Posted on 07/14/2007 6:27:48 AM PDT by RKV
For most high school students who want to attend an elite college, the SAT is more than a test. It is one of life’s landmarks. Waiting for the scores—one for verbal, one for math, and now one for writing, with a possible 800 on each—is painfully suspenseful. The exact scores are commonly remembered forever after.
...
The pivotal analysis was published in 2001 by the University of California (UC), which requires all applicants to take both the SAT and achievement tests (three of them at the time the data were gathered: reading, mathematics, and a third of the student’s choosing). Using a database of 77,893 students who applied to UC from 1996 to 1999, Saul Geiser and Roger Studley analyzed the relationship among high school grades, SAT scores, achievement test scores, and freshman grades in college. Here is what they found:
Achievement tests did slightly better than the SAT in predicting freshman grades. High school grade point average, SAT scores, and achievement test scores were entered into a statistical equation to predict the grade point that applicants achieved during their freshman year in college. The researchers found that achievement tests and high school grade point each had about the same independent role—that is, each factor was, by itself, an equally accurate predictor of how a student will do as a college freshman.
But the SAT’s independent role in predicting freshman grade point turned out to be so small that knowing the SAT score added next to nothing to an admissions officer’s ability to forecast how an applicant will do in college—the reason to give the test in the first place.
(Excerpt) Read more at american.com ...
EXACTLY and WHY many want to get rid of them.
They don’t want OBJECTIVE measurement. They either didn’t work hard or afraid of not comparing well to others.
I read enough ... it is a waste of time.
I read enough ... it is a waste of time.
“ABOLISH the S.A.T.” gives you a BIG CLUE ... .
Muurray’s point is a simple one. SAT doesn’t help predict college performance significantly, when the admissions process accounts for GPA and subject specific tests (e.g. AP, or SAT II). Its not economic to do three when two is equally predictive. I also was one of those who did extremely well on SATs, GREs’ etc. and the title of the article (from so capable an author) got my attention.
Very interesting article; the author makes a strong case. My wife, who has been an admissions counselor, has said the same for years.
I think the main problem with SATs is the weight which colleges give them.. I teach 12th grade English and have seen students get 1300 on the SAT, yet I know that they can’t put two sentences together AND they don’t have the work ethic to get into school. What ends up happening 9 times out of 10 is that they get accepted based solely on their SAT (while others with higher motivation and less test-taking skill do not) and flunk out in a semester. SATs are okay, but too many colleges put SO much emphasis on them to the exclusion of other criteria that they deny better candidates. Of course, they don’t care because they get the parent’s money for the first year anyway.
I doubt you read enough to get the author’s well reasoned point. Again, if you can take two measures and get an equally valid result as in measuring with three tests, why do you need the third? Simple economics would tell you what is right to do. BTW, Murray is a Republican.
Didn’t that FReekin’ genius ManBearPig, aka Algore, have a hard time breaking 1200?
Not surprisingly, many here are put off by the title. Glad you liked it. If you don’t have kids who are (or are near) going to college you aren’t up to date on how the admissions process works these days. With the advent of AP and SATII subject tests, the SAT itself (and particularly after the 1994 dumbing down) doesn’t add value. Taking it is a right of passage, which maybe we could do without.
Murray in is his article is saying that given that the SAT I and the SAT II Subject Matter tests have the same predictive ability for freshman grades, we should get rid of the SAT I and rely solely on the SAT II, which tests students on various subjects (Biology, History, English Lit, Writing, etc.). He is arguing that the SAT I is seen as an intelligence test, and both low scorers and high scorers put too much lifelong emphasis on the results. Both SATs are objective, national tests, and many colleges already require that applicants take 3-4 SAT IIs.
“BTW I agree that privatizing schools (a-z and K-18) is a great idea. For many reasons...”
To ABOLISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS makes more sense!
We bite the bullet and went private school. The standards are HIGH and if kids insist on being disruptive, they are thrown OUT! Just wish we had vouchers or simply or not taxed for it.
I’m guessing that there is a strong correlation between subject matter Achievement tests and SAT scores. I’d be all in favor of just using the AT as a cost saving measure. Of course , then there’d be those who would try to prove that the ATs were culturally biased and force revisions to provide more equal outcomes rendering them less useful.
Murray makes the point that there is a strong correlation between parental intelligence (its heritable) and test performance. People who are smart generally (not always) do well economically. And it is difficult to make the case that math, physics etc. are culturally biased - though I am sure that our tax dollars are being used to attempt to prove that non-fact.
Then you have the abnormailities like me where testing(SAT, IQ Tests etc) would completeley belie my performance, and my performance(grades) in HS would belie my abilities to perform in college. In other words I performed very well on tests but not so good in the classroom(2.0 GPA and below), yet in college I have a 3.75 GPA. I will say though I have matured quite a bit since HS.
That’s his OPINION. A student can score well, get into college and party their arses off however that is NO reason to “abolish” an objective test that measures what a child KNOWS. It’s a silly reason to eliminate a test that’s purpose it designed to measure knowledge and compare it to what others know at that stage in life. It’s objective.
There is an old saying ... where you start out in life is not necessarily where you will end up. Having said that, the S.A.T. scores are not linked to economics or race. It’s objective If kids work hard, they will do well. What EFFORT you put into the lower grades, high school etc. is a pretty good pattern of how you will do in college and perhaps life.
What you put into it will be what you get out of it. Either you're motivated or you are not. There are always exceptions but by and large it’s pretty predictable and why it makes some folks nervous.
I have a problem with SAT’s and ACT’s. My kids did horrible on both of them although they were honor students in high school. The scores from testing put one—who graduated high in her class taking honors classes—under probation to get into college. She was an honor student in college as were the other two. Oh and by the way, her IQ shows up at 104-6 on all IQ testing throughout school. ACT a 17. She is in her mid thirties and has managed for large companies and been highly successful. My son is an engineer who scored a whopping 18 on the ACT, although his IQ always tested in the upper 130’s.
My kids are intelligent, but not test takers. I have no clue why that is, whether they freeze up or what, but if they had to depend on Achievement test scores to get into college, they would never have made it.
Our third one just graduated college at 20 (another ACT 18 scorer) and is going the same route of success as the other two. Beats the tar out of me.
good point, kind of amazing he missed it, but he does advocate 4 mandatory college board achievement tests as the standard. The educational establishment may actually have more to fear from that, since it would seem to correlate more directly to teaching inthe classroom than to innate ability.
Some kids do “freeze” under the pressure - no doubt but still it is not a reason to “abolish” an objective test. It appears your children are motivated and intelligent and it SHOWS regardless of tests. Your kids put allot into their studies and it shows - although not on the test and still they are accomplished!
I’ve heard about the “probabtion” system where they don’t score well but other factors let them attend - so there’s a good method to let them enjoy the fruits of their labor.
My daughter has been doing the S.A.T. since kindergarten. Tests don’t bother her. She works hard and has bo fear of tests.
BTW, what is the difference between the A.C.T. and the S.A.T.. Her school doesn’t have the kids take the A.C.T. - just the S.A.T..
Its not his opinion. Its a fact. He quotes the statistical analysis which supports the conclusion. He suggests using objective measures (advanced placement [AP] and subject specific tests [SATII]) rather than one more test (SAT), which in and of itself does not add to predictive power. SAT and subject test (SATII and AP) measure much the same thing, which is why he suggests stopping doubling up the testing.
“The pivotal analysis was published in 2001 by the University of California (UC), which requires all applicants to take both the SAT and achievement tests (three of them at the time the data were gathered: reading, mathematics, and a third of the student’s choosing). Using a database of 77,893 students who applied to UC from 1996 to 1999, Saul Geiser and Roger Studley analyzed the relationship among high school grades, SAT scores, achievement test scores, and freshman grades in college. Here is what they found:
Achievement tests did slightly better than the SAT in predicting freshman grades”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.