Big changes in store for SAT
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Originally Posted by oldschooler:
Why is this good news?
The College Board said the redesign is a "critical component" of its equity initiatives — and key to making the test better representative of high school curricula and undergraduate skills. Studies have found a strong correlation between family income level and test results.
Words used in the reading and writing sections "will no longer be vocabulary students may not have heard before and are likely not to hear again," according to a news release. Instead, the exam will "focus on words that students will use consistently in college and beyond."
The College Board won't deduct points for incorrect answers, a penalty that some critics have said discourages guessing. Students will now simply earn points for the answers they answer correctly
If I were an a 2017, I would certainly think the above sentences would be good news for me ? ? That's why Smitty 28, lol
It's only good news if you think you're going to get a higher number without actually doing any additional learning.
The vocabulary rationalization is both wrong headed and unnecessary. First of all, in many ways a collegiate education is intended to involve learning for the sake of learning, not just some vocational training nor some other assessment of whether particular knowledge is or is not needed. Those who have already learned more would typically be expected to score higher in any event. The fact that those from more advantaged households score higher on average is neither surprising nor something to be covered up by monkeying with the scores. For one thing, admissions departments already take family backgrounds into consideration anyway. For another, it's important for us to have hard data on the extent to which our schools are, or are not, educating those from less advantaged backgrounds. The practical impact of this change will be to help hide the problems we need to tackle, while perhaps putting two thumbs on the admissions scales for those who are less advantaged instead of the traditional one. But worse, it posits the College Board as the arbiter of what knowledge is or is not relevant, and I don't recall anyone asking them to arrogate that power unto themselves.
As to the allegations of a guessing "penalty", that is spin doctoring. The traditional approach is to count off 1/4 point on the raw score for each wrong answer. The idea was that a random guesser would get a full point 1/5 of the time and 1/4 points off 4/5 of the time, with the result that totally random guessing would neither help nor hurt the test taker. Test prep instructers typically adviser test takers that guessing is only worthwhile if the test taker can first eliminate a few of the multiple choice options with certainty. That is indeed a sound test-taking strategy, but it also results in someone who can at least eliminate some wrong answers getting a somewhat higher score than someone who can't even do that. Which strikes me as OK.
But the new approach will only reward guessing, by giving positive points when you're right, but no offsetting deductions when you're wrong. So now the approach will be to guess away and hope you get lucky.
The last time the Board "re-centered" test scores, they basically inflated them. A kid getting 1280 today is roughly equivalent to someone who got 1200 30 years ago, in case you didn't know that. The Board's actions here seem at first blush intent upon blurring distinctions among students, which would undermine the entire purpose of the test, and would also seem destined to add a second round of grade inflation.
In short, the Board seems intent on rendering itself irrelevant, because more and more college admissions department are going to find the scores unhelpful in evaluating applicants.
The other aspect of this is the CB's tacit admission that its writing test is a flop.
Originally Posted by Midlo Dad:
It's only good news if you think you're going to get a higher number without actually doing any additional learning.
The vocabulary rationalization is both wrong headed and unnecessary. First of all, in many ways a collegiate education is intended to involve learning for the sake of learning, not just some vocational training nor some other assessment of whether particular knowledge is or is not needed. Those who have already learned more would typically be expected to score higher in any event. The fact that those from more advantaged households score higher on average is neither surprising nor something to be covered up by monkeying with the scores. For one thing, admissions departments already take family backgrounds into consideration anyway. For another, it's important for us to have hard data on the extent to which our schools are, or are not, educating those from less advantaged backgrounds. The practical impact of this change will be to help hide the problems we need to tackle, while perhaps putting two thumbs on the admissions scales for those who are less advantaged instead of the traditional one. But worse, it posits the College Board as the arbiter of what knowledge is or is not relevant, and I don't recall anyone asking them to arrogate that power unto themselves.
As to the allegations of a guessing "penalty", that is spin doctoring. The traditional approach is to count off 1/4 point on the raw score for each wrong answer. The idea was that a random guesser would get a full point 1/5 of the time and 1/4 points off 4/5 of the time, with the result that totally random guessing would neither help nor hurt the test taker. Test prep instructers typically adviser test takers that guessing is only worthwhile if the test taker can first eliminate a few of the multiple choice options with certainty. That is indeed a sound test-taking strategy, but it also results in someone who can at least eliminate some wrong answers getting a somewhat higher score than someone who can't even do that. Which strikes me as OK.
But the new approach will only reward guessing, by giving positive points when you're right, but no offsetting deductions when you're wrong. So now the approach will be to guess away and hope you get lucky.
The last time the Board "re-centered" test scores, they basically inflated them. A kid getting 1280 today is roughly equivalent to someone who got 1200 30 years ago, in case you didn't know that. The Board's actions here seem at first blush intent upon blurring distinctions among students, which would undermine the entire purpose of the test, and would also seem destined to add a second round of grade inflation.
In short, the Board seems intent on rendering itself irrelevant, because more and more college admissions department are going to find the scores unhelpful in evaluating applicants.
Great points Midlo.
Oldshool, by "good news" you seem to be implying this change would somehow uniquely help your scores but not others (scores are all relative, afterall). Good luck with that. The students that are better prepared, however they get there, are going to do better.
I'm going out of the limb here and guessing that "good news for underclassmen" meant that they DON'T have to take the written part.
I'm sure the debate will rage on with good arguments from all points of view for some time on the format and the associated socio-economic implications of the SAT. I'm of the opinion that the best predictor of collegiate success is a strong academic record at the secondary school level. Good students with good study habits and a strong worth ethic will succeed at the collegiate level. Many of the more selective colleges have dropped the requirement for applicants to take the SAT. My guess is that this trend will continue. However, the NCAA Clearing House still uses the GPA/SAT sliding scale so prospective student athletes are still going to be affected by the SAT in whatever format it takes.
I saw Al Roker comment on "Today" that to him, this was tacit acknowledgement that the ACT folks are beating them in the marketplace and they felt a need to make changes in order to stop the inroads ACT is making into what was once exclusive SAT territory. Not the kind of source from which I would have expected such a candid assessment, but perhaps Al has it exactly right.
He also said it was going to be sunny today.
Also a point which has been missed so far is that the new SAT will offer free prep classes vs paying 500 - 800 dollars for the student to take a prep class before taking the test. I would imagine there are a lot of families who could not pay for the prep class. Also, the wrong answers will no longer take off points, the ACT does not currently penalize for wrong answers.
essays are subjective?
I think it's good news that real analysis was finally taken into account. The data indicates that the SAT score does little to predict college success. It actually correlates more significantly to the education level and socieoeconomic level of the students parents. Interestingly, participation in college sports correlates quiet significantly to success after college. i have yet to see a study that considers success in college relative to high school sports participation, but it would be interesting.
Originally Posted by Nxtpitch:
I think it's good news that real analysis was finally taken into account. The data indicates that the SAT score does little to predict college success. It actually correlates more significantly to the education level and socieoeconomic level of the students parents. Interestingly, participation in college sports correlates quiet significantly to success after college. i have yet to see a study that considers success in college relative to high school sports participation, but it would be interesting.
"…it's good news that real analysis was finally taken into account. The data indicates that the SAT score does little to predict college success." I must have missed that from the College Board announcement. Yeah, that's why they are changing the test…Geez.
I suspect Princeton Review, Kaplan, et al. will still be working to remain viable. No matter what test you design, there will always be ways to be best prepared, and there will be people who will offer the service of helping you prepare to do your best.
As for free review services: An outfit named Horizon offers an inexpensive short course already. In my experience -- and I've worked with several dozen kids on this -- that course is worthless. In contrast, Princeton Review and Kaplan deliver substantial scores improvements. You get what you pay for, and taking shortcuts is not a sound strategy.
Absent alternatives they are there forever. Colleges need some defendable across the board measuring device and the SAT has been that tool. ACT is a competitor but neither will eliminate the other. They are an oligarchy for college admissions.
What percentage of kids graduating High School this year do you think could define oligarchy in 30 words or less?
"You get what you pay for, and taking shortcuts is not a sound strategy."
This quote should be printed everywhere. Be it with baseball, grades, work, hobbies, relationships, whatever, seems too many people want to get free ride. Life doesn't work like that.
Rich
Originally Posted by luv baseball:
What percentage of kids graduating High School this year do you think could define oligarchy in 30 words or less?
The SAT had many more word requirements that were ridiculous. Not sure "oligarchy" is unfair as it is derivative of more popular words. However, your point is well taken.
This is a marketing move by the College Board. They are getting beat in the marketplace by ACT. For the first time, ACT has passed the SAT in number of tests administered. I heard that the only reason they kept the essay as optional was in deference to the California schools, who still want the essay. Otherwise, they would have elminated it altogether. More and more schools are becoming SAT/ACT optional. Research suggests that high school performance (relative to your peers) is the best predictor of college success. As someone mentioned earlier, the best predictor of a high SAT score is parents income.
Originally Posted by lrg37:
This is a marketing move by the College Board. They are getting beat in the marketplace by ACT. For the first time, ACT has passed the SAT in number of tests administered. I heard that the only reason they kept the essay as optional was in deference to the California schools, who still want the essay. Otherwise, they would have elminated it altogether. More and more schools are becoming SAT/ACT optional. Research suggests that high school performance (relative to your peers) is the best predictor of college success. As someone mentioned earlier, the best predictor of a high SAT score is parents income.
Actually, the parents education is the best predictor of a high SAT score. What's next, grading on a curve based on parents' education?
interesting. So smart people tend to make more money and then on top of that they wind up having smart kids to boot?
Crazy.