% failure rates (1s or 2s on the exams). In terms of academics, how do you compare the student who took the GPA buster classes to the student who didn't without some form of standardized test?</p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<p>I know that high school grades are a better predictor of college success (as measured by a good college GPA and ultimate graduation rates) than SATs. U of California expressly weights high school grades higher than SAT's in their admissions choices and I don't criticize that choice, even recognizing that some high schools grade tougher than others, that there are ways of "gaming" the gpa system, etc. </p>
<p>But... this is coming from the parent of kids who are the reverse of those doubleplay refers to - my middle son always gets 800's on the math exams, and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts he gets a 5 on his calc AP exam - and he never gets better than B's in his math classes. Is he lazy - yeah. Does he have the potential to do a lot of things that he's not showing now? I'm inclined to think so. Not everyone is ready to put their nose to the grindstone at age 16 or 17, but that doesn't mean that the slackers won't end up being the alumni that colleges like to brag about. The SAT does test natural intellectual aptitude, and natural intellectual aptitude is a valid basis for distinguishing between students applying to college.</p>
<p>Using GPA as a determinant factor is safe for colleges. Using test scores is more of a gamble - higher risk, maybe a higher potential payoff. Using a little of both seems to make sense to me.</p>
<p>And I don't really buy the line about "bad test takers" or "just one day". Very few people show significant variation on their tests scores - I know my kids never have. People with natural aptitude tend to do better on the tests than those who have to work harder to achieve the same results. There are virtues to both groups. Seems to me it makes sense to get the more complete picture that adding test scores to grades gives you.</p>
<p>I agree with post #7. And while I don't completely buy #22, I do consider the SAT II to be the Lesser Evil against SAT I. </p>
<p>I have never considered the design of the SAT I to be true to its name (to measure "aptitude" for college classes, college material; I base that judgment on results I have seen, recent & past, with college achievement vs. SAT I test scores; it's not that there is never a correlation; but the correlations are quite inconsistent). Well designed high school curriculum can do just that (can test aptitude for a college-level style of inquiry & understanding). I understand what many are saying here with regard to a universal measurement: I think that's a fair debating point & possibly an important consideration. A few different ways to handle such measurement?</p>
<p>(1) Universities/colleges, as consortia or singly, can design their own such measurement(s); some of them already do (Bard & Mt. Holyoke come to mind)
(2) Colleges can recommend a simulated-college curriculum design to high schools -- ones which would tend to measure the style of learning demanded or favored by those colleges -- again commonly or individually. Possibly such courses could be offered at magnet schools & as independent-study options, & even at community colleges, for students with fewer resources or in more isolated locations;
(3) Even SAT-optional schools could ask the student to designate a different option than SAT -- again assuming an acceptable, equally weighted option were made available to such students by the institution. (See above suggestions.)
(4) Engage in the Oxbridge style of interview -- possibly as one of the options alluded to in (3) -- examining a student's engagement with a subject matter of choice -- an oral exam, if you will, which may test the initiative the student has taken in his/her studies, as well as achievement, knowledge, etc. Sometimes ability/aptitude can be detected in such interviews if the questioner is skillful & the student forthcoming.</p>
<p>...Not meant to be an exhaustive list, or to imply these would perfect the process. But I do agree with the idea that SAT I is less the leveler for the rural & poor urban youth than some think it is.</p>
<p>Well, as it stands now, the SAT 2 is a killer for students from poorer performing districts. You can't show what you didn't learn--but that doesnt mean you can't learn. For my kids, the SAT 2s and the APs told a story about our school--good computer and bio classes, fairly poor history, not bad English, uneven math, don't even bother taking the Physics--but they don't tell a bit about what the kids are capable of. And it's kids who go to college, not their high schools.</p>
<p>At the risk of painting myself in my lonely corner, I'd like to point your attention to a few facts. </p>
<p>In theory, the SAT Subject Tests (the former SAT-II) should be considered a tad superior since they are supposed to test a knowledge known in a high school. However, you may consider looking a bit beyond the obvious. Without reverting to the published statistics, I believe that two of the most popular tests were the SAI-II Writing and SAT-II Math IIC. While the Writing test has been summarily elevated to become part of the SAT Reasoning test, we now have the Math Level 2 test. Roam the SAT Preparation forum for a while, and you will find what students have known for a while: the SAT Math test is more or less a test of the mastery of a ... graphing calculator, namely the Texas Instruments 89. If that is good or bad is for you to decide. </p>
<p>The Writing test in its current version does attract criticisms from about every corner of the planet -even if it is spherical. Yet, where were those voices when the Writing test was routinely recommended when applying to our most selective schools. Why was it acceptable then, and a whole lot now? </p>
<p>Lastly, before jumping on the SAT Subject Tests bandwagon, one ought to consider the uneven preparation among the million of high schoolers. Next to schools that will focus their attention to the test, many others will simply ignore them or be ill-prepared to teach the material. For instance, catholic schools often present this dichotomous image of offering hard honor classes that do very little to prepare for the SAT Subject Tests. </p>
<p>My take on all of this is that The College Board DOES possess the tools to stop all the critics in their tracks. I do believe that the major roadblock is defined by two small letters: AP. The same AP that has become so addictive for the TCB's income statement and to the continuing abdication of our high school's curriculum responsibilities. </p>
<p>If I were in charge, I would flip-flop the administrations of the test and offer the AP along the lines of the current SAT program, being several times a year. Since the AP has little to nothing to do to what should be taught in high schools -isn't it supposed to represent college classes?- I would move the complete boondoggle outside the weekly classroom. The AP can have as many Saturdays or Sundays kids want! This would free two weeks in May, of which three days should be sufficient to administer a revamped SAT consisting of a mix of the existing SAT and a selection of SAT Subject Tests. The SAT would be offered twice a year: a main session in May and a second "repechage" or second chance one in July or August. There is more to it, but that is the general idea.</p>
<p>So much to agree with, so little time to write.
Hereshoping: The essay requirement is definitely driving curriculum and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Finally, I've seen more emphasis being given to teaching writing skills in our public school system, from elementary on up. And expository writing skills, writing in timed sessions, are finally being practiced in school.
I know some people object to "teaching to the test," but I don't lament the loss of "creative" writing assignments that don't teach organization or grammatical structure. I'm just glad to see SOME writing being assigned and that the writing is taking place in school with the teacher doing the instruction instead of the task falling to me. (I could never home-school; it would end, I think, in a gruesome headline.)</p>
<pre><code> Curmudgeon and Marite: Well said.
Kluge: I too have a very bright son who needed high scores on the SAT to show his potential. It's no secret that many boys lag behind girls in maturity and verbal and reading skill development. No studies in front of me, but many boys tend to be late-bloomers academically. It took my son until junior year to wake up to the fact that grades really do matter and it wouldn't hurt to schmooze the teacher a bit instead of playing devil's advocate (which some teachers like and others hate.)
Point is, achieving at the NMS level allows some students to show colleges they have potential, which might otherwise be invisible to the more selective colleges.
Other posters have pointed out the problem of relying only on grades as a benchmark, or the personal essay, or recommendations. The advantage would shift quite a bit, I think, to the "feeder" schools where counselors have personal relationships with the adcoms and can make a call and explain away a lapse in grades --- something counselors in my son's 3,000-student high school would never be able to do.
bluebayou: Great point! Again, don't have the stats immediately in front of me, but every year, thousands of California public school kids do well enough gradewise to be admitted to the Cal-State system, and a significant number end up in remedial reading and math programs to get them up to speed to do college-level work.
Are more selective colleges going to be prepared to create remedial programs for admitted students who are not prepared for college, despite pleasing grades in high school?
IMO, the national, standardized tests provide a benchmark for colleges to weigh as they see fit for each individual applicant. Very high scores probably do go into a "yes" file or a "look at closely" file but at the uber-selective schools, NMSF or perfect scores are no guarantee, so of course, they are looking at other aspects. Very low scores may eliminate students from some colleges, but not all, and they probably would not do well in the schools that refused to accept them.
With the applicants with a range of scores from average to nearly NMS level, it seems to me the adcoms already can and do take all the other aspects of the application into consideration.
Doubleplay: on another thread, there was an interesting reference to the athletes and SATs and it said that some athletes do much better on the ACT than the SAT. Just FYI
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
4) Engage in the Oxbridge style of interview -- possibly as one of the options alluded to in (3) -- examining a student's engagement with a subject matter of choice -- an oral exam, if you will, which may test the initiative the student has taken in his/her studies, as well as achievement, knowledge, etc. Sometimes ability/aptitude can be detected in such interviews if the questioner is skillful & the student forthcoming.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see it as a realistic option. Every year, there seem to be about one million test takers. Even taking into account repeat test takers, Talent Search students, students who are taking the test early but will not be applying yet, takers who are taking the SAT for practice, etc... I shudder at the number of interviews that would have to be administered, and the expense of time and money for students of hopping from place to place to do these Oxbridge-style interviews. Britain is a small island, and there are only a few thousand students applying to Oxbridge each year, not hundreds of thousands.</p>
<p>My proposal is to replace the 3 part SAT with an alternate test. The SAT is mostly a test of a student's ability to select correct answers and fill in little circles with a #2 pencil. The student must perform under great time pressure. </p>
<p>My alternative test would be completely objective and easily quantifiable and would measure the student's ability to hold their breath, preferably under water. Accomodations would be made for students with a documented breathing disability.</p>
<p>NJres:</p>
<p>Re: A Modest Proposal (see Jonathan Swift)</p>
<p>Wouldn't it favor athletes, who are already advantaged in the admissions process? Heaven forfend! Would it also favor students from rural areas? That would be the day! As long as it is a <em>national</em> test, not subject to the whims of teachers and not linked to the kind of schools a student attends, why not indeed!</p>
<p>I guess I should have further narrowed that interview concept to those colleges usually considered "elites" & not necessarily all of those. (That's what I meant.) Interviews for university admissions are not massively conducted overseas, either -- just for upper tier. It's more the idea that a college has a number of tools to select for particular academic orientation, & they do have a certain amount of freedom in that regard, should they choose to use their freedom. What I do not buy is that they "have" to use the SAT I or equivalent "because it's the only thing out there." They ought to be exercising at least the same level of ingenuity which they expect of their applicants. JMO.</p>
<p>Interviews are highly subjective. My S had two interviews. At each, the focus seems to have been: 1. what he might want to study; 2. what the interviewer's experience had been. 3. his prowess on the Rubik's cube. Easier than discussing linear algebra, but not exactly a good gauge of his academic preparation or prospects.</p>
<p>Harvard tries to have each applicant interviewed, but not every college does that. And some actively discourage interviews. I think Amherst does not allow interviews. S got admitted into Stanford without one.</p>
<p>But think for a bit about my S's roommate. I don't know to how many colleges he applied, but I'm pretty sure there are not many alums of top colleges in his neck of the wood (ask Curm about it). Interviews will discriminate against poor, rural or inner-city kids even more than the SAT.</p>
<p>No, the SAT, for all its imperfections, is the one yardstick that can be used by all and for all (this applies to the ACT, too). If you want to ditch it, you need to find a yardstick that has universal applicability.</p>
<p>Finally, what exactly is a top tier school? It is a very subjective statement, based on USN&WR own subjective and changing criteria. Why limit interviews to these so-called top tier schools? Smacks of elitism to me.</p>
<p>What would be wrong with chucking high school grades?</p>
<p>"What I do not buy is that they "have" to use the SAT I or equivalent "because it's the only thing out there." They ought to be exercising at least the same level of ingenuity which they expect of their applicants."</p>
<p>I totally agree. marite: I wonder why you don't differentiate between the new and old SAT in your discussions. Do you have that much confidence in the CB? I think they have entirely too much power. Or perhaps you and xiggi are in the running for employment there? (<em>jk</em>)</p>