<blockquote>
<p>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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Agreed. However, to be a useful yardstick, the level of testing should be changed to include harder questions such that the top students scored an average of 600 points on each section. If you are attracting the students that score 99+ percent on the test - you need a test that recenters that group to the 50%. Perhaps, then, you have a test that serves the purpose. My feeling is that the schools in question do not really want that information to be part of the decision process. </p>
<p>My son and others on this list scored in the "almost perfect range" (780+ on each section of the test) in 6th grade with no prep work - not even reading through the pamphlet that came with the test. Have these kids improved/learned anything in their subsequent years of school and life? Of course they have - but many will not score a perfect 800 on each section. And, is there any real difference between the ability of 780+ or 800? </p>
<p>Look at the test scores at the elite colleges - how can the SAT be considered a a useful component of the admission decision when they are all clustered at the top of the range. </p>
<p>Saying the SAT is useful to the admission process of elite schools would be the same as making the interview a checkoff that the student can enter the interview groomed appropriatedly, not drool, and not use inappropriate language. Hmmm, on second thought, some of my more cynical friends think this is exactly the role of the interview.</p>
<p>I never said that there was argument that SAT should be the "only criterion." But I did see praise for it as the best or "most objective" or "best standard" criterion. I don't agree; that is not the way I've seen it played out in my years in education. Nor did I say never include it (for that $24K theoretical or actual Harvard admit mentioned). I said, & still say, it is not "more" objective, more evenly accessible & applicable, than any other currently used criterion. The question, in the OP, was about a replacement criterion. I've suggested some replacements, or additions; no problem if others don't like any of those: my suggestions were by no means perfect or "standardized" either. But I do not have "animus." I have a different opinion as to the supposedly greater validity of SAT when put side by side with other measurements. I definitely do not see it as a "consistent yardstick," or even a "more consistent yardstick." From a personal viewpoint, I speak from both sides of testing results. I have one D who's an 800-er, another who is LD with a standardized test history laughably unrelated to her classroom work, achievement history, GPA, sal of middle school, IQ, talent, etc. My opinions are from the perspective of a K-12 educator who has followed the stories of some of my students through college & beyond, & whose college & "beyond" success has mirrored their previous school work much more closely than their test scores (positively & negatively). I just see it as flawed & as open to abuse & differences of opportunity as any other current factor in admissions.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Dean J, do you work as an admission officer at the University of Virginia?</p>
<p>If you don't need the SAT why do you use it?
[/QUOTE]
Quick answer: Because I have to, for many of the reasons already mentioned on this thread.</p>
<p>I was pretty careful to use "I" instead of "we" in my comment. My hope is that you see that admission officers are aware of the weaknesses of these exams. From the few posts I've scanned, it looks like you all know this. The process isn't perfect, but I think I give a fair, complete review of each student by pouring over every bit of information in the file.</p>
<p>I havent been keeping up with this thread at all and probably wont for the next few days. Its Reunion Weekend here and we have many visitors. :)</p>
<p>The "theoretical $24k Harvard admit" is very real. He is/was my S's roommate. I googled his hometown.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just see it as flawed & as open to abuse & differences of opportunity as any other current factor in admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Flawed? Yes. open to differences of opportunity? yes, of course. open to abuse? How? Test prep classes are part of the "differences of opportunity" package. So what kind of abuse are we talking about? Extra time for the kids of affluent families under the pretext that they are LD? The claim has been made. How should it be addressed? </p>
<p>ALL factors in admission are flawed. Together, they can be used to validate one another or to provide a counterbalance to one another. A student can have low grade because the teacher misrecorded a grade (it happened to my S) or because the teacher just did not like a particular student. A high SAT might give a different perspective on that student. A student may have a bad day; a high GPA would tell a different story about that student. </p>
<p>It may well be true that some students' college careers have mirrored their high school careers. That really is not my point. The point is that it is impossible to judge a B from Exeter from a B in some rural school with uncertified teachers in a community where the majority may not even speak English.</p>
<p>The point is that it is impossible to judge a B from Exeter from a B in some rural school with uncertified teachers in a community where the majority may not even speak English.<</p>
<br>
<p>And, surprise, it may be that the B from the rural school with uncertified teachers actually reflected more rigorous grading than Exeter. It does happen!</p>
<p>It is certainly true that the grading at many public universities is much more rigorous than that of some ivies and elites. </p>
<p>But, your point is well-made. One's knowledge of what is behind the grades on a student's transcript is unknown. That is why I, for one, support the AP tests as a "check and balence" on the grades given in a AP class.</p>
<p>I also think that the SAT should have a much wider range. It works for 7th and 8th graders to compensate for the ceiling effect of grade-level tests. But that ceiling effect applies to the SAT when administered to 11th and 12th graders. By the time my S could take the SAT for college application purposes as a 10th grader, he had taken 4 college-level math courses. But all he could be tested for on the SAT was essentially 8th or 9th grade level math.</p>
<p>Lots of people in this thread are talking about "correlation" between SAT scores and family incomes, even though we should all know the slogan that "correlation does not prove causation." What I have never seen, and would be a good addition to the discussion, is a scatterplot of SAT scores related to the family income of the test-taker's family, because of course what you would see is a HUGE range of SAT scores at any one level of family income. That would get people thinking about what else matters besides just Mom's and Dad's income as Junior grows up and develops as a high school student. </p>
<p>P.S. There was no such thing as test prep in my town the year I took the SAT I, and it was very plain to see in my high school that generally the kids who scored highest on the SAT were not the richest (the rich kids scored high-average) but rather the kids who were the most curious and who by other behaviors would be guessed to be the most "smart." That doesn't sound too crazy to me. Today there is a test prep industry everywhere, but what it mostly does is separate rich, bright kids from their money, while still leaving opportunity for poor, smart kids to reach the top in SAT scores. If one obscure publication cited in this thread has editors who have an axe to grind about the SAT, why should that influence the opinion of everyone else?</p>
<p>I've been reading Inside Higher Ed for a while now online, and I have found its reporting to be unbiased. If you look at the contributing reporters, I think you'll find they include people with a wide range of background and experience. I think it's a great source of information on the latest controversies in higher education. Let's keep in mind that there are scores of people who have a vested interest in keeping the SAT's place in college admissions right where it is.</p>
<p>"But all he could be tested for on the SAT was essentially 8th or 9th grade level math."</p>
<p>Marite, I believe that one of the reasons behind the lower level math is that the test is built around maintaining the national average at 500-525. Were the SAT to include 10th-11th grade math, the scores would plummet. </p>
<p>Without much substantiation to my claim, I believe that we see an increase in the higher ranges of scores without seeing much increase in the average numbers. In other words, the entire country does not get "smarter" but the bell curve is moving to the right. If this continues over time, I would not be surprised to see an enterprising school start accepting graduate tests such as the GRE or GMAT to separate the highest scoring candidates. Obviously, the College Board might decide to build a SSAT (Super SAT) to complement its stable of PSAT/SAT/SAT Subject Tests.</p>
<p>I agree, Xiggi. Which is why I don't get all the sound and fury about a test that supposedly tests only for mastery of 8th or 9th grade math. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's keep in mind that there are scores of people who have a vested interest in keeping the SAT's place in college admissions right where it is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Qui, moi?
Sure "there are people with vested interests in keeping the SAT's place in college admissions right wehere it is." And there are people who have personal interests in NOT keeping it, and have no idea what to replace it with.</p>
<p>I don't think the SAT correlation is between income and scores, but between parental intelligence/education and scores. </p>
<p>I have seen some exceptionally wealthy kids score horribly, despite $10K worth of SAT tutoring. Likewise, some less wealthy kids, of well educated parents, score much better without any tutoring at all.</p>
<p>Maybe we can have elite-elite schools, where only scorers above mid-level range on the GRE are admitted! That could keep all the riff-raff out, with only A's to show for four years of schoolwork; after all, what do they know ;)</p>
<p>No, I wasn't directing that at you, marite! I don't know you! And I really didn't have much of a problem with the old SAT, as I said before.</p>
<p>Precisely the reason to use SAT: to level the field between the "riff-raff" (not my word) and the elite, those who have all the advantages of better schools, better educated parents, more affluent parents and those who can show that they have achieved at an acceptable if not stratospheric level despite not having all these advantages. And once again, colleges do interpret those SAT scores in the context of an applicant background.</p>
<p>The problems of the old SAT + SAT Writing are the same as the problems with the new SAT except for length. </p>
<p>But the argument has been made over and over in this thread that the SAT (unspecified) should be ditched, should be made optional, is not a good predictor, yadda yadda.</p>
<p>Money can't buy everything. Isn't it a relief?<br>
You are right about parental education, which is why I'd like to see it included on a scattergram.</p>
<p>But what can one do? H and I can't get rid of our Ph.D.s in the name of equality. Colleges, however, can take into account this factor and give an edge to the applicant whose parents did not achieve the same level of education. It happens rather often.</p>
<p>It might be fun to think about college admissions without the SAT or other standardized testing. First, grades and class rank would become much more important. I can imagine some consequences which would not be favorable to improving secondary school education. I can imagine parents confronting teachers and administrators due to differences in grading between teachers, and unfair or unfavorable grade outcomes. Sure this happens a little now, but the intensity would greatly increase. Electives would be geared towards courses and teachers likely to give high grades. There would be concerns and strategies for use of weighted or unweighted grades to determine class rank. There would probably be more use of interviews for admissions. This could work against students who lived out of the area or who could not afford the cost of travel. Kaplan could concentrate on interview prep classes. There would be more use of college specific essays and short answers. Kaplan would attract a large number of students for the essay writing sessions. I am sure there would be more help from parents, teachers, and consultants on the essay process. There is a lot of software available to assist with resume writing. I am sure we would see that for essay writing. With more time needed for interviews and evaluations of essays, the costs of admissions could increase. I am sure colleges would decide to pass these costs back to the applicants with increased application fees.</p>
<p>marite: Surely you know the new SAT is quite different from the old SAT in terms of what is being "tested."</p>
<p>Your son had three years of hs math in middle school. You do realize that there are kids, very bright kids, whose schools do not offer Algebra until the 9th grade? You realize that there are even some very bright kids who do not get to take Algebra 2 before junior year?</p>
<p>Most parents on this board, if they had a very bright kid, would push for more (as you did). What about the kids whose parents don't advocate for them? Do they get a shot at the "elites"?</p>
<p>As for the new SAT being "Quite" different from the old SAT, yes it is. In the verbal part, they got rid of the sections where my SS shined (perfect score on analogies and sentence completion). He did not get a perfect score on the SATII-Writing. But hey, he wrote the essay all by himself, unaided by his Ph.D. parents, or by his teacher (who turned out to be a published fiction writer) or a $20k professional college counselor. And that is something of value to colleges which did not even require the SATII-Writing.</p>
<p>As for math, I understand that there are very few questions from trig. </p>
<p>I do realize that high schools differ. But why shoot the messenger? As I said, the SAT is a diagnostic test. When a patient is diagnosed with cancer, do we say, ditch the test because life sure is unfair and how come I got cancer and others did not?</p>
<p>So if students do not get 3 years of math do we say, fix the k-12 education? Or do we say, admit them to college anyway (yay for social promotion!) Should someone who did not learn algebra by 12th grade get a shot at the "elites" whatever this means, in the name of democracy? Is this why remedial education is perhaps the fastest growing aspect of higher ed?</p>
<p>As I understand it (I'm no math person by any means, so someone correct me if I'm wrong please), the old SAT tested quantitative thinking. It was for the most part not tied to specific coursework. Therefore a kid who had natural aptitude in this area, no matter what his level of coursework, would be able to do very well.</p>
<p>There is actually Algebra II on the new SAT Math. There are kids I know who are not finished with their Algebra II coursework, and were put in the position of having to take the SAT junior year without finishing out their Algebra II.</p>
<p>Now I understand that the purpose of this is to push the poorer performing schools into offering Algebra II earlier, so these kids can compete more favorably in the future, but FOR NOW, these same kids are being penalized by the new SAT.</p>
<p>The same goes for the writing test. Yes, it is great that adcoms can tell if the kids who might have been coached really wrote their own essays. But what about the kids who are poor writers (due to poor curriculum). Maybe they are still bright. So, again, they are penalized with lower scores for the failings of their schools.</p>
<p>Now the utopian idea that we will fix schools this way is great. I just happen not to be a big believer in utopian ideas. What if it doesn't work out as planned? What if all the poorer districts are not able to get it together? </p>
<p>How, then, is the new SAT going to help these kids get a leg up?</p>