Posted on 04/18/2014 3:45:02 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
Critics of the SAT and other standardized testing are disregarding the data.
The College Board—the standardized testing behemoth that develops and administers the SAT and other tests—has redesigned its flagship product again. Beginning in spring 2016, the writing section will be optional, the reading section will no longer test “obscure” vocabulary words, and the math section will put more emphasis on solving problems with real-world relevance. Overall, as the College Board explains on its website, “The redesigned SAT will more closely reflect the real work of college and career, where a flexible command of evidence—whether found in text or graphic [sic]—is more important than ever.”
A number of pressures may be behind this redesign. Perhaps it’s competition from the ACT, or fear that unless the SAT is made to seem more relevant, more colleges will go the way of Wake Forest, Brandeis, and Sarah Lawrence and join the “test optional admissions movement,” which already boasts several hundred members. Or maybe it’s the wave of bad press that standardized testing, in general, has received over the past few years.
Critics of standardized testing are grabbing this opportunity to take their best shot at the SAT. They make two main arguments. The first is simply that a person’s SAT score is essentially meaningless—that it says nothing about whether that person will go on to succeed in college. Leon Botstein, president of Bard College and longtime standardized testing critic, wrote in Time that the SAT “needs to be abandoned and replaced,” and added:
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Actually the best predictors of college success are high school grades and AP test scores. The SAT is a lousy predictor of success in anything. I should know, I aced the SAT!
Interesting SAT/IQ conversion chart.
Out of curiosity, when was this chart published? Also, what’s the source—there’s a lot of precision—perhaps false precision—in carrying the estimates out to a couple of decimal points.
I ask about “when” because I’ve heard it stated that current SAT scoring is some 50 + points more generous than the scoring of a generation ago. “It was harder in the old days!”
You can run from “g” but you can’t hide. Of course when people like Charles Murray point this out some folks get nasty. And yes not everyone who does well on certain tests (whether real IQ tests or proxy’s like the SAT and GRE) does great in school or life. That said, you bet the odds, not the exceptions - if you are rational that is.
A lot of pols are surprisingly limited in general intelligence, but they usually have exceptional motivation, opportunities, and/or other (e.g., ‘people’) skills. And yeah, W was probably smarter than Al.
Likewise, CEOs in the business world are usually intelligent, but unless they are in a high-intelligence sector, such as technology or healthcare, they tend not to be exceptionally so.
maybe you can find out more here——SAT to IQ conversion
http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm
Don’t worry—a certain percentage of high SAT scores are simply outliers where the results don’t show the test-taker’s true ability. That’s why repeat high scores are more significant than one-time scores. ;-)
And the data show SATs are about as good at predicting college success as are grades alone. AP scores are good too, but less broadly applicable because fewer students take AP classes and tests.
“I’ve known 1600 scorers who washed out and also 800 or below scorers who did just fine”
Your particular line of work sounds very bureaucratic. In which case, “the wash outs” would be anyone who could not “conform to the norm”.
How do I know this. I scored about 1500 but only because I could interpolate answers. You used the term “wash out”. I infer that you operate in a very rigid work environment.
I went to one of the worst high schools ever. I graduated knowing nothing. But I could do well on these tests because they usually give you the answer in the question. Just as you have here.
Conforming to the norm is a certain type of talent that is prized. It is not something the SAT measures though.
Those tests allowed a very poor boy to go to both college and medical school.
Weird that they would make the correct answers form the Christmas tree I drew on the score sheet!
Weird that they would make the correct answers form the Christmas tree I drew on the score sheet!
Board scores can’t account for motivation. Some students are bright, test extremely well but are not stellar performers academically because they’re unmotivated. Other students aren’t quite so bright, are mediocre on their board scores, but are extremely motivated and make up for it with hard work and determination.
Of the two, the hard workers with the lower implied IQ are more likely to find success in life, in my observation, and I was one of the bright ones who tested extremely well but was a mediocre student outside of coursework that I really enjoyed. Managed to keep myself on the honor roll but only just enough effort to do so.
Thanks for the link. Linking...
I just knew it had to be something like that!
On the one hand I wonder if this is more “dumbing down” of America. On the other, I’m wondering if maybe it is time to update the tests. Things change, especially in business and technology sectors.
Yes and no. When selecting between two candidates in the 95th percentile, other factors like work ethic and other personality factors become much more important than the fact that one was 95th percentile and the other was 97th percentile.
When selecting students for a school where the average graduate was in the 95th SAT percentile, and you have an applicant in the 40th percentile, it's cruel to toss him into the shark tank.
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.