How many times is too many to take the SAT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

What does it say about a test that can be gamed? Something is wrong if you can buy the skills!

[Anonymous]

No more than 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DC took it 5 or 6 times. Seemed stuck in the high 1300's on the real tests, but did well 1500s on the practice tests. We did use a private tutor for a few months who was very helpful, and the final time DC took it scored over 1500. But it was heartbreaking for DC to keep taking the SAT and not improve their score, and in some cases had a lower score, and then finally succeed! We suspect text anxiety was the issue, which was finally overcome.

How did you address test anxiety?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm having to PAY my kid to even take it a second time. And she's not prepping. How do you people convince your kid to take it five or six times? With threats?

My kid likes the idea of taking the SAT, but hates actually sitting there for 3 hours doing it. They’re completely gung ho until that moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

It doesn’t reflect their actual abilities. Sorry that hurts your pride, but it turns out that your kid is not some genius who got a perfect score on the SAT if you spent thousands of dollars on private tutors AND kid had to take the test five times to get there. You may as well just pay someone to take the test for your kid at that point, because at least you’re being efficient.

Schools should have ALL of the information, including the number of times the test was attempted and which test attempt the submitted scores correspond to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

What does it say about a test that can be gamed? Something is wrong if you can buy the skills!

Omg the horror. Practing and preparing for a test to improve performance. This is surely the end of western civilization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

What does it say about a test that can be gamed? Something is wrong if you can buy the skills!

Yeah, all these schools returning to required testing based on “data” could easily have done what Georgetown does and require all scores. They didn’t. So much for the valid data argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

Actually, I took it once and did really well. I just didn't ascribe that to any mental superiority. I had friends who had to take it several times and I knew it wasn't because they were lacking intellectually. I knew these things because I have critical thinking skills. It's amusing, though, that you're ego seems more wrapped up in thinking that either you or your child is superior based on taking a test once instead of two or three times. I'm just curious, since you say that these are tests of general knowledge, where did you and your child come by this general knowledge? Were you just born knowing it? If so, I'll happily concede that you are special. Not many are born knowing algebra. But if you acquired this general knowledge because someone taught it to you, then your response was not the clever rebuttal you thought it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

Actually, I took it once and did really well. I just didn't ascribe that to any mental superiority. I had friends who had to take it several times and I knew it wasn't because they were lacking intellectually. I knew these things because I have critical thinking skills. It's amusing, though, that you're ego seems more wrapped up in thinking that either you or your child is superior based on taking a test once instead of two or three times. I'm just curious, since you say that these are tests of general knowledge, where did you and your child come by this general knowledge? Were you just born knowing it? If so, I'll happily concede that you are special. Not many are born knowing algebra. But if you acquired this general knowledge because someone taught it to you, then your response was not the clever rebuttal you thought it was.

You want it both ways. Your argument boils down to: The score is *not* reflective of actual ability when your kid doesn’t do well, but the score *is* reflective of actual ability when your child DOES do well. Which is why you need Larlo to keep taking that test until they get their “real” score, i.e. the one that somehow demonstrates they’re Ivy material, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you considered ever being satisfied with your kids’ actual abilities rather than constantly trying to game the system to effectively buy them the results for skills they don’t possess?

Just a thought.

Have you considered that the results of taking a standardized test once or twice might not actually reflect a kid’s actual abilities?

Just a thought.

You sanctimonious a$$.

+1. Not to mention, I love the implication that studying more and improving on something after that studying or tutoring is “Gaming the system.” Because what we really want to teach our kids is: If at first you don’t succeed, just give up because you clearly don’t possess the skills.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a test like the SAT.

Then please share with me the purpose. It’s not an IQ test, or you could give it to kids when they’re in elementary school. If it’s to see if they have a mastery of material THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TEACH THEM, then why is it gaming the system for someone to teach them in advance of the test.

I know you’re confused because of all the private tutoring and “teaching to the test” that has been the very foundation of your precious Larlo’s education, but the bolded is absolutely NOT accurate.

No, it’s not an IQ test. It is more of an evaluation of general knowledge and more importantly, critical thinking skills. You are lacking in the latter, so I will guess that you took the SAT many times and did GREAT

Actually, I took it once and did really well. I just didn't ascribe that to any mental superiority. I had friends who had to take it several times and I knew it wasn't because they were lacking intellectually. I knew these things because I have critical thinking skills. It's amusing, though, that you're ego seems more wrapped up in thinking that either you or your child is superior based on taking a test once instead of two or three times. I'm just curious, since you say that these are tests of general knowledge, where did you and your child come by this general knowledge? Were you just born knowing it? If so, I'll happily concede that you are special. Not many are born knowing algebra. But if you acquired this general knowledge because someone taught it to you, then your response was not the clever rebuttal you thought it was.

You want it both ways. Your argument boils down to: The score is *not* reflective of actual ability when your kid doesn’t do well, but the score *is* reflective of actual ability when your child DOES do well. Which is why you need Larlo to keep taking that test until they get their “real” score, i.e. the one that somehow demonstrates they’re Ivy material, right?

Different PP. If you look at the SAT Suite of Assessments report, you see that whites and Asians do better than blacks, and in particular only 1% of black test-takers score in the 1400-1600 range (compared to 25% of Asian test-takers). In addition, male test takers do better at math at the high end (about twice as many men get over 700 math than do women).

So my question for you is: do these disparities in performance reflect actual ability? 25% of Asian test-takers are "Ivy material" but only 1% of black test-takers?