To SAT/ACT or not to SAT/ACT

[Celeste Chalfonte]

The University of California has agreed to no longer consider SAT or ACT scores in admissions and scholarship decisions, under a legal settlement with students announced Friday.

The agreement puts to rest the on-again-off-again question of whether UC could use the tests. And it ends a 2019 lawsuit from low-income students of color and students with disabilities who argued that they were at a disadvantage compared with applicants who could afford test prep services or travel easily to exam and class sites.

Now, this is more complex than just "dumbing down" colleges. The truth is, studies show that these tests are not very accurate predictors of college performance, much less achievement in real life. We all know people who are very smart and accomplish a lot, but simply are no good at taking tests. In my family, we're totally wizard at test-taking, even in subjects we know relatively little about, but highly variable in how we performed (or declined to) in college. Ample smarts, unequal follow-through. And some of my relatives ace the tests, do poorly or indifferently at academics (especially those they perceive as filler or "gate courses," merely designed to whittle down the pool by boring some students to death), but achieve great success IRL.

That said, as long as other factors are considered, I'm not in favor of removing a tool like testing. I'm sure there have been disadvantaged students who did poorly in high school for any number of reasons, but were smart enough to get outstanding test scores, and thus get into college without good grades. Why would we deny them that opportunity?

I do wish the test prep industry would just disappear. When I was in high school, the SAT was a great leveler. We were told it measured aptitude (not entirely true, but who cares?), and therefore you couldn't study for it. We took it cold, and that was that, so a kid from Troutbreath Junior/Senior High had the same chance as a kid from Richsnot Prep. A kid from Ghetto High had the same chance of scoring well as a kid from Suburbiana High.

HRH was an interesting experiment (not on purpose). During her sophomore year, she was home schooled (when she could "school" at all) due to debilitating physical illness. Home schooled kids in FL have to do any standardized test to check that they're actually learning. She took the SAT at her local high school. It was a real physical challenge, as one aspect of JRA is that the pain is at its worst first thing in the morning. I think we went to bed that night at about 6 PM, so she could get up and have a warm shower and stretch enough to be able to sit and write for the duration of the test. Long story short, with no preparation at all, and battling her illness, she got 1830, which was good enough to get into any U of FL and many UC. Her friends, with most of whom she had gone to school through middle school, all did test prep and went to either super-academic pubic magnet programs or private high schools; their scores ranged from under 1700 to one who got a perfect 2400.

My point: don't eliminate the tests; eliminate the prep industry, and don't make the test the sole deciding factor in anyone's academic future.

[80zephyr]

Now, this is more complex than just "dumbing down" colleges. The truth is, studies show that these tests are not very accurate predictors of college performance, much less achievement in real life. We all know people who are very smart and accomplish a lot, but simply are no good at taking tests. In my family, we're totally wizard at test-taking, even in subjects we know relatively little about, but highly variable in how we performed (or declined to) in college. Ample smarts, unequal follow-through. And some of my relatives ace the tests, do poorly or indifferently at academics (especially those they perceive as filler or "gate courses," merely designed to whittle down the pool by boring some students to death), but achieve great success IRL.

That said, as long as other factors are considered, I'm not in favor of removing a tool like testing. I'm sure there have been disadvantaged students who did poorly in high school for any number of reasons, but were smart enough to get outstanding test scores, and thus get into college without good grades. Why would we deny them that opportunity?

I do wish the test prep industry would just disappear. When I was in high school, the SAT was a great leveler. We were told it measured aptitude (not entirely true, but who cares?), and therefore you couldn't study for it. We took it cold, and that was that, so a kid from Troutbreath Junior/Senior High had the same chance as a kid from Richsnot Prep. A kid from Ghetto High had the same chance of scoring well as a kid from Suburbiana High.

HRH was an interesting experiment (not on purpose). During her sophomore year, she was home schooled (when she could "school" at all) due to debilitating physical illness. Home schooled kids in FL have to do any standardized test to check that they're actually learning. She took the SAT at her local high school. It was a real physical challenge, as one aspect of JRA is that the pain is at its worst first thing in the morning. I think we went to bed that night at about 6 PM, so she could get up and have a warm shower and stretch enough to be able to sit and write for the duration of the test. Long story short, with no preparation at all, and battling her illness, she got 1830, which was good enough to get into any U of FL and many UC. Her friends, with most of whom she had gone to school through middle school, all did test prep and went to either super-academic pubic magnet programs or private high schools; their scores ranged from under 1700 to one who got a perfect 2400.

My point: don't eliminate the tests; eliminate the prep industry, and don't make the test the sole deciding factor in anyone's academic future.

While I agree with the sentiment, what is the alternative? Let them all in?

Mark

[Celeste Chalfonte]

While I agree with the sentiment, what is the alternative? Let them all in?

No, the alternative is what UC did before this lawsuit: consider both test scores and grades, as well as the original essay written by the student. Now, they also consider, as do almost all colleges these days, extracurriculars and "community service." If people want to sue to eliminate the things that REALLY favor wealthy kids, those last 2 are what should be done away with. Who has time for those things if they're trying to go to school, work to help support the family, and help with younger siblings???

And don't get me started on the cost of taking academically advanced classes. In a Florida PUBLIC SCHOOL, kids in International Baccalaureate and AP classes have to shell out over $200 for equipment to take required courses, like IB/AP biology (lab equipment), algebra (graphing calculator, a specific model that costs over $100 USED), and that's just freshman year.

[Newman]

No, the alternative is what UC did before this lawsuit: consider both test scores and grades, as well as the original essay written by the student. Now, they also consider, as do almost all colleges these days, extracurriculars and "community service." If people want to sue to eliminate the things that REALLY favor wealthy kids, those last 2 are what should be done away with. Who has time for those things if they're trying to go to school, work to help support the family, and help with younger siblings???

The SATs are very good at precisely what their name is: Scholastic Aptitude Test. Not Life Achievement Likelihood Test. Or anything else.

Before the SATs, such things as essays and recommendations were about as worthless as "literacy tests" for voting rights, and used for the same purpose, to exclude disfavored groups. Now the effort is on to break free of that hindrance, and discriminate once against among groups. Right now the out group is Asians. Fuck em.

[80zephyr]

No, the alternative is what UC did before this lawsuit: consider both test scores and grades, as well as the original essay written by the student. Now, they also consider, as do almost all colleges these days, extracurriculars and "community service." If people want to sue to eliminate the things that REALLY favor wealthy kids, those last 2 are what should be done away with. Who has time for those things if they're trying to go to school, work to help support the family, and help with younger siblings???

And don't get me started on the cost of taking academically advanced classes. In a Florida PUBLIC SCHOOL, kids in International Baccalaureate and AP classes have to shell out over $200 for equipment to take required courses, like IB/AP biology (lab equipment), algebra (graphing calculator, a specific model that costs over $100 USED), and that's just freshman year.

So we even cut down the requirements even less? You stated earlier that some people are not good at taking tests. It appears that if we have to use the "woke" methods of winnowing those kids out, we should probably start with a ouija board.

While I agree with your sentiment in principle, I doubt that trying to fix this problem will yield the results we want. SOme kids are gonna fall thru the cracks.

Thats life.

Mark

[80zephyr]

The SATs are very good at precisely what their name is: Scholastic Aptitude Test. Not Life Achievement Likelihood Test. Or anything else.

Before the SATs, such things as essays and recommendations were about as worthless as "literacy tests" for voting rights, and used for the same purpose, to exclude disfavored groups. Now the effort is on to break free of that hindrance, and discriminate once against among groups. Right now the out group is Asians. Fuck em.

True. If tests become subjective instead of objective, the test takers get to determine who the best and the brightest is. My guess is that the test scores for blacks will rise while the test scores for Asians and whites will fall.

I take that back. Its not a guess, its a certainty.

Mark

[Celeste Chalfonte]

The SATs are very good at precisely what their name is: Scholastic Aptitude Test. Not Life Achievement Likelihood Test. Or anything else.

Before the SATs, such things as essays and recommendations were about as worthless as "literacy tests" for voting rights, and used for the same purpose, to exclude disfavored groups. Now the effort is on to break free of that hindrance, and discriminate once against among groups. Right now the out group is Asians. Fuck em.

But they're not particularly good at that. They're fairly good at assessing the test-takers' general fund of knowledge and current level of academic achievement. Which may in some small measure predict how easy college will be for the person, but it doesn't assess actual aptitude. A person with a lot of aptitude but very limited prior education will not test well on the SAT, but could easily be able to make up knowledge deficits and perform at a high academic level, given the opportunity.

[phillygirl]

I’m not a huge fan of the essay. Everyone is looking for a story. When I graduated, if you had good grades and did relatively well on your SAT’s, other than the IVies you pretty much got in to the school of your choice. Really good grades and you got scholarship money. No longer. Now you have to have overcome some cultural deficit, and explain it in your essay.

[80zephyr]

philly posted:

I’m not a huge fan of the essay. Everyone is looking for a story. When I graduated, if you had good grades and did relatively well on your SAT’s, other than the IVies you pretty much got in to the school of your choice. Really good grades and you got scholarship money. No longer. Now you have to have overcome some cultural deficit, and explain it in your essay.

This. What bullshit.

Mark

[Newman]

But they're not particularly good at that. They're fairly good at assessing the test-takers' general fund of knowledge and current level of academic achievement. Which may in some small measure predict how easy college will be for the person, but it doesn't assess actual aptitude. A person with a lot of aptitude but very limited prior education will not test well on the SAT, but could easily be able to make up knowledge deficits and perform at a high academic level, given the opportunity.

I think you're misdirecting the word aptitude. Aptitude is a knack, a talent, and here it would be a knack for doing well in scholastic settings. Good test takers have scholastic aptitude, as do students who read their teachers well and adjust their responses accordingly. That may correlate well with higher intelligence generally, but it's not the same thing. The SAT is not an IQ test.

Edit to add: BTW, I take a dim view of you last statement, "A person with a lot of aptitude but very limited prior education will not test well on the SAT, but could easily be able to make up knowledge deficits and perform at a high academic level, given the opportunity."

That may be true, though I'd cross of the word "easily." It puts a double burden on those with a limited prior education, because those with smarts and a rich prior education aren't spinning their wheels waiting for the disadvantaged ones to catch up. Some lackers may catch up, and they'll be fiercely and justly proud of having done so, but such gaps are insurmountable to most.

But my deepest gripe is what I've seen often in public schools: the "gifted" are cast adrift with the malicious sop, "they'll be able to forge ahead on their own," or the worst: "they'll be all right." Sure, and they'll be all right, but that's a cynical waste of talent. I don't want truly gifted students to be all right; I want them to stand out and make a difference at the far edge of human understanding. Waxing poetic, maybe, but I want talented individuals to excel. Sadly, the zeitgeist in public school opposes individual achievement in favor of teamwork. Every motto has "together" in it to the point of nausea.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Re: PG's post about the essay

Well, that's just stupid, I agree. I meant an essay that demonstrated you knew how to write an essay.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

philly posted:

This. What bullshit.

I agree. An essay should demonstrate a mastery of spelling, grammar, and composition. When I did it, the school gave you a choice of 2 or 3 topics, none of which was your personal triumph over whatever.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I think you're misdirecting the word aptitude. Aptitude is a knack, a talent, and here it would be a knack for doing well in scholastic settings. Good test takers have scholastic aptitude, as do students who read their teachers well and adjust their responses accordingly. That may correlate well with higher intelligence generally, but it's not the same thing. The SAT is not an IQ test.

Edit to add: BTW, I take a dim view of you last statement, "A person with a lot of aptitude but very limited prior education will not test well on the SAT, but could easily be able to make up knowledge deficits and perform at a high academic level, given the opportunity."

That may be true, though I'd cross of the word "easily." It puts a double burden on those with a limited prior education, because those with smarts and a rich prior education aren't spinning their wheels waiting for the disadvantaged ones to catch up. Some lackers may catch up, and they'll be fiercely and justly proud of having done so, but such gaps are insurmountable to most.

But my deepest gripe is what I've seen often in public schools: the "gifted" are cast adrift with the malicious sop, "they'll be able to forge ahead on their own," or the worst: "they'll be all right." Sure, and they'll be all right, but that's a bitter waste of talent. I don't want truly gifted students to be all right; I want them to stand out and make a difference at the far edge of human understanding. Waxing poetic, maybe, but I want talented individuals to excel.

I wouldn't delete "easily," because I've seen it happen. I've seen kids start with limited or no English catch up with native speakers. I've seen kids from failing schools that offered no advanced maths catch up and sometimes pass kids from schools offering a full range of AP classes. Motivation and native talent can overcome a lot.

As for the abandonment of the gifted student, that has been an overt or covert plan in the public schools since we were students. I even had a guidance counselor tell me I couldn't take the AP exams because our school didn't offer AP classes. I later found out that wasn't true (at least, not at the time - I don't know about now). Those credits would have been a big help to my parents, who eventually had 2 kids in college simultaneously for a period of 5 years. Not to mention I would've been delighted to skip a bunch of boring GenEd classes.

[Newman]

Now, this is more complex than just "dumbing down" colleges. The truth is, studies show that these tests are not very accurate predictors of college performance, much less achievement in real life. We all know people who are very smart and accomplish a lot, but simply are no good at taking tests. In my family, we're totally wizard at test-taking, even in subjects we know relatively little about, but highly variable in how we performed (or declined to) in college. Ample smarts, unequal follow-through. And some of my relatives ace the tests, do poorly or indifferently at academics (especially those they perceive as filler or "gate courses," merely designed to whittle down the pool by boring some students to death), but achieve great success IRL.

That said, as long as other factors are considered, I'm not in favor of removing a tool like testing. I'm sure there have been disadvantaged students who did poorly in high school for any number of reasons, but were smart enough to get outstanding test scores, and thus get into college without good grades. Why would we deny them that opportunity?

I do wish the test prep industry would just disappear. When I was in high school, the SAT was a great leveler. We were told it measured aptitude (not entirely true, but who cares?), and therefore you couldn't study for it. We took it cold, and that was that, so a kid from Troutbreath Junior/Senior High had the same chance as a kid from Richsnot Prep. A kid from Ghetto High had the same chance of scoring well as a kid from Suburbiana High.

HRH was an interesting experiment (not on purpose). During her sophomore year, she was home schooled (when she could "school" at all) due to debilitating physical illness. Home schooled kids in FL have to do any standardized test to check that they're actually learning. She took the SAT at her local high school. It was a real physical challenge, as one aspect of JRA is that the pain is at its worst first thing in the morning. I think we went to bed that night at about 6 PM, so she could get up and have a warm shower and stretch enough to be able to sit and write for the duration of the test. Long story short, with no preparation at all, and battling her illness, she got 1830, which was good enough to get into any U of FL and many UC. Her friends, with most of whom she had gone to school through middle school, all did test prep and went to either super-academic pubic magnet programs or private high schools; their scores ranged from under 1700 to one who got a perfect 2400.

My point: don't eliminate the tests; eliminate the prep industry, and don't make the test the sole deciding factor in anyone's academic future.

Re-reading this post, with which I largely agree, I wonder about those studies highlighted above. Or maybe I should wonder about studies I myself remember, which showed the SATs were indeed a good predictor of college academic performance.

And could that indicate that excelling in college means something different than it used to?

[Newman]

I wouldn't delete "easily," because I've seen it happen. I've seen kids start with limited or no English catch up with native speakers. I've seen kids from failing schools that offered no advanced maths catch up and sometimes pass kids from schools offering a full range of AP classes. Motivation and native talent can overcome a lot.

As for the abandonment of the gifted student, that has been an overt or covert plan in the public schools since we were students. I even had a guidance counselor tell me I couldn't take the AP exams because our school didn't offer AP classes. I later found out that wasn't true (at least, not at the time - I don't know about now). Those credits would have been a big help to my parents, who eventually had 2 kids in college simultaneously for a period of 5 years. Not to mention I would've been delighted to skip a bunch of boring GenEd classes.

How about a compromise of sorts: let's cross off "easily" and swap in "often."