New SAT Causes Scores to Drop

[Chimera]

I remember we had a topic on here a while back discussing the new SAT. I tried to find it, but no such luck. But I found this article interesting: SAT score drop biggest in 31 years .

Not being a fan of standardized testing, even though it worked to my advantage (I was always good at figuring out "the game" of a test and did quite well on both my ACT and SAT), I still do see the necessity of it. Colleges have to have some sort of standard by which to judge prospective students. Still, it is interesting how these statistics have sparked debate. The College Board insists that the drop in SAT scores is not significant or a result of the test being longer:

The College Board, which owns the exam, downplayed the drop, saying it amounts to a fraction of one question per exam. The board's explanation: about 3 percent fewer test-takers, out of 1.5 million, tried the exam a second time. Combined math and reading scores typically rise 30 points when a student retakes the test.

There's a rebuttal, of course:

Christine Parker, executive director of high school program development at test-prep company Princeton Review, said the College Board has always called even small increases important, so it's surprising to see it downplaying the decline.

"This is just the latest in a long line of bad news," she said. "They're in a very defensive posture."

I thought this observation particularly apt:

The new scores also stand out because just two weeks ago the rival ACT exam reported its biggest score increase in 20 years.

"It does show how meaningless the test is as a measure of educational quality, that technical changes in the test can significantly alter the (scores)," said Bob Schaeffer, an SAT critic and public education director of the group FairTest. "It's the test, not the education, that's being measured."

I think that's sad but true--tests can only do so much in measuring "knowledge." They're like a necessary but inefficient gate-keeper to college education.

Apparently there is some evidence that more students are taking the ACT, since most colleges accept both. I'll have to pass the news on to my younger brother, who's a high school senior this year--especially since while SAT scores dropped, ACT scores went up.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Im not sure I agree that they are even neccesary... just convienant...

[stacer]

I don't even know what SAT scores mean--like what's high and what's low. I took the ACT and that was all I ever needed to take. I was quite happy with my score, but for the same reason Chimera was--I knew how to take tests and play their games.

I think standardized tests are just a way of measuring how well someone takes a test. It's become an entrenched method, but really, when did they begin? Right around the 50s, I would think, right during the time that scientists started feeling like they could measure everything quantitatively. How did people get into college before? Perhaps we need to look a little further back and incorporate those ideas in just a little more. Of course, my college apps did include essays and such, so perhaps that's that part. And I know they took a whole lot more into account, too, like my class standing and my extracurricular activities and such.

[Archon]

I don't see how it matters if scores drop or increase. Since they are competing against other people who will usually have taken it in the same year as them, it seems tedious to complain about whether the test was harder or easier.

[Sigyn]

The only place I can see it becoming an issue is with certain scholarships that require a minimum score to apply.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I don't even know what SAT scores mean--like what's high and what's low. I took the ACT and that was all I ever needed to take. I was quite happy with my score, but for the same reason Chimera was--I knew how to take tests and play their games.

I think standardized tests are just a way of measuring how well someone takes a test. It's become an entrenched method, but really, when did they begin? Right around the 50s, I would think, right during the time that scientists started feeling like they could measure everything quantitatively. How did people get into college before? Perhaps we need to look a little further back and incorporate those ideas in just a little more. Of course, my college apps did include essays and such, so perhaps that's that part. And I know they took a whole lot more into account, too, like my class standing and my extracurricular activities and such.

Before the fifties it was nowhere near as common as it is now for people to go to college.  People didn't just offhand ask where you were going to go to college, so my expectation is that before standardized testing there was hardly the limit restrictions in colleges that there are now--now the standardized tests help colleges pick the top X% of far too many candidates and drop the rest because there is no room, especially big colleges.  That's pretty much why they are there and that's why they are used to compare between students--it's because the tests come down to will you make it into a school before it runs out of room or wont you?

That, I am positive, was hardly a problem before standardized testing, and that is why standardized testing, or something like it (as trivial as they might seem) are considered "necessary" to college entrances.

[stacer]

Yes, but standardized testing are still, to this day, only one piece of the puzzle. I got a 29 on my ACT, but if I'd have been at the bottom of my class, instead of valedictorian, I wouldn't have been accepted at most of the schools I've been to. I got average or slightly above average scores on the GRE and average college grades, but had work experience and a great writing sample (this was for a literature program).  As long as you look good in the overall picture, unless you're applying to vet school or something similarly exclusive, they're always going to be looking at a bigger picture first. (It's harder to get into veterinary school than it is to get into med school.)