My Opinion on the SATs/Standardized Tesrs

[Anonymous]

I think that they can be useful in predicting college success, but if we’re going to mandate it back, we must apply it more responsibly so that all prospective students are given a fair shot.

1. Limit attempts to two. I remember taking that thing twice then my mom said, “that’s good enough, that should get you into Davis or something. I’m not gonna keep paying 70-100 bucks for that thing.” I read somewhere that the average Ivy admit takes that thing on average 5x. How is that even impressive? At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions. That doesn’t capture what they really know or predict future college success.

2. Either people should get docked for taking expensive SAT prep courses, or make them available to everyone free of charge. If we’re really testing what people have learned, test them, not whatever they learned from some SAT expert.

3. The reading portion is too culturally bias; they need to make it more universal.

4. There should be a small portion where it captures IQ score (this might be controversial).

[Anonymous]

Stop tossing questions that women or black people do well on. It’s a weird approach to examination.

Currently the sat tests very little.

[Anonymous]

At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions.

Test structure, I agree. Questions, I do not. My son has done multiple of the prior exams for practice and has reported that questions do not repeat.

[Anonymous]

WTF is a Tesrs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions.

Test structure, I agree. Questions, I do not. My son has done multiple of the prior exams for practice and has reported that questions do not repeat.

Yes, but the nature of the questions repeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that they can be useful in predicting college success, but if we’re going to mandate it back, we must apply it more responsibly so that all prospective students are given a fair shot.

1. Limit attempts to two. I remember taking that thing twice then my mom said, “that’s good enough, that should get you into Davis or something. I’m not gonna keep paying 70-100 bucks for that thing.” I read somewhere that the average Ivy admit takes that thing on average 5x. How is that even impressive? At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions. That doesn’t capture what they really know or predict future college success.

2. Either people should get docked for taking expensive SAT prep courses, or make them available to everyone free of charge. If we’re really testing what people have learned, test them, not whatever they learned from some SAT expert.

3. The reading portion is too culturally bias; they need to make it more universal.

4. There should be a small portion where it captures IQ score (this might be controversial).

1. You forgot to get rid of superscoring.

2. Can actually do all the test prep you need online for free.

3. There's no cultural bias that hinders testing. Asian-Americans and East Asians in Asia don't seem to have any trouble.

4. It should be more than a little IQ score for the verbal section. Or just go back to the 1990 verbal section.

Additionally
5. Math should go up to precalc at least

6. Any accommodation on the test should require some notation. Doesn't have to say what the accommodation is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that they can be useful in predicting college success, but if we’re going to mandate it back, we must apply it more responsibly so that all prospective students are given a fair shot.

1. Limit attempts to two. I remember taking that thing twice then my mom said, “that’s good enough, that should get you into Davis or something. I’m not gonna keep paying 70-100 bucks for that thing.” I read somewhere that the average Ivy admit takes that thing on average 5x. How is that even impressive? At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions. That doesn’t capture what they really know or predict future college success.

2. Either people should get docked for taking expensive SAT prep courses, or make them available to everyone free of charge. If we’re really testing what people have learned, test them, not whatever they learned from some SAT expert.

3. The reading portion is too culturally bias; they need to make it more universal.

4. There should be a small portion where it captures IQ score (this might be controversial).

1. Yes, I agree to limit attempts but would advocate 3 maximum. There can be extenuating circumstances that require that extra 3rd test, but I agree taking it 5+ times is excessive. I would get rid of superscoring. Scores would come down a bit back to earth but still be meaningful. For example, my kid has a 1520 superscore, but if he had to submit his single score of 1490, it would still be fine. Especially since no one else would be able to superscore.

2. No, this sounds impossible to enforce. (Also, anytime you measure anything there will always be a cottage industry that crops up to help people get a desired result. There's a DMV test so there are private driving instructors available, and so forth. But private prep or tutors are really not necessary based on my DC's experience and IMO.)

3. This seems hard to fix. What is "universal"? Perhaps have one version for inside the US, and another for international?

4. No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that they can be useful in predicting college success, but if we’re going to mandate it back, we must apply it more responsibly so that all prospective students are given a fair shot.

1. Limit attempts to two. I remember taking that thing twice then my mom said, “that’s good enough, that should get you into Davis or something. I’m not gonna keep paying 70-100 bucks for that thing.” I read somewhere that the average Ivy admit takes that thing on average 5x. How is that even impressive? At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions. That doesn’t capture what they really know or predict future college success.

2. Either people should get docked for taking expensive SAT prep courses, or make them available to everyone free of charge. If we’re really testing what people have learned, test them, not whatever they learned from some SAT expert.

3. The reading portion is too culturally bias; they need to make it more universal.

4. There should be a small portion where it captures IQ score (this might be controversial).

1. You forgot to get rid of superscoring.

2. Can actually do all the test prep you need online for free.

3. There's no cultural bias that hinders testing. Asian-Americans and East Asians in Asia don't seem to have any trouble.

4. It should be more than a little IQ score for the verbal section. Or just go back to the 1990 verbal section.

Additionally
5. Math should go up to precalc at least

6. Any accommodation on the test should require some notation. Doesn't have to say what the accommodation is.

As an Asian from Asia, we actually have an advantage regarding English. I found that Americans grow up speaking improper English because of American pop culture. We learn textbook English, lol.

[Anonymous]

what mean “ Tesrs “ ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that they can be useful in predicting college success, but if we’re going to mandate it back, we must apply it more responsibly so that all prospective students are given a fair shot.

1. Limit attempts to two. I remember taking that thing twice then my mom said, “that’s good enough, that should get you into Davis or something. I’m not gonna keep paying 70-100 bucks for that thing.” I read somewhere that the average Ivy admit takes that thing on average 5x. How is that even impressive? At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions. That doesn’t capture what they really know or predict future college success.

2. Either people should get docked for taking expensive SAT prep courses, or make them available to everyone free of charge. If we’re really testing what people have learned, test them, not whatever they learned from some SAT expert.

3. The reading portion is too culturally bias; they need to make it more universal.

4. There should be a small portion where it captures IQ score (this might be controversial).

1. You forgot to get rid of superscoring.

2. Can actually do all the test prep you need online for free.

3. There's no cultural bias that hinders testing. Asian-Americans and East Asians in Asia don't seem to have any trouble.

4. It should be more than a little IQ score for the verbal section. Or just go back to the 1990 verbal section.

Additionally
5. Math should go up to precalc at least

6. Any accommodation on the test should require some notation. Doesn't have to say what the accommodation is.

Yes. Time to get rid of the "extra time on the ACT" hack.

[Anonymous]

you can take SAT once a year, like APs

all "extra time" are noted on test results.

[Anonymous]

We need to cut the College Board out of the equation.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131623965

[Anonymous]

Exposing accommodations to colleges should never happen. At least I am glad it hasn't happened yet because both my kids benefitted from it, but they both have severe ADHD. Sharing a student has accommodations puts them at a deep disadvantage....maybe even more of a disadvantage than getting a lower score without accommodations. FWIW my oldest got extra time on the ACT, got a very good score, and was admitted to a T20 and did very well. Not a superstar, but gainfully employed now making 6 figures.

Those of you who are pissed off about it...keep steaming lol. It's not changing any time soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that they can be useful in predicting college success, but if we’re going to mandate it back, we must apply it more responsibly so that all prospective students are given a fair shot.

1. Limit attempts to two. I remember taking that thing twice then my mom said, “that’s good enough, that should get you into Davis or something. I’m not gonna keep paying 70-100 bucks for that thing.” I read somewhere that the average Ivy admit takes that thing on average 5x. How is that even impressive? At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions. That doesn’t capture what they really know or predict future college success.

2. Either people should get docked for taking expensive SAT prep courses, or make them available to everyone free of charge. If we’re really testing what people have learned, test them, not whatever they learned from some SAT expert.

3. The reading portion is too culturally bias; they need to make it more universal.

4. There should be a small portion where it captures IQ score (this might be controversial).

There are plenty of free resources and cheap tutors - we pay under $10 an hour for tutors.

This is absurd. They are free of charge - MCPS allows you to take it for free and there are low income waivers. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that they can be useful in predicting college success, but if we’re going to mandate it back, we must apply it more responsibly so that all prospective students are given a fair shot.

1. Limit attempts to two. I remember taking that thing twice then my mom said, “that’s good enough, that should get you into Davis or something. I’m not gonna keep paying 70-100 bucks for that thing.” I read somewhere that the average Ivy admit takes that thing on average 5x. How is that even impressive? At that point they’re just remembering the test structure and some of the questions. That doesn’t capture what they really know or predict future college success.

2. Either people should get docked for taking expensive SAT prep courses, or make them available to everyone free of charge. If we’re really testing what people have learned, test them, not whatever they learned from some SAT expert.

3. The reading portion is too culturally bias; they need to make it more universal.

4. There should be a small portion where it captures IQ score (this might be controversial).

Ok