"What Would be Wrong With Chucking the SAT?"

Parents Forum
41

<p>What would be wrong about chucking teachers'recs:<br>
1. subjective: play favorites, emphasize trivial attritbutes ("well-behaved," "polite");
2. often unwittingly undermine student ("hard-working, diligent, conscientious"),
3. often uninformative (boiler plate, little personal detail, teacher does not really student well).</p>

<p>What would be wrong with chucking application essay?
some have been edited to a fare-thee-well by professional editors, parents, CC posters (as I should know), teachers, and some not at all.</p>

<p>What would be wrong with taking transcripts with a huge grain of salt?
Grading practices not uniform from teacher to teacher, from school to school.
Grades often include trivial components: "Works well with others;" "Turned in homework late." "Is disruptive in class."</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I was teacher's pet for many years; I was suspected by some of getting better grades than I deserved. My performance on the BEPC (9th grade) Bac 1 and Bac 2 shut up critics.</p>

42

<p>Since there is too much emphasis placed on the results of the SAT's, it's nice to know that more schools are realizing this and going the "SAT optional" route. It would be beneficial if more colleges could utilize the interview as a means of determining motivation, sincerity, passion and renewed interest in applicants. It appears that a large number of students are applying to many schools, and as a result of this, it isn't feasible to conduct interviews for each and every one of these applicants. This forces the schools to make decisions based mainly on SAT and GPA without actually seeing the whole person - an applicant can be viewed completely different on paper than in person - so it's important to meet the individual face to face and find out what makes this applicant tick. Some applicants just apply to a large number of schools or even a particular school without even knowing why they're applying - they're not passionate or have a particular reason for doing so - they just feel that they need to apply to as many schools as possible to cover their bases, but it's not like they have an affinity for any of the schools in particular.</p>

43

<p>Actually, I think the more selective schools are going the require-SAT-IIs-as-well route. It is a very rare SAT-optional school that was very selective to begin with. Many of the SAT-optional schools on one list kept by a partisan organization consists mostly of open-admission colleges.</p>

44

<p>I love the SAT. Come on; everything else is SO subjective. Recommendations? Totally. Essays? Who wrote them? GPA? Grade inflation. Class rank? Many schools dropping class rank. Those that have rankings are sometimes gamed by students who take easiest classes but end up val. EC's? Easily padded - no way to see if applicant is embellishing, inventing activites, lying about hours spent at activity. Thank goodness that we have one uniform measure!</p>

45

<p>epiphany:</p>

<p>close to 70,000 students were offered admissions to all UC campuses, of which 2 or three are "top tier"....not sure it is fiscally possible to provide interviews for 2-3x that number....</p>

46

<p>"Or perhaps you and xiggi are in the running for employment there? (<em>jk</em>)"</p>

<p>Yeppers, but they would only hire me to carry Marite's briefcase around the building. </p>

<p>No kidding.</p>

47

<p>It seems to me that an easy solution would be to go SAT-optional across the board. Obviously, the students who opt not to submit are going to still need strong applications: GPA, class rank, recs, essay, interview, etc. </p>

<p>I understand how a good SAT score can be a way for a student from an undistinguished school to distinguish herself, and a way for a slacker to show that he has potential. (But my high-scoring slacker son continued his slacking ways in college... in hindsight, my bank balance would have been better off if my National Merit scholar son had started at Humboldt State, where it looks like he's going to finish.)</p>

<p>Also, while it is true that a student's unprepped score might reflect aptitute, it is really impossible to draw much of a conclusion when students commonly prep extensively and retake the test numerous times. Who is to say that the unprepped kid with a 1350 has less aptitude than the heavily practiced and drilled kid with a 1500? Since the colleges have no info whatsoever about level of test prep, the test scores are of limited utility. </p>

<p>But kids from high schools that are known to the college, or can be easily researched, may not need a test score to show that their high GPA is hard to achieve. Even if the school is not well known, objective data about schools is readily available from public sources like Greatschools.net as well as from the profile submitted by the school itself. Info about class rank in conjunction with GPA and class size can also give an indication of grading practices.</p>

<p>Test-optional schools should also consider other accepted forms of assessment, like AP scores - it really should be the student's choice as to which and how many tests to submit. Of course a student is going to choose to withhold scores that are perceived as subpar -- but if aptitude can be demonstrated in other ways, it really doesn't matter. </p>

<p>By going test-optional, actually, the value of the tests as a measure of aptitude might improve. There would be less motivation to prep extensively or to retake exams repeatedly,because students would understand that the test was not crucial for college admissions -- and they would be motivated to focus more on academics or EC's. So the scores that did get submitted would more likely reflect a first or second sitting: what's the point of sitting for the exam a third time if the college doesn't absolutely require the test for admission?</p>

48

<p>hereshoping:</p>

<p>The discussion we're having is about having a national yardstick. I am not particularly concerned about whether it is the old SAT, the new SAT or the ACT.</p>

<p>But to address your specific post #40: Both my Ss took the old SAT. S2 took the last old SAT to be offered. And both took the SAT-Writing, which I see no one criticizing. Since neither my kids took the new SAT, I cannot comment on it from their personal experience. </p>

<p>I can and did say in post# 25 specifically addressed to you that I think the new SAT is in a state of flux. It is for this very reason that colleges differ in the way they approach it.</p>

<p>There is no way, however, to have innovations, or to improve things without a period of transition from old to new.</p>

49

<p>Interviews that count?</p>

<p>Real life story #1; Not a real interview, but nearly made me flunk the bac.</p>

<p>I took the bac in late June after I'd heard I was admitted to an American college. I was busy practicing speaking English. I went into the oral part of the history test and was asked to discuss the Pacific War. I named General McArthur, pronouncing his name the American way. The teacher raised her eyebrows and repeated his name, mocking my pronounciation. I retreated to the French pronounciation of this American name, shaking. Thoughout the rest of the oral test, she seemed to check to make sure that I did not repeat the offense.<br>
Yes, indeed, she got to know the student better, and I got to know her better, too. Unfortunately, she had the power to flunk me. I had nothing. Forty years later, I can still fume over this episode.</p>

<p>Real life story #2: A friend of ours used to interview for Harvard. He is the nicest, least threatening of fellows. A young woman came for the interview, shaking like a leaf. No matter what he said, she could not utter two words. In the end, she burst out crying. So ended the interview. He wrote in his report that the decision must be made based on different criteria since she'd been too nervous to vouchsafe any useful information. Obviously, the rest of her application must have been excellent since she was granted admission. The same week, my friend interviewed a young man who was the opposite. Poised, confident, perhaps a tad over-confident? My friend did not hold it against him and wrote a positive report. The young man was not admitted.</p>

50

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>Students can be coached for interviews, too. Otherwise great students can be nervous on the day even worse than at an exam. Lots of schools do not rank any more, and the overwhelming majority of schools are unknown to colleges. </p>

<p>It would be valuable to have a study of the range of schools and types of schools from which students did not submit their board scores to colleges, the number of apps they receive, before recommending that the SAT-optional route be adopted more widely.</p>

51

<p>I don't like the CollegeBoard or ETS and their products enough to work there. But I'd be quite happy to work in some other way with Xiggi!</p>

52

<p>Over the years, and I suspect in the coming years as well, the SAT still holds its place for me as the test I hate to hate. I have to agree with Marite on just about all counts and add that the SAT not only provides a national yardstick but an international one as well. Grades are subjective, especially in a highschool such as ours with a high turnover of teachers. Grade inflation, different levels of course work and myriad, often highly subjective ways of evaluating academic performance all encourage a lack of consistency from year to year. As a result, teacher recommendations also vary in consistency and value. The SAT although imperfect does provide a litmus test of a student's academic potential - even if it is on any given day. </p>

<p>Even though I don't like the ETS and the College Board much either, I still wind up purchasing their products! Primarily because I do think it is important to prepare for the test - and by that I do not mean to over "prep" for it. I think there is a limit to just how much a Kaplan or PR course can do - certainly one of the most important benefits of these courses, practice books and tests is getting the student familiar with the test itself. Intelligent practice, that probably should include the possibility of repeating the SAT more than twice, may not even make perfect, but it does go a long way to alleviate test angst and to make the best effort possible on that given day. </p>

<p>I made a few posts on another thread a while ago that made a similar point to Ziggi's comment that the W section of the SAT is fundamentally a re-packaged version of the old SAT II writing subject test. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/sat/faqs.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/sat/faqs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

53

<p>My feeling about the SAT I is that it is at least <em>as</em> imperfect a measurement of past achievement and future scholarship as are any of the other application elements that some of you are maligning -- in some cases with examples of extreme abuses or exceptions or unwise delegation on the part of college administrations (such as choosing inappropriate interviewers or interview formats). (SAT I not open to abuse? Not open to gaming? Rural youth with access to dozens of local test prep companies as in densely populated regions? Urban youth with necessarily the funds to avail themselves of those companies? I hardly think so.) The advantages of standardization are i.m.o. compromised by the nonstandard elements (i.e., inequalities) that inevitably exist in a free, economically open society.</p>

<p>The colleges do understand this, which is why they do <em>not</em> rely on a single standard or measurement index -- be that the essay, the GPA, one or more scores, awards, an interview, a recommendation, an e.c. history. That is why those 7 elements <em>together</em> are evaluated as a composite portrait of the applicant. (What kind of a student are you? What kind of a person are you? What have you made of whatever opportunities were at your doorstep? Where have you strived to find other "doorsteps" to learning, growth?) I don't think they're being coy when pressed for an answer as to how they "weight" the SAT. I think, overall, that they do not pre-judge the weight they will give it. That is, for <em>admission</em> purposes. Now, for (merit) scholarship purposes, granted, of course weight comes into play. Except for leadership or some arts scholarships, a college's own merit awards are usually based on GPA + scores.</p>

<p>So I guess my ultimate answer to the OP's question is a combination of my earlier suggestions as to pre-college measurements and the recent reply about the universality of SAT-optional (which I've also advocated previously). I wonder if it's as important to strive for what is "universally" applicable, as to strive for what is individually (per college) applicable. I question whether there can be a standard which is equally available to all applicants. Setting aside economics, there are the variations in schools themselves. Whether anyone here wants to admit it, this can be fundamental to SAT I readiness. (1) In certain schools prepping for the SAT is woven into the curriculum as early as middle school, & by specific design; (2) In other schools, some curriculum crucial to some aspects of the SAT I is not available; (3) Last year my D's school adopted one private test-prep option (purchased a school "package" of group services), which resulted in little score improvement; this academic yr. a diff. company was chosen, with better results; thus, there are even variations between one "well-heeled" school & another, as to which test-prep company the <em>school</em> chooses.</p>

<p>Economic differences. Educational differences. Regional availability. Then one has other variabilities, as to administration: a few years ago at my D's school, the <em>P</em>SAT administrator messed-up on the timing for an entire group of students; they were short-changed & thus eliminated for consideration for National Merit! A different test, but it illustrates an important example.Then there's the massive failure that occurred earlier this academic year, with the SAT I scores: how many hundreds or thousands of students did that affect? </p>

<p>Yes, Whew! (as some of you are saying). Thank GOODNESS for that objective, standardized, evenly applied SAT I. Where WOULD be without it?:(</p>

54

<p>Sorry if this was posted anywhere previously; if so, I haven't seen it:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/26/sat%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/26/sat&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(" Momentum for Going SAT Optional"): "The amount of time and money that we are spending on prepping for tests could be used in more productive ways." - Jane B. Brown, Mt. Holyoke. "But I think we all know that high school performance is the best indicator." - Barry McCarty, Lafayette.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, ETS and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching are hard at work at restructuring our society:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/02/ets%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/02/ets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

55

<p>
[quote]
The advantages of standardization are i.m.o. compromised by the nonstandard elements (i.e., inequalities) that inevitably exist in a free, economically open society.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The SAT is, like any test, a diagnostic tool. It is not meant to "fix" anything, to compensate for anything. It is up to educators to use this diaganostic tool to decide on remedies, if any, to use to fix or compensate. Colleges already try to do so by taking into account the type of school a student is attending. A 700 from Exeter is not interpreted in the same way as a 700 from a school in Appalachia. </p>

<p>No one--NO ONE-- is arguing for making the SAT the only criterion to judge students by. I really do not understand why it is attracting the animus of so many posters. It is the only consistent yardstick with which they can compare the performance of their own students and make an educated guess as to their chances of admission at specific college.</p>

<p>Of course more affluent students can spend money prepping for the SAT! Is that the only advantage they have over lower income students? Please, let's be realistic. Year-long tutoring? Academic summer camps? Books galore in the house? Trips to museumf? Travel abroad? Private music lessons? A private college counselor? Why fixate on this small component of the total package? My S's math/science books alone are worth a small fortune. Music lessons over 12 years probably could have paid for one semester's tuition at the most expensive college. $800 for a Kaplan test prep class? Pshaw...</p>

<p>I don't have a dog in this fight. My kids did not attend Kaplan prep sessions. All they did was purchase SAT prep books. But they got a pretty good education in school and at home. I am arguing on behalf of kids who do not go to TJHS, Exeter, Harvard-Westlake; whose schools do not offer a raft of APs; who have not won a gold medal on the IMO or become an Intel finalist.; who are not vals or sals. In short, the majority of college applicants. I am arguing on behalf of the young man who comes from a place where the median income is $24K, far from a Kaplan test prep center, far from $25K college counselors, but who is now attending Harvard.</p>

56

<p>"Meanwhile, ETS and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching are hard at work at restructuring our society:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/02/ets"&gt;www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/02/ets&lt;/a&gt;"&lt;/p>

<p>Having read that SAT is correlated most strongly with family income (or more recently with the average income at the school the child is attending) I've occassionally thought SAT scores should be awarded as a plus or minus from what their expected score should be. Of course it would open a terrible can of worms as you would have to decide how rural VT compared with inner city Baltimore... :-) It might even result in wealthy families moving to the sticks for their senior year...</p>

57

<p>I don't have a personal dog in this fight, either. S2 (rising hs sophomore) did CTY talent search in 7th grade, scored well enough to qualify. I'm not worried about him.</p>

<p>S1 (at PSU) did fair-to-middling on SAT: He has a mild ld (not enough for accomodations). He refused to prep for it. He's now doing great at college, as I knew he would, because he's studying stuff he's interested in.</p>

<p>I don't think it's attracting animus necessarily. I think people have every right to question the purpose and validity of the test; why not?</p>

58

<p>It's also correlated most strongly with parental level of education. It's easier to move from Scarsdale to Harlem than to shed Ph.D.s, MD,s, JD.s (lying on the app will get your offer of admission rescinded).</p>

59

<p>But why not question the validity of anything else? Why not advocate GPA-optional? Interview? Not done by most colleges anyway. Rank? Being ditched by many schools? Why the SAT? </p>

<p>The only reason I can find is that it is the ONLY yardstick that is applicable across all schools, to all students. It is precisely its universal applicability that is its strength. It is flawed and I have said so when my oldest child was still in day care when I had the opportunity to meet people from the College Board and ETS. At the time, there was no critical reading section on the test. Just because it is flawed, that is no reason to ditch the ONLY universal yardstick. It is a reason to advocate how to improve it. If it is hopelessly flawed, past fixing, then replace it with something better. Not just better for some but better for all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
He's now doing great at college, as I knew he would, because he's studying stuff he's interested in.

[/quote]

Of course, he will. But first he needed to be admitted, right? And the college needed to compare him with thousands of other applicants, right? And it needed some criteria for doing so, right?
I don't see the SAT as predictor but as validation. It helps put GPAs and ranks (where they are used) in context. Again, I don't see what exercizes posters so much about it.</p>

60

<p>On written references:</p>

<p>My sister is a long-time administrator in an excellent public school district. One of her responsibilities is hiring GCs. Recently their district had a rare opening when one of the GCs retired. They received literally hundreds of applications for the position. They narrowed the field to the most-qualified experienced candidates then asked each finalist to submit a "typical" recommendation as they would write it for a (provided) fictional student. In comparing the sample rec letters to the ones her district's GCs routinely write for kids, my S wondered how some of the candidates' students were ever admitted to college. Yes, they were THAT bad. </p>

<p>On SATs, ACT, and other standardized tests:</p>

<p>I didn't notice any comments (sorry if I overlooked any!) on this thread about the value for kids of learning to take standardized tests to the best of their ability.</p>

<p>For many college-educated people, the SAT/ACT is only the first of other standardized tests over the course of a lifetime. I took both the GMAT and GREs for different grad degrees. I've also taken various certification exams and comps. Lawyers will have to pass the state bar, doctors the boards, accountants the CPAs, actuaries the actuarial series, educators certs, some engineers the P.E.s, etc. Then there's a plethora of standardized licensing exams, civil service exams, etc., etc., depending on one's career choice (which, incidentally, can change over time).</p>

<p>Standardized exams CAN be prepared for (is this where I cue Xiggi? :) ). It is also true that (as with most things) the more one tests, the better one can get at it by reviewing past attempts AND with the proper preparation. Practice may not always make perfect, but the lack of practice surely won't.</p>

<p>As a parent, I fully understand the temptation to try to spare our kids' pain. But I wonder if we sometimes do them a disservice in the long run if, by so doing, we deny them the opportunity to learn and grow -- however painfully -- and thereby discover their own competence and resiliency. Just a thought.</p>