Think she cheated on her SAT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great post ^

So of course she cheated

Anyone who thinks otherwise..has some special agenda

No one "thinks otherwise".

Just some are not willing to judge without having seen the evidence.

You are not burdened by that value.

You clearly haven’t read the thread. There are MANY posts saying she did not cheat and that her score increase can be explained by her test prep.

Many feel it could explain it. But I haven’t seen one post that said she defintely did not cheat. Can you point them out to me?

DP . There was some lunatic up-thread claiming that they singled her out because she was black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course she cheated. I can’t believe some of you think she didn’t. CB won’t flag them unless they are very sure. 300+ improvement at her score range is HIGHLY unlikely.

Absolutely untrue about the 300 point improvement. I used to teach for Princeton Review and had kids go up 300 points starting at 1100/1200 (and this was 25 years ago when it was harder to score higher). Totally possible to increase from 900s to 1200s. Very doable with study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 point score increase in her scoring bracket is not flag-worthy. If she had the same right answers as neighbors, I would say the same. Eve, if she had most of the same wrong answers, I wouldn't think it should be flagged -- ETS puts in obvious choices on harder problems to lure test takers into choosing a wrong answer. BUT, if she had ALL the same wring answers, that would be very suspicious.

I would hate to have to retake the test, but if it's true that if she scores within 100 points, ETS will reinstate her original scores, that sounds like the only plan if all her wrong answers were the same. Does ETS know where students sat in relation to other students on a given test session?

Why do people think their worthless opinions are somehow more valuable than the actual algorithmic data that ETS uses to analyze performance? Are people really that stupid?

Stupid is as stupid does. The bogus claims you make says it all. My post, on the other hand, is supported by information from ETS as well as my experience teaching SAT test prep for many years. My students' scores often went up 250+ points and occasionally went up 300 points, and this was when point totals were lower over all. Some of them were at the higher end of the bracket as well. None were flagged by ETS. NONE. My expert opinion agrees with ETS's. Read their official stance posted by another person on this thread.

Stop the ignorant posts and insults. Whose opinion is worthless here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 point score increase in her scoring bracket is not flag-worthy. If she had the same right answers as neighbors, I would say the same. Eve, if she had most of the same wrong answers, I wouldn't think it should be flagged -- ETS puts in obvious choices on harder problems to lure test takers into choosing a wrong answer. BUT, if she had ALL the same wring answers, that would be very suspicious.

I would hate to have to retake the test, but if it's true that if she scores within 100 points, ETS will reinstate her original scores, that sounds like the only plan if all her wrong answers were the same. Does ETS know where students sat in relation to other students on a given test session?

Why do people think their worthless opinions are somehow more valuable than the actual algorithmic data that ETS uses to analyze performance? Are people really that stupid?

Stupid is as stupid does. The bogus claims you make says it all. My post, on the other hand, is supported by information from ETS as well as my experience teaching SAT test prep for many years. My students' scores often went up 250+ points and occasionally went up 300 points, and this was when point totals were lower over all. Some of them were at the higher end of the bracket as well. None were flagged by ETS. NONE. My expert opinion agrees with ETS's. Read their official stance posted by another person on this thread.

Stop the ignorant posts and insults. Whose opinion is worthless here?

Yours. Honestly, you sound like an uneducated idiot.

[Anonymous]

No the pp doesn't. PP gave good examples of students who got big score increases without being flagged.

Anyone who thinks she didn't cheat sounds like an idiot. Or are you the poster who thinks they screen for black sounding names?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 point score increase in her scoring bracket is not flag-worthy. If she had the same right answers as neighbors, I would say the same. Eve, if she had most of the same wrong answers, I wouldn't think it should be flagged -- ETS puts in obvious choices on harder problems to lure test takers into choosing a wrong answer. BUT, if she had ALL the same wring answers, that would be very suspicious.

I would hate to have to retake the test, but if it's true that if she scores within 100 points, ETS will reinstate her original scores, that sounds like the only plan if all her wrong answers were the same. Does ETS know where students sat in relation to other students on a given test session?

Why do people think their worthless opinions are somehow more valuable than the actual algorithmic data that ETS uses to analyze performance? Are people really that stupid?

Stupid is as stupid does. The bogus claims you make says it all. My post, on the other hand, is supported by information from ETS as well as my experience teaching SAT test prep for many years. My students' scores often went up 250+ points and occasionally went up 300 points, and this was when point totals were lower over all. Some of them were at the higher end of the bracket as well. None were flagged by ETS. NONE. My expert opinion agrees with ETS's. Read their official stance posted by another person on this thread.

Stop the ignorant posts and insults. Whose opinion is worthless here?

This was the experience of my children as well - older 2 in college had prep classes with several students scoring +250-300 when starting low to begin with.

I suspect those who dispute this have never had kids take the SAT/ACT with prep classes. It’s not only doable, it’s not uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great post ^

So of course she cheated

Anyone who thinks otherwise..has some special agenda

No one "thinks otherwise".

Just some are not willing to judge without having seen the evidence.

You are not burdened by that value.

You clearly haven’t read the thread. There are MANY posts saying she did not cheat and that her score increase can be explained by her test prep.

Many feel it could explain it. But I haven’t seen one post that said she defintely did not cheat. Can you point them out to me?

DP . There was some lunatic up-thread claiming that they singled her out because she was black.

That's not the same as saying she did not cheat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand the article correctly that the higher score was 1230?

That is still a really low SAT score, and would have more than a few incorrect answers. Is it possible that one section matched exactly the kid on one side of her, and the other section matched the kid on the other side?

1230 is 77th percentile nationally. Get out of your bubble!

But 1230 is still not scholarship level and in the article she is talking about scholarships.

She has a lot more to go if she wants scholarships.

1230 is still about 100 points lower than the acceptance average for U of Florida. It is not scholarship range. It is a hold my breath and hope my grades are good enough range.

Her minority status may put her within striking range of scholarships, despite her less than desirable test score.

[Anonymous]

I feel like this is an entirely different world I wasn't privy to.

I'm AA, attended predominantly AA, working class schools in the south. I took the SATs once with no prep at all. Scored close to 1300, with an almost perfect verbal score.

I'd heard of prep classes, but I didn't know anyone taking them. Also, it would've been difficult for my family to afford. I also thought it only bumped your score up a bit, like 100 points.

You mean to tell me that people whose families can afford it are able to bump up their progeny's scores by hundreds of points??

If true (and not statistically rare), what is the point of the test if those with money can essentially manufacture their kids' results?? What is it measuring?? To my mind, this strengthens the case for affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is an entirely different world I wasn't privy to.

I'm AA, attended predominantly AA, working class schools in the south. I took the SATs once with no prep at all. Scored close to 1300, with an almost perfect verbal score.

I'd heard of prep classes, but I didn't know anyone taking them. Also, it would've been difficult for my family to afford. I also thought it only bumped your score up a bit, like 100 points.

You mean to tell me that people whose families can afford it are able to bump up their progeny's scores by hundreds of points??

If true (and not statistically rare), what is the point of the test if those with money can essentially manufacture their kids' results?? What is it measuring?? To my mind, this strengthens the case for affirmative action.

The 2016 Redesign of the SAT purported to broaden access via free prep at Khan Academy. In other words, they tried to make the test even more preppable. College Board touts a study involving 100+ pt increases after a certain number of practice hours on Khan. The trouble is that the kids poorly prepared by their high schools are the ones who suffer, although it is generally the case that many students with a half-decent educational background can do quite well with free prep materials such as Khan. Few students need to spend a lot of money on prep, but a good deal of self-motivated effort is involved.

(This isn't the 1980s SAT, that's for sure.)

[Anonymous]

$96!!! some crazy comments

https://www.gofundme.com/kaycampbell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is an entirely different world I wasn't privy to.

I'm AA, attended predominantly AA, working class schools in the south. I took the SATs once with no prep at all. Scored close to 1300, with an almost perfect verbal score.

I'd heard of prep classes, but I didn't know anyone taking them. Also, it would've been difficult for my family to afford. I also thought it only bumped your score up a bit, like 100 points.

You mean to tell me that people whose families can afford it are able to bump up their progeny's scores by hundreds of points??

If true (and not statistically rare), what is the point of the test if those with money can essentially manufacture their kids' results?? What is it measuring?? To my mind, this strengthens the case for affirmative action.

The 2016 Redesign of the SAT purported to broaden access via free prep at Khan Academy. In other words, they tried to make the test even more preppable. College Board touts a study involving 100+ pt increases after a certain number of practice hours on Khan. The trouble is that the kids poorly prepared by their high schools are the ones who suffer, although it is generally the case that many students with a half-decent educational background can do quite well with free prep materials such as Khan. Few students need to spend a lot of money on prep, but a good deal of self-motivated effort is involved.

(This isn't the 1980s SAT, that's for sure.)

PP here. I took the test in the mid-1990s. I know that a young relative just took the SATs, also with no prep.

Are there any data available on the "penetration" of these test prep materials in underserved communities/poor schools? In other words, do we know the extent to which kids from these backgrounds are actually aware that these prep materials are available, and actually use them? I'd guess that many are not aware, or if they are, they're like me at that age, in that they don't know that prepping is even a thing they should be considering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is an entirely different world I wasn't privy to.

I'm AA, attended predominantly AA, working class schools in the south. I took the SATs once with no prep at all. Scored close to 1300, with an almost perfect verbal score.

I'd heard of prep classes, but I didn't know anyone taking them. Also, it would've been difficult for my family to afford. I also thought it only bumped your score up a bit, like 100 points.

You mean to tell me that people whose families can afford it are able to bump up their progeny's scores by hundreds of points??

If true (and not statistically rare), what is the point of the test if those with money can essentially manufacture their kids' results?? What is it measuring?? To my mind, this strengthens the case for affirmative action.

Why affirmative action? Are there no black parents with money to afford prep classes? No poor whites that can’t afford them? What does affording prep classes have to do with color?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is an entirely different world I wasn't privy to.

I'm AA, attended predominantly AA, working class schools in the south. I took the SATs once with no prep at all. Scored close to 1300, with an almost perfect verbal score.

I'd heard of prep classes, but I didn't know anyone taking them. Also, it would've been difficult for my family to afford. I also thought it only bumped your score up a bit, like 100 points.

You mean to tell me that people whose families can afford it are able to bump up their progeny's scores by hundreds of points??

If true (and not statistically rare), what is the point of the test if those with money can essentially manufacture their kids' results?? What is it measuring?? To my mind, this strengthens the case for affirmative action.

The 2016 Redesign of the SAT purported to broaden access via free prep at Khan Academy. In other words, they tried to make the test even more preppable. College Board touts a study involving 100+ pt increases after a certain number of practice hours on Khan. The trouble is that the kids poorly prepared by their high schools are the ones who suffer, although it is generally the case that many students with a half-decent educational background can do quite well with free prep materials such as Khan. Few students need to spend a lot of money on prep, but a good deal of self-motivated effort is involved.

(This isn't the 1980s SAT, that's for sure.)

PP here. I took the test in the mid-1990s. I know that a young relative just took the SATs, also with no prep.

Are there any data available on the "penetration" of these test prep materials in underserved communities/poor schools? In other words, do we know the extent to which kids from these backgrounds are actually aware that these prep materials are available, and actually use them? I'd guess that many are not aware, or if they are, they're like me at that age, in that they don't know that prepping is even a thing they should be considering.

I took the SATs in the mid 1980s, also with no prep, and scored 1400. I am white, my parents were college educated and I went to well regarded public schools in NY state. So your situation with no prep I get 100% because I don’t think a lot of people prepped back then.

As for your young relative who recently took the SAT, I strongly suspect she knew she could prep via khan academy (there is a link to it on the SAT registration page in a big bold box that says something like “15 minutes of practice a day helps improve your scores”). However, it is hard to be motivated to do self-preparation, especially without a trusted adult - teacher, guidance counselor, etc - telling you to do it. Heck, even with an adult telling them to do it, it is probably hard for a high schooler to be disciplined to practice. I think the students whose parents can and do pay for an actual prep class or tutoring probably are the ones whose scores increase the most due to preparation, because they are forced to sit there for an hour or so a week.

Bottom line, I agree this is very unfair. On top of that, anecdotally I think the test is of little worth in predicting who will successfully navigate and excel in college classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$96!!! some crazy comments

https://www.gofundme.com/kaycampbell

If she’s not collecting money for her legal fees then why does she need a GoFundMe? I see that she can spend the money “in her sole discretion” but for what purpose?