NO SATs or ACTs????

[navery12]

Not legally.

Absolutely can do it legally, with SAT prep classes

 

[navery12]

Not really. Those parents cheated because their priveleged kid couldn’t test well. What about that same parent having someone write papers for their kid? Does that mean grades don’t count either?

Paying someone to take the tests is an extreme example. SAT prep classes are another way the privilege materializes

 

[husky429]

I'm shocked (and a bit confused) that this is actually being debated. This is just common sense to me. If your parents can afford music lessons, dance lessons, sports teams, and gymnastics, they can also afford good schools, plenty of books for the house, computers/internet and SAT prep. The kids with advantages, on average, will score higher on tests than those without. I'm talking averages and likelihoods, not general, blanket statements.

If a school is choosing kids based solely on test scores - or even if they factor them in too much - they're not getting the best kids possible.

Don't be shocked by anything. People are idiots. I am a teacher. I have read the research. You are correct. I don't have the research with me but there were way fewer outliers than expected when I saw it.

The next person who says "but what about kids who work hard!" gets ignored. The point is about equal access to opportunities. For millions. Kids from wealthy backgrounds don't have to fight againt the current to achieve in school. Meritocracy is a myth--anyone with half a brain realizes that.

That being said, I think I am more in favor of SATs/ACTs than most teachers you'd find. The test prep courses and stuff irk me. But overall, smarter kids do better on them and vice versa. And I am sick of the resume padding crap. I've had parents scream at me because not making the team or not being a captain could impact his resume. Boo hoo.

Hearing people talk about how appealing a kids "extracurriculars" are is a problem to me. It's revolting (the system, not any individuals). Kids shouldn't be doing clubs or sports only to boost a resume. Some parents treat kids like college admissions machines.

In short: go to uconn hartford for your gen eds. Teachers are better anyways.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Absolutely can do it legally, with SAT prep classes

That's not the same. It's an absurd argument. Kids who study more get better grades too. Is that a problem? Free SAT practice tests are available. These colleges already make huge adjustments in admissions to admit underprivileged kids who didn't score as well.

 

[XLCenterFan]

These colleges already make huge adjustments in admissions to admit underprivileged kids who didn't score as well.

They also make huge adjustments in admissions to admit the children of alumni, also called "legacy students." The children of the educated don't need more help. I am speaking of myself. The fact that my parents went to a school should have no bearing on whether or not that schools admits me. It's basically an institutional affirmative action policy for the middle and upper class.

 

[BlueDogs]

That's a good thing. SATs and ACTs were already dying. They're a better test of privilege than intelligence. Now it's accelerated.

Nonsense, unless you define privilege as knowing how to read and do math. Putting too many idiots into college that don’t belong there.

 

[navery12]

That's not the same. It's an absurd argument. Kids who study more get better grades too. Is that a problem? Free SAT practice tests are available. These colleges already make huge adjustments in admissions to admit underprivileged kids who didn't score as well.

You're clearly missing the point, whether it's intentional or not I have no idea. Nobody is saying only privileged kids can do well on the SAT. Access to better resources gives people advantages in so many aspects of life, it's not just testing

 

[NJHusky]

It is possible. It's also possible that they (kids who grew up well-off) grew up in a system or a structure that benefited them more than others. I had this benefit, and others I know did not, and I ended up doing better than them on those tests. I recognize this and see that is it pervasive and wrong. My parents both had Masters degrees and stable jobs. I never went to bed hungry or had to walk through tough areas on my way to school. My parents could afford SAT prep. All of these things matter.

I'm not saying that poor kids can't score well or that well-off kids can't score bad. I'm saying that on average, standardized test scores rise with household income. This is just common sense...I didn't think I needed "proof."

I don’t disagree. Of course they have advantages. but those same advantages apply to the classroom. So, why is it ok to discount sat scores but not classroom scores? They both have the same underlying bias.

 

[XLCenterFan]

A well-rounded college (and life) experience includes rubbing shoulders with as wide a spectrum of individuals as possible. Only accepting good test takers narrows that experience tremendously. I want to interact with more people, from more backgrounds, to be as smart as possible. There's a difference between book-smart and life-smart...we should seek to blend them.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Okay, but it still happened. And those that wanted to go about it legally could afford to pay large sums of money for SAT tutors and other prep to get their children a leg up.

Private schools do not have the curriculum restraints that public schools have. The school I attended spent 30 days out of a 150 day academic year on test prep and practice. We were graded on our progress.

These schools bottom lines depend on crafting students who measure up in all the most important metrics.

 

[BlueDogs]

Paying someone to take the tests is an extreme example. SAT prep classes are another way the privilege materializes

You realize any theoretical cultural deviation that exists between one class and another over the application of the Pythagorean to a triangle is more than made up by the SAT admission score disparities between groups. Could you imagine if sports where played that way? Sorry coach, you’re team isn’t diverse enough so, you start down 24-0. Them short kids slower kids will never aspire to play basketball if they don’t get a fair shot to win.

 

[NJHusky]

Even the wording on these tests can be skewed towards the wealthy, as noted by @Travelman32.


For example: I come from the suburbs and I have worked with people who grew up in the city. There were instances where both of us were ignorant to what the other was saying, or words that we were using. The kids from the city didn't know what pine sap was, because they had no trees around. They called it "sticky tree juice." They didn't know what poison ivy was - they had never had it. One of them had never heard the word jacuzzi. Conversely, there were many words and terms that they used that I didn't know. It doesn't make either of us less smart, it just means we know different things, and tests really need to account for that. Is this an intelligence/ability test, or just a contest to see how many words and math formulas one can remember?

Does math change from cities to suburbs?

You are also talking about extremes. Comparing people who can afford to spend a million dollars paying for collegE scams to someone that has to worry about getting shot walking home.

What about the millions of kids from avg backgrounds? Parents work blue collar jobs and they happen to have really smart kids that won’t get noticed because there’d is no sat so no one notices the kid from butfck Texas. But if that kid scores in the 99th percentile schools will notice.

 

[navery12]

Does math change from cities to suburbs?

You are also talking about extremes. Comparing people who can afford to spend a million dollars paying for collegE scams to someone that has to worry about getting shot walking home.

What about the millions of kids from avg backgrounds? Parents work blue collar jobs and they happen to have really smart kids that won’t get noticed because there’d is no sat so no one notices the kid from butfck Texas. But if that kid scores in the 99th percentile schools will notice.

You're missing the point, the kid from butfck Texas can take the SAT, score in the 99th percentile and send it to schools. It's being changed to optional, not eliminated

 

[XLCenterFan]

Could you imagine if sports where played that way? Sorry coach, you’re team isn’t diverse enough so, you start down 24-0. Them short kids slower kids will never aspire to play basketball if they don’t get a fair shot to win.

I'm playing golf on Monday with a buddy who is better than me. He gives me strokes to make it a fair match. If only life were handicapped like golf we would have some more equity across the board.

 

[XLCenterFan]

You're gonna be banging your head against the wall for awhile @navery12. He will always miss the point.

 

[NJHusky]

You're gonna be banging your head against the wall for awhile @navery12. He will always miss the point.

If objective measures are missing the point then yes I missed the point. People here are suggesting eliminating the sat is a good because they are dying. My point is they are a measure. My assumption is that smart kids will do better on those tests. I’m not an educator.

So next time you cross a bridge I hope it’s not designed by an engineer that couldn’t score above 400 on the math section of the sat. There are folks that are book smart, some that are more savvy with business and others that excel in athletics. Why is it ok to test a kid in the 40 yd dash but not ok to see if he can solve a quadratic equation?

 

[XLCenterFan]

My assumption is that smart kids will do better on those tests

You're ignoring how people become "smart." People take these tests around the age of 17, and the structure that they came up in will allow them to do better or worse. You're also conflating "high scores on a test" with "smart." Some of the smartest people I know didn't go to college and couldn't pass a test. Some of the dumbest people I know did well on tests and went to college. Also, the score on a test should be considered in relation to where someone started. In my opinion, a kid from an underserved community that scores just below a kid from a privileged community is WAY smarter. They also probably work harder and can handle some adversity. If I'm doing admitting or hiring, I'm taking that kid.

 

[navery12]

You're ignoring how people become "smart." You're also conflating "high scores on a test" with "smart." Some of the smartest people I know didn't go to college and couldn't pass test. Some of the dumbest people I know did well on tests and went to college.

And I'm definitely in the second group. Killed the ACT and SAT but many here can attest to the fact I'm dumb

 

[NJHoops]

Standardized tests tend to focus more on crystallized intelligence (Gc in the literature), which is absolutely skewed by external factors. These tests do show some ability to predict which kids will do well in college, which is a whole other problem- unless you’re cool with just writing off tons of kids with unlimited potential.

There’s a lot to this topic but I mainly wanted to comment because some people confuse me with the other NJ and I do NOT want that to happen here.

 

[dennismenace]

Standardized tests such as SAT's also demonstrate to a degree the quality of pre-college education someone is getting. I went to school in CT and college in NYC. CT overall had an exceptionally rated education system but NY State was better. High School students wanting to take college courses had to take a standardized test for every subject (Regents) in addition to their own high school testing. My older sisters went to NY grammar schools and when our family moved to CT they were about a year ahead in all their classes. The majority of the students I went to college with grew up in NY and I can tell you they were well prepared whether from upstate, Long Island or NYC. I personally believe that standardized testing measures objective learning (reading, writing arithmetic) vs subjective learning (opinions, feelings etc.) I did not do particularly well on SAT tests though I had high scores on aptitude etc. (Iowa tests). I went to private schools and my parents were OK with me getting B's when I was capable of doing better. I had a teacher in college once say in terms of the business world I was about to enter: "you don't really know much when you get out of college but if you apply yourself in college you are very good at learning when you get out". This is what will help you in the real world. Of course this does not apply to subjects like science if that is your career. Overall, being required to learn how to learn is incredibly valuable because it allows you to apply your education to all kind of areas in your life. LOL, I am now learning a lot about health as my age is showing me its effects over time. In summary, standardized tests are failing because of a lack of discipline in schools and in homes. Not the kids fault. It's systemic. Getting rid of the tests will allow universities to enable education systems that are failing to continue to fail instead of glaringly pointing out which schools are not performing up to standards. One last comment. I taught in a religious ed class a few years ago and a kid came in with his hat on and soda and doughnuts. I asked him if he did that when he went to school. Answer: yes. Cased closed. Education should send the message that what we are learning here is very important for their future and ours; not "whatever."

 

[NJHusky]

In my opinion, a kid from an underserved community that scores just below a kid from a privileged community is WAY smarter. They also probably work harder and can handle some adversity. If I'm doing admitting or hiring, I'm taking that kid.

I agree 1000%

 

[XLCenterFan]

I agree 1000%

I'm sure we agree on many things. It was a nice debate in the a.m. Have a good day my friend!

 

[CL82]

So every priveleged kid does well on std tests? Didn’t know that. Figured there would be a range of scores. Is the correlation linear between level of privilege and scores? So the top 1% $$ Are all in the top 1% of test scores?

Having the discretionary income to have a tutor work with a kid to familiarize him or her with the test is definitely an advantage. That said, there are plenty of kids at all socio-economic levels who can do well without that.

[/old_guy-rant] I feel like were were more self-reliant back in the day. If you wanted to do well on the SAT, you'd just figure it out yourself. I also think we'd be less like to panic during the test. You'd just go and take it.
[/end old_guy-rant]

 

[CL82]

And I'm definitely in the second group. Killed the ACT and SAT but many here can attest to the fact I'm dumb

There's definitely a mindset that helps on the test independent of intelligence and accumulated knowledge. It's like being a shooter and being able to ignore your past misses and keep on shooting. I'd guess it is an ability to compartmentalize and maybe time management?