"What Would be Wrong With Chucking the SAT?"

Parents Forum
141

<p>My "argument" has been all along that due to the poor educational conditions in many of our schools, I believe the old SAT is better at finding the rare diamonds in the rough, so to speak.</p>

<p>If it was hard before, now it with the new SAT, it will be even harder. Just my opinion.</p>

<p>In my twenties I worked for an organization that plucked minority 9th and 10th grade kids out of inner-city schools. They were chosen based on their grades and other intangibles, like character and drive. The organization paid for their high school education at the finest prep schools around the country, Andover, Choate, Hill School - all of them. They were also placed in excellent suburban school districts. This program had a very high success rate at placing kids at selective and very selective colleges. </p>

<p>The operating principle behind this idea was that if these kids were left in the schools they were in, their potential would lanquish and die. You can't blame the kid for the conditions of his school. The majority of them had no guidance, came from broken families, and lived in abhorrent conditions. One example is a kid who had no parents, and he and his four siblings were being "raised" (if you could call it that) by their grandfather. His mother was a heroin addict and his father took off long before. This kid was one of those rare survivors - as well as being bright. He deserved a chance.</p>

<p>Our system is not like the ones in many European countries (although I believe that some are hard at work to make it that way). I believe there is something in the American spirit that recoils against the elitist view of sorting kids by sixth grade. I think that's why there has been such growth in homeschooling and alternative schools.</p>

<p>This a difference of opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind! And I know I won't change yours, marite! There is not much we can do about it, I suppose, though we can choose to go to SAT-optional schools, maybe even on principle ;)</p>

142

<p>But your argument is that the new SAT, which, according to Bluebayou includes a very few questions from Algebra II discriminates against 11th and 12th graders--those who are applying to colleges.</p>

<p>Yes, American education is lousy. Even in the best districts, the middle school curriculum is less rigorous than in many countries of Europe and Asia. </p>

<p>But should students who are college-bound be able to get a decent score on a math test that covers only algebra 1 and a VERY FEW items from Algebra 2? You keep on confusing the diagnostic test and what it is testing. I really don't get your logic at all.</p>

143

<p>The problem is that SAT carries too much weight in college admissions. If it is going to continue to carry that much weight, I prefer the old test. </p>

<p>I don't think it should be used as a test to see if kids know their Algebra I. I think it was more useful as a test to uncover potential. </p>

<p>If you want to see if kids know their Algebra I, use their state tests. They all have them now!</p>

144

<p>hereshoping, I'm trying to understand. Is your argument that what you want is a test that shows academic potential without any element of content mastery? Almost like what many incorrectly thought the old test to be, an aptitude test? an IQ test? Is that what the anger is about? Kids with potential shouldn't be penalized by crap schools?</p>

145

<p>1, To repeat: the new test is not very different from the old test as far as math is concerned. Bluebayou and Xiggi have shown that there is no trig and only a very few algebra 2 questions.</p>

<ol>
<li>even if students have not encounted algebra 1 by 8th grade, they will have covered it and most likely algebra 2 by the time they are supposed to take the SAT, i.e. 11th grade and 12th grade. The sequence is: 9th grade: algebra 1. 10th grade: geometry. 11th grade: algebra 2.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>Like curmudgeon, I'm trying to understand, but I'm about to give up.<br>
When I got to college, I could not cook. I could explain that my mother had not taught me (inadequate teacher); that I had been unwilling to learn (slacker); that I was so inept in the kitchen that I was not allowed to help with the cooking and thus did not get a chance to learn (low aptitude student). The fact remained that I could not cook and that anyone expecting me to produce a meal would be risking starvation. Colleges similarly must deal with the effects of inadequate preparation. In fact, as I have also already said (this thread is conducive to repetition), remedial education is rampant in colleges. Is this what we want colleges to be: sites of remedial education?</p>

146

<p>To get back to the OP: Chuck it. (Thankfully I'm not the only person who feels this way, apparently, since even some extremely highly educated Ph.D.'s agree with me, so I don't feel that out of the mainstream on this question.) Therefore, please do choose to give up. Or just agree to disagree.</p>

147

<p>as an aside, bcos CB allows for AlgII being taught in 11th grade for a vast majority of students, there are no AlgII problems on the psat, which, as we all know, is given at the beginning of Jr year.</p>

148

<p>Hereshoping, I understand you would like to see the SAT abolished. However, could you suggest a few ways to make it better. I have to admit to be quite confused by your reasons to dislike the test. </p>

<p>Do you think it is too hard because of more advanced material? FWIW, I have stated many times that the difficulty of the test does not really depend from the material it tests. A test consisting solely of basic Arithmetic and basic Algebra could be made almost impossible to solve by Joe Average. It may surprise many people that, in fact, Algebra II problems are ... easier for most 11th graders than problems that require more reasoning, especially if the students can find the answers in a calculator. </p>

<p>In the past, analogies using very, very simple words could be made extremely hard by testing secondary or tertiary meanings. Examples? Think low as in moo, rank as in cigar, air as in broadcast, etc. </p>

<p>However, is the test really "that" awful? After all, does it not provide a very valid snapshot of the population in our high school? Isn't the distribution of the scores of the SAT more realistic than the reported figure of 40% of our students earning an A average in high school? </p>

<p>Lastly, as "un-american" as the European system of early selection may sound to our ears, it should not be dismissed as a social engineering failure. It does work for many, and could very well provide a much better alternative than our futile attempt to build a nationwide Lake Wobegon.</p>

149

<p>I abhor grade inflation as much as the next person. I would like to see rigor restored to education at the local level. Unfortunately, all this incessant testing (NCLB) is having the opposite effect, from what I have witnessed. It is actually dumbing down instruction, as I'm sure everyone knows. I would like to abandon the state testing, and give responsibility to individual teachers to go back to teaching their academic subjects, where it belongs. </p>

<p>In the meantime (since there is likely to be no abandonment of federal and state management of public education, at least at present), I would like to give more credit to college adcoms. For instance, in our high school plenty of kids get straight A's, are in the honor society throughout high school, etc. Many of these kids did not take honors or ap courses because they were not intellectually capable of doing so. As far as I know colleges were not fooled; these kids ended up at our local second tier state colleges. Even without the SAT, I believe colleges could tell very much by the level of coursework taken.</p>

<p>I am dead set against opening up honors courses or ap's to everyone, as some schools are doing. This is just dumbing down these courses as well. That is one reason why my S2 is no longer in the public school system. This attempt is extremely misguided, in my opinion, and is doomed to failure. In the meantime, I don't care to have my son be a guinea pig for that experiment either.</p>

<p>Hey, I am no expert on these issues. These are just MO's! I believe everyone is entitlted to their own opinion.</p>

150

<p>I don't know what the previous post has to do with the SAT, old or new. Maybe colleges can evaluate the record of students who attend HH's private school, but what about the record of students who attend the public schools that HH decided was not good enough for her son? Can colleges know whether an A should be a B or a C or even a D? Can they know whether Algebra 1 in such a public school actually covered all of Algebra 1 or 2/3 or 1/3? </p>

<p>Curmudgeon's D attended a school that probably none of the colleges to which she applied had heard about. But her standardized test scores enabled the colleges to see not only her potential but her actual level of preparation. HH's S private school record may be able to convince colleges that he is worth admitting. But, for all her apparent advocacy on behalf of kids attending subpar public schools, the net of not having standardized tests would be to deny all those kids the same opportunity that Curmudgeon's D will have thanks to the SAT and which her son will have thanks to his private school.
Chuck the SAT indeed.</p>

151

<p>I was answering xiggi's question, marite.</p>

<p>I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear. I do not see a contradiction between doing what I think is best for my own son, and working on behalf of other kids in deplorable schools. My wish would be that they, too, could have other options. May we leave it at that. Thank you.</p>

152

<p>Working on behalf of kids in deplorable schools does not entail taking away from those who can the one means they have to demonstrate achievement and preparation on a level similar to those who enjoy the benefit of a private education. Sorry, I don't buy it. To quote you, IMO.</p>

153

<p>


Hallelujah!! I have been redeem-ed! </p>

<p>My daughter would not have had the results she had without standardized testing. That's what I said on this thread . On a particular Saturday she stood toe to toe with students from the nation's finest (and weakest ) schools and took a standard but woefully imperfect test and outdistanced 99% (or in the case of the ACT 99.9%) of the test-takers. </p>

<p>Those test scores taken with the adcoms recognition that she went beyond her school's limited curriculum choices at great burden to herself (and with no GPA benefit) and still managed to finish first in her class while compiling at least an admirable record of extracurricular achievements, coupled with her unique essays showing herself to be a caring, insightful do-er not a watcher, presented a full picture of an attractive candidate for admission. And she was admitted. </p>

<p>Without the ACT (SAT) and the 2 available AP scores these results would not have happened as her school was not on anybody's radar screen. The GC and teachers rec's , although glowing, were slipshod, chock full of grammar and spelling errors. (But maybe that helped as in "How the heck did she come from here and do this ?" As an example, only - "one of the best studnets we had here in years". ) But without the test scores as verification of her transcript and preparation to do college level work *however imperfect a measure they may be * she would be at our less than fitting state schools in the fall. "I can guar-un-tee". I don't believe that she is alone in her result. </p>

<p>I know HH has issues with it, and I know mini wants me to see a bigger picture but ....it worked for my kid ;) and I offer the story to parents of similarly situated kids from lower performing and/or unknown schools, for what it is worth. You can compete and win.</p>

154

<p>It worked for my S's roommate, too, from Curm's neck of the woods.</p>

155

<p>cur: don't start getting religious on us.....takes away from the cyber image. :rolleyes:</p>

156

<p>"This is what happened when my D took the SAT 2 writing:"</p>

<p>Same thing happened to my kid. 800 on the PSAT writing. 690 on the SAT with a 7 essay. I don't know that it was misgraded, I just read it, but it's short and his handwriting is really hard to read. This kind of writing on vague topics is just what he's worst at. He does fine on DBQs or questions about literature he's read.</p>

157

<p>
[quote]
For many test takers, stress can hurt SAT scores more than lack of academic knowledge.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bingo! It's LEARNABLE. My son, like some others mentioned in this thread, has a "natural" (that is, initial) test-taking profile of being higher on the math side than on the verbal side of most standardized tests he has taken. As a parent, I have taken that as a sign that I should </p>

<p>1) build on his strengths, by seeking out advanced math learning opportunities for him, and </p>

<p>2) remediate his weaknesses, by encouraging him to read more, learn some basic facts about English word roots for vocabulary building, and to THINK about how differing authors on the same subject vary their expression. </p>

<p>Everything under point 2 is stuff I did for fun as a kid, so my "natural" profile was to be high on the verbal side. Careful studies have shown that is very difficult to find high scorers on the verbal side who score really, really low on the math side, because on most standardized tests the math as such is pretty easy and most of what causes people to mark wrong answers is misreading the questions. Becoming a more proficient reader is good for anyone who desires to thrive as a college student, so there is a clear path here for parents who know that the SAT I will be challenging for their children, and that is to help their children improve as readers, by whatever means that takes. From there, just DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT so much. Almost everyone (all but a few dozen students out of more than a million test-takers each year) makes some mistakes on the SAT, but somewhat more than half of SAT test-takers go on to colleges that they like just fine. So relax, think of the test as a challenge (just like playing a sport or performing on a musical instrument) and don't let it ruin your day after Saturday morning. You know that the college admission officers will consider other issues besides the SAT--they've heard all the arguments made in this thread and more besides. Just do your best and don't worry about it. </p>

<p>P.S. Reducing worry really does tend to increase students' scores.</p>

158

<p>BB, that was my best late night TV preacher pronunciation, Pra-yuz the lawd.</p>

<p>Edit: To the readers who may believe I was talking about your late night preacher-I wasn't. I was specifically mocking that other guy. The one you don't like.</p>

159

<p>For an LD student, de-stressing is only minimally "learnable." Much of it is out of their control & they cannot be "trained" because of the inevitable confusion/disorientation that arises in standardized testing formats. There's no way to "prepare" for that or "practice" for that. That's for my opener.</p>

<p>Now to my bigger point. I've kept quiet here for awhile because I really am interested in the argument & in the opposing side, or sides.:)</p>

<p><em>However</em>, what bugs me is that the focus on this thread is toward the inclusive atributes of the SAT option. Fine: so it includes many who may go to unrecognized, "unranked," and otherwise off-the-radar high schools. I've never disagreed with that. What distresses me --speaking of stress -- is that the SAT I <em>excludes</em> so many students of both recognized and unrecognized high schools; that there are not other tools equally weighted to the SAT (other than GPA) that colleges are willing to take the trouble to implement, or even investigate & experiment with. I hate that a tool which even most colleges will admit has many failings as an admissions "qualification" is so heavily weighted for admission. I hate that colleges speak out of both sides of their mouth when they act so bleepin' victimized by SAT & CB, yet lack the creativity & energy to devise other instruments (yes, including of their own creation, some of which I've suggested). I hate that very low-level colleges, colleges with a huge acceptance rate, have an SAT I standard, & range, much higher than what would be indicated by either their curriculum or by the kinds of schools & kinds of academic records held by the average admittee there. I hate that a magnificent singer that we knew, with a stellar record, & I think sal status, fabulous accomplishments & a person of beautiful character, was rejected from a top LAC "because she only had 1300" (old SAT). Even our otherwise sanguine GC called up that college in uncharacteristic anger. This student was the most talented, & the second most scholarly student in her class that year at an extremely rigorous high school. --No relative of mine:)-</p>

<p>Please don't give me the song-and-dance about just how overwhelmed colleges are with applications, how they deserve (or need) to "rely" on the SAT I as an excluder. No, they don't; they just have a ridiculously easy excuse. They're lazy because CB carries their water for them.</p>

<p>I don't buy the premise of the thread, that it must be either/or. Why can't it be both/and?</p>

<p>We have no idea how many fine, intelligent students have been rejected from even mid-level, let alone upper-level colleges because of ONLY the SAT I score. (Although personally I know quite a few.) And THAT's what bugs me about the direction of this conversation.</p>

<p>End of rant.:( (Sorry)</p>

160

<p>Epiphany:</p>

<p>Actually, I've never advocated using only the SAT, or even using the SAT as the disqualifier. But it happens to be the only yardstick against which the profiles of ALL students (and I mean ALL, not just public schools students, or URMs or low SES) from extremely diverse backgrounds and schools can be compared.</p>

<p>Ironically, it is precisely because there is no national curriculum in this country that a national yardstick is needed. In a French school, a teacher will cover all the curriculum, which is a national one, come hell or high water, or rather, whether most of the class follows or not. So even without benefit of the bac, a French transcript can give a fairly accurate idea of what a student has studied. No such assumption can be made of an American transcript. </p>

<p>The question was whether the SAT should be ditched. My answer is no, it should not. That does not mean I'm happy with the SAT (and I have already said so). For one, it does not cover a range of skills that would be of benefit to some applicants, especially those who are more artistic. I loathe multiple choice (though others object to more "subjective" sections). But for all its flaws (and I have had opportunities 20 years ago to make my reservations known to both the CB and ETS), I recognize that it is the only national yardstick. If it did not exist, something else would need to be put in its place--something that would have national relevance.</p>

<p>Let's remember that the SAT-optional schools are smaller. They get a few thousands applications. Larger universities can receive up to 100k applications. It is wholly unrealistic for colleges to come up with their own solutions and still have decisions out by April 1. Nonetheless, looking at the stats of admitted students, there is a range in the SAT scores. Not all the highest scorers are admitted, and not all the admits are high scorers. What this means is that at least at some colleges, SAT scores <em>really</em> are only one component of the application that adcoms consider.</p>

<p>My motto is fix it, don't ditch it.</p>