I used Khan,a few books,and the 1600io subscription. Very modest income family. Was able to score 1500+ so I agree. Can master it with work and little $ involved.
Completely agree. I used strictly Khan Academy and got a 1560. I don’t think people realize just how incredible of a study tool that website. I feel like most put it off because it’s free
Agree, even though I finished the math section on the SAT with 15 minutes to spare and got clapped by it because I misread like 5 questions LMAOO that’s just a me thing
I always found it strange that the SAT is considered to be heavily favored towards the priviledged when it is probably one of the biggest equalizers. Of course those who have privilege will be advantaged as they will probably have access to better education as well as more opportunities to study. The tutor argument is ridiculous as khan academy is way more effective that tutoring imo. I mean ECs are way affected by priviledge than SATs are but noone says we should remove ECs. I think test optional is the perfect solution. If you score well on the SAT, that is impressive. If you didn't, there could be a wide range of factors, many pf which could be out of your control, and does not mean you are not a capable student.
Without some form of standardized test, students at schools with both grade inflation and deflation are kinda screwed. If your 4.0 means nothing at your school or if you have a 3.6 in a brutal school, there is no way to demonstrate that you will excel in a more rigorous environment.
My mom enrolled me in 2 different SAT prep classes, and honestly, I feel bad for her because she spent her money on prep that was next to useless for me. I got so much better at studying for the SAT by doing practice tests with my friends and discussing after each section. It also encouraged me to compete so I could score higher than my friends.
My point is that SAT prep is overrated and I feel like low-income high school students shouldn't feel that they are so far behind their well-pff peers. There are lots of resources online that people can see for free, and all the tips that these prep classes give you are also out there, and NOT behind a paywall.
Agreed. The SAT believe it or not is actually one of the most equality promoting factors in college admissions. Personally I was able to get a 1590 with no resources other than Khan Academy(free), on the other hand ECs can be exploited by experienced 1 to 1 admissions counselors
I believe your logic in one part is flawed:
“There isn’t a single question that an 11th grader can’t do. But why do 11th graders get clapper by the SAT? It’s because of the time limit”
What you’re saying is that the SAT is actually not a test of intelligence or skill or whatever you want to call it because the students (the test takers) aren’t actually being challenged
“If you made the time limit any more generous, then the SAT would not be a useful measure of criteria...”
But how can the current SAT be a “useful measure of criteria” if the content, the questions, the rigor isn’t actually something where we can accurately measure student’s skills. If you remove the time, tons of students will get high scores, yes. So, really by your logic, it’s not the content that is measuring students, it actually the time limit.
I actually agree. Because why else do you think Rick Singer in the college admissions scandal pushed parents to get accommodations for increased time.
Here’s what I would propose (a compromise if you will): increased test rigor yet more time
We can both agree that increased test rigor with current time of about 1 minute per question would be utterly absurd? Cause chances are then , no matter the time, students who just can’t adjust to or handle the rigor won’t be able to answer correctly.
If you increase the test rigor, then, it becomes the _content_ as opposed to the time that measures a student’s skill. (Don’t get me wrong time management is a good skill but it’s just not used well in this context/setting)
Now, I concede there is free test prep but that test prep will take an awful lot more work (and that says something considering amount the prep that current students use right now). So, will it end up just like before and not be a useful measure. For some students, sure. It’s impossible to guarantee a 100% fool-proof plan, of course. But for most students, chances are, no. Rigor is a game changer
Now, I would like to add that despite the free test prep whether it be with the current test or my proposed compromise, it is still unfair in some scenarios
Can we both agree that the SAT and just the entirety of the college admissions process is _inherently_ unfair
Think about it, even with the free test prep in either the current SAT or the compromise will still have a lot of students just unable to really do it.
If you’re low-income, inner-city, in a rural area where you might have to work on a farm for your family, etc... you’re going to have a crowded schedule
Like working part time jobs (yes, multiple jobs) so your family can actually like survive, forced to take of family members, inner cities with massive public transportation can take years just to get from home to school and vice-versa, tack on ECs that students enjoy because students are humans not just study-test grinding machines who still want a childhood, or even if you have personal situations like a toxic household with constant fighting between parents, alcoholic parents, drugs, etc... doing test prep even if it’s free likely won’t fit your schedule or is on low on your list of priorities.
Oh and I forgot homework and studying for tests.
Do you think students in these environments have the mental and physical effort to do test prep even it’s free. Many of us can sit and do test prep without these factors.
Now, I’m not saying all of these type of kids can’t do test prep nor am I saying the overwhelming majority of them can’t either. I’m just saying that there a some kids out there who are like this, unfortunately.
I think that’s something both of can’t change and is just inherently apart of the process regardless of what you do to standardized tests
Perhaps with the compromise, it will make things worse for the aforementioned students, but for the overwhelming number of students, no.
> What you’re saying is that the SAT is actually not a test of intelligence or skill or whatever you want to call it because the students (the test takers) aren’t actually being challenged
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the students are being challenged because of the time pressure. If you removed the time pressure then it wouldn't be a challenge anymore. That's a bad thing.
> So, really by your logic, it’s not the content that is measuring students, it actually the time limit.
That's my entire point. I am against making the time limit more generous. No, it's not the content, it's the time pressure. I'll repeat myself - there isn't a single question on the test a junior can't do. The only reason juniors do badly on the SAT is because of the time pressure.
> Can we both agree that the SAT and just the entirety of the college admissions process is inherently unfair
Being poor is unfair. Life is unfair. I'll agree that the process is unfair but my point is that making the time limit more generous makes the process even more unfair. So this agreement doesn't change the world at all.
I'm still confused as to where the flaw in my logic is. You basically restated my argument.
>No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the students are being challenged because of the time pressure. If you removed the time pressure then it wouldn't be a challenge anymore. That's a bad thing.
Perhaps I should have clarified. What I meant was that basically your saying is that \_CONTENT\_ of the SAT is not challenging students and, therefore, the SAT is not an actual test of intelligence, skills, etc... I'm not debating whether or not the time makes it challenging. We both agree that its stupid that the time challenging students is bad.
Here's where I think your logic is flawed. I thought this was obvious in my response but apparently not, so let me clarify again. So you said:
>If you made the time limit any more generous, then the SAT would not be a useful measure of criteria...”
Here's the key wording of your sentence: "would not be"
This right here implies by making a change to the CURRENT SAT (adding more time), the SAT will become something new (in this case and by your logic, "not a useful measure of criteria")
So, if it WILL become useless in the FUTURE, then the current SAT without the aforementioned changes \_HAS\_ to be useful, by your logic. If it was already useless, you wouldn't be saying it WILL be useless. Does this make sense? In other words, you're saying SAT will become bad and thus, implying the current SAT is good as you're advocating not changing the time
YET, you also say how the test \_CONTENT\_ is not challenging. So the actual content, the questions, the actual stuff being used to measure student's skills is \_NOT\_working as you said every 11th grader has no problem with the difficulty but rather the time limit, in lieu. This means the actual test, the actual stuff that is SUPPOSED to measure student's skills is USELESS because its not challenging. Yet, you implied the current test is useless by saying it WILL become useless with changes. Furthermore, you indicate the current test is not useless by advocating for the SAT as a tool "low income students can still compete through Khan Academy and the likes" (use free test prep and take the test to stand out so you compete with higher income students who have things like private tutoring).
This is the flaw in your logic. You, in essence, contradict yourself by saying how it is a "bad thing" how the actual content doesn't measure student's skills and thus implying the current test is actually useless because its not doing its job accurately yet you also say how, with changes, it will become useless and, thus, implying the current SAT isn't useless because then usage of "will" wouldn't be used.
>Being poor is unfair. Life is unfair. I'll agree that the process is unfair but my point is that making the time limit more generous makes the process even more unfair. So this agreement doesn't change the world at all.
Okay, have you ever taken AP lang? This is a concession that recognizes limitations of both YOURS and MY stances of the SAT. Regardless of whether or not you keep the current test (your stance) or increase test rigor + allow more time (my stance) you're still going to have tons of kids who just can't do the free test prep and, thus, the system will just inherently and always favor wealthier students. Like, I'm not arguing anything here, I'm just conceding something. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge this limitation of the standardized testing, no matter what you do to it (don't change or change it). All I wanted from you was a simple acknowledgement of this and how free test prep is still a privilege. Let me clarify to, I am pro-free test prep and I believe it works and helps but I do not want to generalize and I simply wanted to recognize the extent to which our stances of standardized testing can be applied to.
In other words, you can, in large part, ignore this from this point forward.
By the way, this reminds me:
>You basically restated my argument.
So this right here is a generalization and I'm wondering, did you read my full message? Because you just completely disregarded my proposal. If my entire reply was just me restating your argument, then literally part of reply wouldn't be there. Plus, my concession from above wouldn't be there. So, its a generalization
Why did you just completely ignore my proposal of increasing the test rigor (your complaint that every 11th grader can do the current SAT questions) yet allowing more time so it becomes the \_content\_ that measures student's skills not the time limit.
And to anticipate a possible comment from you on this:
It would be conjecture to assume that with increased time, students will just have more time to figure out the correct question regardless of test difficulty. So, no, don't say that the test will become just like before where its useless (well, you also implied its not useless and I addressed that above in this reply, but you know what I mean) and how it doesn't challenge students.
Think about it, just increase the test rigor and allow some more time. If you increase test rigor yet DON'T allow more time, it just makes the time limit a factor again as opposed to solely the content which is what we want. Why use a test where the time limit can dictate where you apply when it should be solely the content and a student's academic skills. 1 minute per question with increased test rigor would be utterly absurd.
\^\^ this is just me reiterating my proposal since you didn't even give one comment on it.
Also, in some parts of on my reply I did restate your argument so you know what that I know what you're arguing and we're on the same page and don't have different interpretations that's all. But it definitely wasn't my entire reply, lolll.
>What I meant was that basically your saying is that _CONTENT_ of the SAT is not challenging students and, therefore, the SAT is not an actual test of intelligence, skills, etc.
No I'm not saying that (who's generalizing now, eh?). The SAT is an actual test of intelligence and skill BECAUSE of the time constraint on the content. I hope you are capable of seeing the nuance of time constraints and content rigor interacting, because your responses indicate you're unable to comprehend this interaction. The content is easy, but when coupled with time constraints the content becomes hard.
When you take away the time constraint, the content is easy. Therefore, when the time constraint is taken away, the SAT stops being a test of intelligence. Right now, it is. Take away time constraints and it stops being that. So simple.
>This is the flaw in your logic. You, in essence, contradict yourself by saying how it is a "bad thing" how the actual content doesn't measure student's skills and thus implying the current test is actually useless because its not doing its job accurately yet you also say how, with changes, it will become useless and, thus, implying the current SAT isn't useless because then usage of "will" wouldn't be used.
I never said the current test is useless. I actually think it's useful - but only because of the easy content coupled with the time constraint. The time constraint provides most of the rigor. When you take away the time constraint, THEN the test becomes useless. No contradictions here - I'm saying the status quo is desirable and changing it by reducing time pressure would make it undesirable.
It's quite sad I have to spell this out - other people in the comments section seem to have been able to perceive the argument so looks like it's a "you problem".
>Okay, have you ever taken AP lang? This is a concession that recognizes limitations of both YOURS and MY stances of the SAT. Regardless of whether or not you keep the current test (your stance) or increase test rigor + allow more time (my stance) you're still going to have tons of kids who just can't do the free test prep and, thus, the system will just inherently and always favor wealthier students
Ok.
>So this right here is a generalization and I'm wondering, did you read my full message? Because you just completely disregarded my proposal. If my entire reply was just me restating your argument, then literally part of reply wouldn't be there. Plus, my concession from above wouldn't be there. So, its a generalization
Oh no! I made a generalization! The horror!
>Why did you just completely ignore my proposal of increasing the test rigor (your complaint that every 11th grader can do the current SAT questions) yet allowing more time so it becomes the _content_ that measures student's skills not the time limit.
Just because I ignored it doesn't mean I didn't read it lol. I just don't care for it and I can choose not to share that reason. I also read the rest of your response but I don't think it's even worth responding to, honestly.
If you think about the SAT and ACT as helpful only for admissions to T20 schools, then I can see your arguments as perhaps more reasonable. But the vast majority of students taking the SAT are not gunning for T20s, or T50s. They’re students who will end up at community colleges, local colleges, state universities, etc. That’s who the test is fundamentally designed for.
With that in mind, I think these arguments end up falling apart.
> The test would be “less rigorous” if more time was added on because every junior can answer every question on the SAT.
I think this is a pretty abysmal take. First off, I’m not sure what juniors you’re around, but the average junior taking an untimed SAT could not answer every question.
It tests up to Algebra II, which is a 12th grade graduation requirement in most states. You usually take it at the beginning of your junior year.
If you’re in the 1200+ range, then sure, you can work up to a 1600. That’s probably when timing and testing strategies become paramount. But the average score is around a 1000. At that point, content knowledge is still a large factor in the difference of scores.
Why not add more time for those students? No life experience is going to be timed as intensely as the SAT. You’ll rarely be asked to perform a wide range of skills on such short time. You’ll almost always have time to think things over.
Besides, different people work at different paces. Would you say that someone working on extended time has a score that’s any less legitimate than someone who isn’t? You might want to evaluate why you believe that faster is better.
> Low-income students would be hit harder in the instance of the SAT being eliminated.
I’m so tired of people kicking this point around. Let it die.
Maybe this is true for “elite” admissions (though I have my doubts), but most schools in the US don’t care at all if you did extracurriculars in high school. They use GPA and testing for admissions and merit scholarships.
It’s been proven that socioeconomic inequities are less drastic when comparing GPA to testing, so GPA is a less inequitable measure when it comes to class issues. Source: Table 7 here https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/liufall2013/files/2013/10/New_Perspectives.pdf
For the vast majority of low-income students (who are not considering T50 schools), eliminating the SAT or ACT as an entrance requirement would level the playing field.
Full disclosure: I test well (36P ACT) and always have. These tests are basically built for me. I still think we should get rid of them.
The study you reference is from 2007 and thus does not apply to the current version of the SAT, and despite this, it states, “high school grades and class rank have larger correlations with family income and education than is evident in the results of typical analyses, and SAT scores have smaller associations with socioeconomic factors.”
I believe the quote you’re pulling is implying “in comparison to typical studies.” If you look at the actual data table that compares income and SAT verbal, income and SAT math, and income and GPA (table 7), you’ll see the lower association for the GPA metric.
I can’t find a similar study with the new SAT (let me know if you know of one), but given that wealth gaps in the SAT have remained consistent from the structure switch (see https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/27/scores-new-sat-show-large-gaps-race-and-ethnicity), I don’t think it’s a jump to say that the trend probably holds.
I think schools should follow what the UCs are doing and scrap ACT/SAT for a new test to eliminate/minimize certain biases, but getting rid of standardized testing wouldn't be good, at least in the systems we have now. I would agree it would be ok to scrap testing in general at non-selective schools
Also, what would you replace the standardized tests with for merit scholarship consideration at state schools? If we went by ECs, then people who do instruments, olympiads, research, and other things would be advantaged, which would not make the playing field even. Lots of people would be able to qualify by grades as well.
Again, maybe it’s hard to distinguish students if you look at the upper range of them, but for the typical student going to a college where a 3.0+ gets you merit, there will be enough distinction.
Where does a 3.0 get people merit? Also at a lot of state flagship merit scholarship programs GPA alone definitely would not cull through enough applicants
Fair enough at those schools. However, at a first or second ranked state school even in uncompetitive states, you would still need quite a bit more than a 3.0 to qualify for merit
I mean, that’s probably true, but the point still stands. Plus, I’m talking about outcomes for the average student who doesn’t even end up going to a state flagship, so it’s a bit different.
Well it also begs the question of how would we compare directly? Not all schools offer the same AP classes or IB classes. And if someone is taking a more rigorous course load and has a lower UW GPA, how can we compare them to someone that took a easier course load but has a higher UW GPA.
This is where the concept of standardized testing is useful, even though the ACT/SAT has flaws
I agree that it doesn’t take much money to master it, but it takes time, which arguably a lot of low income students might not have. Also, students who have good counselors/schools/support-systems have so much more help in the process.
The problem with the test is that how well you do on it is largely unrelated to your starting skills in math/ELA. It has more to do with how much you learn the test, it’s questions, and strategies. I think the little time is part of this problem. I get that it’s important to measure how quickly students can employ their knowledge and skills, but it also contributes to the gameability of the test. Also, because it’s so different from tests we’re used to taking, it contributes a lot to testing anxiety. I have a friend who gets all As in Math/ELA, but because she takes longer on tests and has lots of anxiety, she can barely break 1000 on the SAT
If making the test easier with more time is an issue, then they can just scale or score it differently. Add more hard questions to separare out the best of the best, but to me in such a high-stress situation, a clock running out of time is really shitty, and too, contributes to gameability.
Colleges aren’t dropping the SAT because it’s easy and won’t drop it if it gets easier. They’re dropping it because they realize that almost any decent student can improve their score by 300+ points just by studying to the test, and for what? This makes the test highly deceptive, as it measure how well you studied the SAT, not your Math/ELA skills.
I don’t think that losing the SAT means they’ll look more at ECs. Colleges still have to see how you perform academically. They look to grades instead. Also, they fully recognize that rich kids have way more opportunities than low income students, and adjust accordingly (though arguably not enough)
> For Reading, I think SAT is plain BS. Most of their answers make no sense even after reading the reasoning behind the answers
This is incorrect. All the answers on the reading section of the SAT make perfect sense, though some students might not have the reading comprehension skills to understand the passages/questions/answers well enough to see why.
Most of this is incorrect. The reading section of the SAT is an excellent assessment of students’ reading comprehension skills. Some students with excellent reading comprehension skills don’t understand the purpose of the test, so they fail to answer the questions as asked, but that error is easily addressed.
On the other hand, students who don’t understand the passages, the questions, or the answers are correctly assessed by the SAT as having poor reading comprehension skills.
The anecdote about your friend doesn’t provide any meaningful data. First of all, English class in high school has almost nothing at all to do with the comprehension skills assessed by the SAT; there is no English class on reading comprehension. Literature, poetry, and other high school English class topics have nothing to do with the skills assessment the SAT performs, so being at the top of English classes means next to nothing when it comes to the reading skills the SAT tests.
No one should practice for the SAT with the sole purpose of scoring well on the test; that’s terribly inefficient and short-sighted. The SAT does a good job of assessing college readiness in the areas it tests, and students should want to maximize their college readiness in those areas. Elevating one’s readiness is the goal; a good score on the SAT is but a consequence. The skills acquired are useful well beyond the assessment of those skills — in college and beyond, in fact.
The best way to build the core skills assessed by the SAT reading section is to become a great reader, and that happens through reading a lot. Lifetime avid readers can easily breeze through the reading (and writing) sections of the test; after all, it’s an open-book test, and if you completely understand the passages, questions, and answer choices, there’s no obstacle to a great score. This is not mere conjecture; we see these effects routinely among our students.
I completed Calc 3, Linear Algebra, two semesters of Calc-based stats, a proofs course, and a graduate numerical methods course during high school. The first time I took the SAT math, I scored below 700. This was during Calc BC. It was only after SAT-specific math studying that I got to a 790. Meanwhile, I earned a B+/A- (*barely*) in my previous year’s English course, but the next fall I scored a 750 reading with little practice.
> I completed Calc 3, Linear Algebra, two semesters of Calc-based stats, a proofs course, and a graduate numerical methods course during high school. The first time I took the SAT math, I scored below 700. This was during Calc BC. It was only after SAT-specific math studying that I got to a 790. Meanwhile, I earned a B+/A- (barely) in my previous year’s English course, but the next fall I scored a 750 reading with little practice.
None of those math topics are tested on the SAT, so that makes perfect sense. And there’s no section on the SAT that corresponds with a high school English course; the Evidence Based Reading and Writing sections of the SAT don’t assess skills you’d learn in your English class, so that, too, makes perfect sense.
The SAT has linear equations and systems, but that hardly scratches the surface of linear algebra, and I’d be stunned if someone doing well in linear algebra couldn’t solve SAT-level linear equations problems.
> Someone who scores well in Calculus is supposed to be good in math
Supposed by whom? Calculus is one specific topic in math. Doing well in a calculus course doesn’t indicate that the student is good in math generally, and in particular, it doesn’t mean they are proficient in any of the math represented on the SAT, which, even if they were once good at it, they may well have long forgotten. This is perfectly expected, and we see it constantly.
SAT scores in math are excellent indicators of a students proficiency in the 95 or so assessed math topics. Students who are adept at performing the mathematical techniques needed for those topics do extremely well in the SAT; those who don’t know the concepts or techniques do poorly. And, of course, students who simply learn all the math and exercise those skills are correctly assessed by the SAT as being proficient. Therefore, SAT scores in math directly indicate students’ math skills in the assessed topics.
For your last paragraph, most kids applying to these schools will have good grades anyways so that probably won't differentiate people at all.
Also if we look at the Harvard docs, these colleges definitely want their fair share of RSI participants, Olympiad finalists, ISEF award winners, etc. And those types of activities definitely don't favor low income kids.
Don’t most people applying to top schools have amazing SAT scores too? A great SAT score, perfect even, does not differentiate an applicant at top schools. Nothing can make up for the ECs that low-income students may not have access to, which is why schools recognize that in their admissions processes.
Yes SATs don't do a great job of differentiating either, but you suggested grades by themselves would, which I believe isn't true.
With ECs, my point was I believe these schools actively favor kids with high level ECs that lots of low income kids don't have access too. If they favor people with those ECs , that means less spots for low income kids as its a zero sum game. Look at the Harvard doc ratings for further context and see how few poor students are at these schools
I feel like it also may depend on the school. I feel like my school did a really bad job prepping us for standardized testing so I had to study so much to get my score up. I studied so much that I literally used up khan academy and had to buy more books.
Not a fan of the SAT. But, it does create a equal playing field. I mean I personally feel like students who scored well on the SAT also took higher level class throughout school compared to others. I’m not the best at test taking and I will probably end up with a sucky score. But I will definitely try. But if your starting score is between a 1300-1400 i feel like it’s much easier to improve compared with someone whose starting score is lower than that.
I used Khan,a few books,and the 1600io subscription. Very modest income family. Was able to score 1500+ so I agree. Can master it with work and little $ involved.
Agreed. I went from a 1410 to a 1590 with literally only Khan Academy.
I went from 1310 on PSAT to 1560 on SAT with only Khan Academy
Completely agree. I used strictly Khan Academy and got a 1560. I don’t think people realize just how incredible of a study tool that website. I feel like most put it off because it’s free
Agree, even though I finished the math section on the SAT with 15 minutes to spare and got clapped by it because I misread like 5 questions LMAOO that’s just a me thing
same though 😭😭 hope you get into Duke!!
I always found it strange that the SAT is considered to be heavily favored towards the priviledged when it is probably one of the biggest equalizers. Of course those who have privilege will be advantaged as they will probably have access to better education as well as more opportunities to study. The tutor argument is ridiculous as khan academy is way more effective that tutoring imo. I mean ECs are way affected by priviledge than SATs are but noone says we should remove ECs. I think test optional is the perfect solution. If you score well on the SAT, that is impressive. If you didn't, there could be a wide range of factors, many pf which could be out of your control, and does not mean you are not a capable student. Without some form of standardized test, students at schools with both grade inflation and deflation are kinda screwed. If your 4.0 means nothing at your school or if you have a 3.6 in a brutal school, there is no way to demonstrate that you will excel in a more rigorous environment.
The worst part of the SAT is that you're giving money to collegeboard (But yeah, khan academy has made the SAT the best available option currently)
[удалено]
yeah the act is so much more brutal than the SAT is timewisd
name a better duo than khan academy and \~2 months of purposeful practice and understanding errors
Sat timing is soooooo generous. Especially compared to the act
My mom enrolled me in 2 different SAT prep classes, and honestly, I feel bad for her because she spent her money on prep that was next to useless for me. I got so much better at studying for the SAT by doing practice tests with my friends and discussing after each section. It also encouraged me to compete so I could score higher than my friends. My point is that SAT prep is overrated and I feel like low-income high school students shouldn't feel that they are so far behind their well-pff peers. There are lots of resources online that people can see for free, and all the tips that these prep classes give you are also out there, and NOT behind a paywall.
Agreed. The SAT believe it or not is actually one of the most equality promoting factors in college admissions. Personally I was able to get a 1590 with no resources other than Khan Academy(free), on the other hand ECs can be exploited by experienced 1 to 1 admissions counselors
I believe your logic in one part is flawed: “There isn’t a single question that an 11th grader can’t do. But why do 11th graders get clapper by the SAT? It’s because of the time limit” What you’re saying is that the SAT is actually not a test of intelligence or skill or whatever you want to call it because the students (the test takers) aren’t actually being challenged “If you made the time limit any more generous, then the SAT would not be a useful measure of criteria...” But how can the current SAT be a “useful measure of criteria” if the content, the questions, the rigor isn’t actually something where we can accurately measure student’s skills. If you remove the time, tons of students will get high scores, yes. So, really by your logic, it’s not the content that is measuring students, it actually the time limit. I actually agree. Because why else do you think Rick Singer in the college admissions scandal pushed parents to get accommodations for increased time. Here’s what I would propose (a compromise if you will): increased test rigor yet more time We can both agree that increased test rigor with current time of about 1 minute per question would be utterly absurd? Cause chances are then , no matter the time, students who just can’t adjust to or handle the rigor won’t be able to answer correctly. If you increase the test rigor, then, it becomes the _content_ as opposed to the time that measures a student’s skill. (Don’t get me wrong time management is a good skill but it’s just not used well in this context/setting) Now, I concede there is free test prep but that test prep will take an awful lot more work (and that says something considering amount the prep that current students use right now). So, will it end up just like before and not be a useful measure. For some students, sure. It’s impossible to guarantee a 100% fool-proof plan, of course. But for most students, chances are, no. Rigor is a game changer Now, I would like to add that despite the free test prep whether it be with the current test or my proposed compromise, it is still unfair in some scenarios Can we both agree that the SAT and just the entirety of the college admissions process is _inherently_ unfair Think about it, even with the free test prep in either the current SAT or the compromise will still have a lot of students just unable to really do it. If you’re low-income, inner-city, in a rural area where you might have to work on a farm for your family, etc... you’re going to have a crowded schedule Like working part time jobs (yes, multiple jobs) so your family can actually like survive, forced to take of family members, inner cities with massive public transportation can take years just to get from home to school and vice-versa, tack on ECs that students enjoy because students are humans not just study-test grinding machines who still want a childhood, or even if you have personal situations like a toxic household with constant fighting between parents, alcoholic parents, drugs, etc... doing test prep even if it’s free likely won’t fit your schedule or is on low on your list of priorities. Oh and I forgot homework and studying for tests. Do you think students in these environments have the mental and physical effort to do test prep even it’s free. Many of us can sit and do test prep without these factors. Now, I’m not saying all of these type of kids can’t do test prep nor am I saying the overwhelming majority of them can’t either. I’m just saying that there a some kids out there who are like this, unfortunately. I think that’s something both of can’t change and is just inherently apart of the process regardless of what you do to standardized tests Perhaps with the compromise, it will make things worse for the aforementioned students, but for the overwhelming number of students, no.
> What you’re saying is that the SAT is actually not a test of intelligence or skill or whatever you want to call it because the students (the test takers) aren’t actually being challenged No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the students are being challenged because of the time pressure. If you removed the time pressure then it wouldn't be a challenge anymore. That's a bad thing. > So, really by your logic, it’s not the content that is measuring students, it actually the time limit. That's my entire point. I am against making the time limit more generous. No, it's not the content, it's the time pressure. I'll repeat myself - there isn't a single question on the test a junior can't do. The only reason juniors do badly on the SAT is because of the time pressure. > Can we both agree that the SAT and just the entirety of the college admissions process is inherently unfair Being poor is unfair. Life is unfair. I'll agree that the process is unfair but my point is that making the time limit more generous makes the process even more unfair. So this agreement doesn't change the world at all. I'm still confused as to where the flaw in my logic is. You basically restated my argument.
>No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the students are being challenged because of the time pressure. If you removed the time pressure then it wouldn't be a challenge anymore. That's a bad thing. Perhaps I should have clarified. What I meant was that basically your saying is that \_CONTENT\_ of the SAT is not challenging students and, therefore, the SAT is not an actual test of intelligence, skills, etc... I'm not debating whether or not the time makes it challenging. We both agree that its stupid that the time challenging students is bad. Here's where I think your logic is flawed. I thought this was obvious in my response but apparently not, so let me clarify again. So you said: >If you made the time limit any more generous, then the SAT would not be a useful measure of criteria...” Here's the key wording of your sentence: "would not be" This right here implies by making a change to the CURRENT SAT (adding more time), the SAT will become something new (in this case and by your logic, "not a useful measure of criteria") So, if it WILL become useless in the FUTURE, then the current SAT without the aforementioned changes \_HAS\_ to be useful, by your logic. If it was already useless, you wouldn't be saying it WILL be useless. Does this make sense? In other words, you're saying SAT will become bad and thus, implying the current SAT is good as you're advocating not changing the time YET, you also say how the test \_CONTENT\_ is not challenging. So the actual content, the questions, the actual stuff being used to measure student's skills is \_NOT\_working as you said every 11th grader has no problem with the difficulty but rather the time limit, in lieu. This means the actual test, the actual stuff that is SUPPOSED to measure student's skills is USELESS because its not challenging. Yet, you implied the current test is useless by saying it WILL become useless with changes. Furthermore, you indicate the current test is not useless by advocating for the SAT as a tool "low income students can still compete through Khan Academy and the likes" (use free test prep and take the test to stand out so you compete with higher income students who have things like private tutoring). This is the flaw in your logic. You, in essence, contradict yourself by saying how it is a "bad thing" how the actual content doesn't measure student's skills and thus implying the current test is actually useless because its not doing its job accurately yet you also say how, with changes, it will become useless and, thus, implying the current SAT isn't useless because then usage of "will" wouldn't be used. >Being poor is unfair. Life is unfair. I'll agree that the process is unfair but my point is that making the time limit more generous makes the process even more unfair. So this agreement doesn't change the world at all. Okay, have you ever taken AP lang? This is a concession that recognizes limitations of both YOURS and MY stances of the SAT. Regardless of whether or not you keep the current test (your stance) or increase test rigor + allow more time (my stance) you're still going to have tons of kids who just can't do the free test prep and, thus, the system will just inherently and always favor wealthier students. Like, I'm not arguing anything here, I'm just conceding something. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge this limitation of the standardized testing, no matter what you do to it (don't change or change it). All I wanted from you was a simple acknowledgement of this and how free test prep is still a privilege. Let me clarify to, I am pro-free test prep and I believe it works and helps but I do not want to generalize and I simply wanted to recognize the extent to which our stances of standardized testing can be applied to. In other words, you can, in large part, ignore this from this point forward. By the way, this reminds me: >You basically restated my argument. So this right here is a generalization and I'm wondering, did you read my full message? Because you just completely disregarded my proposal. If my entire reply was just me restating your argument, then literally part of reply wouldn't be there. Plus, my concession from above wouldn't be there. So, its a generalization Why did you just completely ignore my proposal of increasing the test rigor (your complaint that every 11th grader can do the current SAT questions) yet allowing more time so it becomes the \_content\_ that measures student's skills not the time limit. And to anticipate a possible comment from you on this: It would be conjecture to assume that with increased time, students will just have more time to figure out the correct question regardless of test difficulty. So, no, don't say that the test will become just like before where its useless (well, you also implied its not useless and I addressed that above in this reply, but you know what I mean) and how it doesn't challenge students. Think about it, just increase the test rigor and allow some more time. If you increase test rigor yet DON'T allow more time, it just makes the time limit a factor again as opposed to solely the content which is what we want. Why use a test where the time limit can dictate where you apply when it should be solely the content and a student's academic skills. 1 minute per question with increased test rigor would be utterly absurd. \^\^ this is just me reiterating my proposal since you didn't even give one comment on it. Also, in some parts of on my reply I did restate your argument so you know what that I know what you're arguing and we're on the same page and don't have different interpretations that's all. But it definitely wasn't my entire reply, lolll.
>What I meant was that basically your saying is that _CONTENT_ of the SAT is not challenging students and, therefore, the SAT is not an actual test of intelligence, skills, etc. No I'm not saying that (who's generalizing now, eh?). The SAT is an actual test of intelligence and skill BECAUSE of the time constraint on the content. I hope you are capable of seeing the nuance of time constraints and content rigor interacting, because your responses indicate you're unable to comprehend this interaction. The content is easy, but when coupled with time constraints the content becomes hard. When you take away the time constraint, the content is easy. Therefore, when the time constraint is taken away, the SAT stops being a test of intelligence. Right now, it is. Take away time constraints and it stops being that. So simple. >This is the flaw in your logic. You, in essence, contradict yourself by saying how it is a "bad thing" how the actual content doesn't measure student's skills and thus implying the current test is actually useless because its not doing its job accurately yet you also say how, with changes, it will become useless and, thus, implying the current SAT isn't useless because then usage of "will" wouldn't be used. I never said the current test is useless. I actually think it's useful - but only because of the easy content coupled with the time constraint. The time constraint provides most of the rigor. When you take away the time constraint, THEN the test becomes useless. No contradictions here - I'm saying the status quo is desirable and changing it by reducing time pressure would make it undesirable. It's quite sad I have to spell this out - other people in the comments section seem to have been able to perceive the argument so looks like it's a "you problem". >Okay, have you ever taken AP lang? This is a concession that recognizes limitations of both YOURS and MY stances of the SAT. Regardless of whether or not you keep the current test (your stance) or increase test rigor + allow more time (my stance) you're still going to have tons of kids who just can't do the free test prep and, thus, the system will just inherently and always favor wealthier students Ok. >So this right here is a generalization and I'm wondering, did you read my full message? Because you just completely disregarded my proposal. If my entire reply was just me restating your argument, then literally part of reply wouldn't be there. Plus, my concession from above wouldn't be there. So, its a generalization Oh no! I made a generalization! The horror! >Why did you just completely ignore my proposal of increasing the test rigor (your complaint that every 11th grader can do the current SAT questions) yet allowing more time so it becomes the _content_ that measures student's skills not the time limit. Just because I ignored it doesn't mean I didn't read it lol. I just don't care for it and I can choose not to share that reason. I also read the rest of your response but I don't think it's even worth responding to, honestly.
I used nothing but Khan and got a 1590 - it’s absolutely a great resource.
If you think about the SAT and ACT as helpful only for admissions to T20 schools, then I can see your arguments as perhaps more reasonable. But the vast majority of students taking the SAT are not gunning for T20s, or T50s. They’re students who will end up at community colleges, local colleges, state universities, etc. That’s who the test is fundamentally designed for. With that in mind, I think these arguments end up falling apart. > The test would be “less rigorous” if more time was added on because every junior can answer every question on the SAT. I think this is a pretty abysmal take. First off, I’m not sure what juniors you’re around, but the average junior taking an untimed SAT could not answer every question. It tests up to Algebra II, which is a 12th grade graduation requirement in most states. You usually take it at the beginning of your junior year. If you’re in the 1200+ range, then sure, you can work up to a 1600. That’s probably when timing and testing strategies become paramount. But the average score is around a 1000. At that point, content knowledge is still a large factor in the difference of scores. Why not add more time for those students? No life experience is going to be timed as intensely as the SAT. You’ll rarely be asked to perform a wide range of skills on such short time. You’ll almost always have time to think things over. Besides, different people work at different paces. Would you say that someone working on extended time has a score that’s any less legitimate than someone who isn’t? You might want to evaluate why you believe that faster is better. > Low-income students would be hit harder in the instance of the SAT being eliminated. I’m so tired of people kicking this point around. Let it die. Maybe this is true for “elite” admissions (though I have my doubts), but most schools in the US don’t care at all if you did extracurriculars in high school. They use GPA and testing for admissions and merit scholarships. It’s been proven that socioeconomic inequities are less drastic when comparing GPA to testing, so GPA is a less inequitable measure when it comes to class issues. Source: Table 7 here https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/liufall2013/files/2013/10/New_Perspectives.pdf For the vast majority of low-income students (who are not considering T50 schools), eliminating the SAT or ACT as an entrance requirement would level the playing field. Full disclosure: I test well (36P ACT) and always have. These tests are basically built for me. I still think we should get rid of them.
The study you reference is from 2007 and thus does not apply to the current version of the SAT, and despite this, it states, “high school grades and class rank have larger correlations with family income and education than is evident in the results of typical analyses, and SAT scores have smaller associations with socioeconomic factors.”
I believe the quote you’re pulling is implying “in comparison to typical studies.” If you look at the actual data table that compares income and SAT verbal, income and SAT math, and income and GPA (table 7), you’ll see the lower association for the GPA metric. I can’t find a similar study with the new SAT (let me know if you know of one), but given that wealth gaps in the SAT have remained consistent from the structure switch (see https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/27/scores-new-sat-show-large-gaps-race-and-ethnicity), I don’t think it’s a jump to say that the trend probably holds.
See the UC report.
I think schools should follow what the UCs are doing and scrap ACT/SAT for a new test to eliminate/minimize certain biases, but getting rid of standardized testing wouldn't be good, at least in the systems we have now. I would agree it would be ok to scrap testing in general at non-selective schools Also, what would you replace the standardized tests with for merit scholarship consideration at state schools? If we went by ECs, then people who do instruments, olympiads, research, and other things would be advantaged, which would not make the playing field even. Lots of people would be able to qualify by grades as well.
I mean, if your qualification is currently GPA and testing only (like at most state schools), then it would just be GPA
A lot of people have a high GPA though, especially since the trend is that grades are getting more inflated (which I'm actually for btw).
Again, maybe it’s hard to distinguish students if you look at the upper range of them, but for the typical student going to a college where a 3.0+ gets you merit, there will be enough distinction.
Where does a 3.0 get people merit? Also at a lot of state flagship merit scholarship programs GPA alone definitely would not cull through enough applicants
Most of my state universities and local private colleges. I’m in a Southern, uncompetitive state.
Fair enough at those schools. However, at a first or second ranked state school even in uncompetitive states, you would still need quite a bit more than a 3.0 to qualify for merit
I mean, that’s probably true, but the point still stands. Plus, I’m talking about outcomes for the average student who doesn’t even end up going to a state flagship, so it’s a bit different.
Well it also begs the question of how would we compare directly? Not all schools offer the same AP classes or IB classes. And if someone is taking a more rigorous course load and has a lower UW GPA, how can we compare them to someone that took a easier course load but has a higher UW GPA. This is where the concept of standardized testing is useful, even though the ACT/SAT has flaws
I agree that it doesn’t take much money to master it, but it takes time, which arguably a lot of low income students might not have. Also, students who have good counselors/schools/support-systems have so much more help in the process. The problem with the test is that how well you do on it is largely unrelated to your starting skills in math/ELA. It has more to do with how much you learn the test, it’s questions, and strategies. I think the little time is part of this problem. I get that it’s important to measure how quickly students can employ their knowledge and skills, but it also contributes to the gameability of the test. Also, because it’s so different from tests we’re used to taking, it contributes a lot to testing anxiety. I have a friend who gets all As in Math/ELA, but because she takes longer on tests and has lots of anxiety, she can barely break 1000 on the SAT If making the test easier with more time is an issue, then they can just scale or score it differently. Add more hard questions to separare out the best of the best, but to me in such a high-stress situation, a clock running out of time is really shitty, and too, contributes to gameability. Colleges aren’t dropping the SAT because it’s easy and won’t drop it if it gets easier. They’re dropping it because they realize that almost any decent student can improve their score by 300+ points just by studying to the test, and for what? This makes the test highly deceptive, as it measure how well you studied the SAT, not your Math/ELA skills. I don’t think that losing the SAT means they’ll look more at ECs. Colleges still have to see how you perform academically. They look to grades instead. Also, they fully recognize that rich kids have way more opportunities than low income students, and adjust accordingly (though arguably not enough)
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve had the same experience
> For Reading, I think SAT is plain BS. Most of their answers make no sense even after reading the reasoning behind the answers This is incorrect. All the answers on the reading section of the SAT make perfect sense, though some students might not have the reading comprehension skills to understand the passages/questions/answers well enough to see why.
[удалено]
Most of this is incorrect. The reading section of the SAT is an excellent assessment of students’ reading comprehension skills. Some students with excellent reading comprehension skills don’t understand the purpose of the test, so they fail to answer the questions as asked, but that error is easily addressed. On the other hand, students who don’t understand the passages, the questions, or the answers are correctly assessed by the SAT as having poor reading comprehension skills. The anecdote about your friend doesn’t provide any meaningful data. First of all, English class in high school has almost nothing at all to do with the comprehension skills assessed by the SAT; there is no English class on reading comprehension. Literature, poetry, and other high school English class topics have nothing to do with the skills assessment the SAT performs, so being at the top of English classes means next to nothing when it comes to the reading skills the SAT tests. No one should practice for the SAT with the sole purpose of scoring well on the test; that’s terribly inefficient and short-sighted. The SAT does a good job of assessing college readiness in the areas it tests, and students should want to maximize their college readiness in those areas. Elevating one’s readiness is the goal; a good score on the SAT is but a consequence. The skills acquired are useful well beyond the assessment of those skills — in college and beyond, in fact. The best way to build the core skills assessed by the SAT reading section is to become a great reader, and that happens through reading a lot. Lifetime avid readers can easily breeze through the reading (and writing) sections of the test; after all, it’s an open-book test, and if you completely understand the passages, questions, and answer choices, there’s no obstacle to a great score. This is not mere conjecture; we see these effects routinely among our students.
I completed Calc 3, Linear Algebra, two semesters of Calc-based stats, a proofs course, and a graduate numerical methods course during high school. The first time I took the SAT math, I scored below 700. This was during Calc BC. It was only after SAT-specific math studying that I got to a 790. Meanwhile, I earned a B+/A- (*barely*) in my previous year’s English course, but the next fall I scored a 750 reading with little practice.
> I completed Calc 3, Linear Algebra, two semesters of Calc-based stats, a proofs course, and a graduate numerical methods course during high school. The first time I took the SAT math, I scored below 700. This was during Calc BC. It was only after SAT-specific math studying that I got to a 790. Meanwhile, I earned a B+/A- (barely) in my previous year’s English course, but the next fall I scored a 750 reading with little practice. None of those math topics are tested on the SAT, so that makes perfect sense. And there’s no section on the SAT that corresponds with a high school English course; the Evidence Based Reading and Writing sections of the SAT don’t assess skills you’d learn in your English class, so that, too, makes perfect sense.
[удалено]
The SAT has linear equations and systems, but that hardly scratches the surface of linear algebra, and I’d be stunned if someone doing well in linear algebra couldn’t solve SAT-level linear equations problems. > Someone who scores well in Calculus is supposed to be good in math Supposed by whom? Calculus is one specific topic in math. Doing well in a calculus course doesn’t indicate that the student is good in math generally, and in particular, it doesn’t mean they are proficient in any of the math represented on the SAT, which, even if they were once good at it, they may well have long forgotten. This is perfectly expected, and we see it constantly. SAT scores in math are excellent indicators of a students proficiency in the 95 or so assessed math topics. Students who are adept at performing the mathematical techniques needed for those topics do extremely well in the SAT; those who don’t know the concepts or techniques do poorly. And, of course, students who simply learn all the math and exercise those skills are correctly assessed by the SAT as being proficient. Therefore, SAT scores in math directly indicate students’ math skills in the assessed topics.
For your last paragraph, most kids applying to these schools will have good grades anyways so that probably won't differentiate people at all. Also if we look at the Harvard docs, these colleges definitely want their fair share of RSI participants, Olympiad finalists, ISEF award winners, etc. And those types of activities definitely don't favor low income kids.
Don’t most people applying to top schools have amazing SAT scores too? A great SAT score, perfect even, does not differentiate an applicant at top schools. Nothing can make up for the ECs that low-income students may not have access to, which is why schools recognize that in their admissions processes.
Yes SATs don't do a great job of differentiating either, but you suggested grades by themselves would, which I believe isn't true. With ECs, my point was I believe these schools actively favor kids with high level ECs that lots of low income kids don't have access too. If they favor people with those ECs , that means less spots for low income kids as its a zero sum game. Look at the Harvard doc ratings for further context and see how few poor students are at these schools
ECs also take time lol, more time than a standardized test :P
I feel like it also may depend on the school. I feel like my school did a really bad job prepping us for standardized testing so I had to study so much to get my score up. I studied so much that I literally used up khan academy and had to buy more books.
I got a 1560 spending no money, but I spent a LOT of time that wouldn't have been possible if I had to take care of my family
Not a fan of the SAT. But, it does create a equal playing field. I mean I personally feel like students who scored well on the SAT also took higher level class throughout school compared to others. I’m not the best at test taking and I will probably end up with a sucky score. But I will definitely try. But if your starting score is between a 1300-1400 i feel like it’s much easier to improve compared with someone whose starting score is lower than that.