"Oh, and over-achiever eh!?"
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 ...
But it is generally true, and it being generally true makes the test worthwhile.
How is an SAT "subjective"?! Any measure uniformly applied is the definition of objective. We could argue about the usefulness of the data being measured but that doesn't make it subjective measurement.
So a compromised test serves as a predictor for success in a dumbed-down college? No surprises there...
Larry: “You know, fish is great brain food.”
Moe: “You know, you should fish for a whale!” *SLAP*
AP test scores are definitely a good indicator, although they are focused on detailed knowledge of one subject rather than general verbal and math ability.
I got a 1598 on the SAT back in the days before they began revising the thing. My daughter got a perfect 2400 (after 3 tries and some tutoring to bring up her 780 math score). We definitely employed a "playing the system" approach, but the whole goal of our high school was to get everybody into the college of their choice. And to equip you to manage when you got there. Absolutely a "prep school" for the college bound, not a general high school.
I would like to see a "two-track" system restored, or a "three track" system: a college prep track, a general business/tech school track, and a babysitting service for kids who do not care to learn and disrupt those who do. But that will NEVER happen - too many people cringe at the idea of admitting that some kids are better equipped to learn than others (whether from native intelligence, hard work, or determination).
Umm, they showed that you can and will study hard, that you can communicate effectively enough for the university setting, that you are adept at test-taking, and they allowed the schools to compare approximately how well you do at such tasks compared to a few million other applicants. It helps them sort out who might be more likely to succeed at their schools. A 700 SAT, a 1500 SAT, and a 2300 SAT score all indicate VERY different things about those 3 students. No indicators are perfect or 100% accurate, but these tests are good enough to help schools make their choices.
I recall all too well my prep back in the early 70s, and I helped my daughter prep in the early 2000s. I probably took the test 6 times total, once in sophomore year, twice junior year, and three times senior year. Since college apps have been sped up in the intervening time, so that you apply and receive a decision sooner, my daughter took it 5 times total, mostly in her junior year.
The math in particular is much easier overall, I think they have just moved calculus to the AP altogether. Verbal has I think fewer problems to a section and they are not as complex, particularly the reading comprehension. There's a "luck of the draw" factor because there are 5 sections, so you may have more verbal (which I prayed for). Also, one section is usually a "test drive" of new problems and doesn't count towards your score. My best score was the test where I got 3 verbal and 1 of the math sections was new problems and didn't count. :-)
Thanks Altura Ct.
Unbelievable: Common Core Problem Asks Kids to Choose Two Amendments to Remove From Bill of Rights
IJReview | 03/31/2014 | Emily Hulsey
Posted on 03/31/2014 1:58:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3139419/posts
It predicted that you are highly adept at test-taking. Nothing more, nothing less. As for success on campus or in the business world, that is entirely different, and the tests are much more subtle.
My daughter is a hard worker and highly motivated. She took a biology degree at a top-tier small college and is a curator in the rain forest of a science museum. She is likewise happy and doing well - which is what we want for the kids, after all.
As it stood in 2006, there was still some wiggle room at the top. Some very good colleges still exist, but you have to do your due diligence to find them. We were very pleased with my daughter's school, and she got a good education there with a minimum of politically-correct nonsense.
Also, I don't see the Bush and Gore data points below your chart. your chart.
After all these years, I still have never had to actually calculate the volume of a sphere, but I do know how!
You are describing outliers with your example and this is of course accurate. However, their will be few 800 scorers that succeed in STEM areas and few 1600 scores that will aspire to education and humanities.
With regards to taking broad tests like SAT/ACT, there is indeed a strategy that increases the chance of bumping the score higher. It’s a bump though and improbable to achieve a radical improvement. It largely gives you the time to work through the things that are the hardest or most unknown to the person. I have worked with my kids and now my grand kids to teach this to them. It doesn’t take a monster big test for usage but applies to any test, essay or multiple choice.
Always...
When it becomes clear that fewer and fewer students can do well on the standardized tests that their parents also took, you simply change the tests.
And you have to have a reason for the change. It can’t be the teaching, nor the lack of the discipline in class necessary to teach receptive students, nor the hedonistic attitude of students today, not the lack of parental supervision.
So it must be the structure of the test which discriminates by class and race. The fact that the changes will essentially dumb down the test is not politically correct.
Yep. They are written by low IQ liberals.
And if you believe that poster was speaking from that point of view I have a bridge to sell you.
Maybe they would even learn that it wasn’t the civil war being fought in 1776.
It was a civil war to the British. You made no reference to any point of view.
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.