Obsession with “one and done”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason goes back to the origin of these tests: APTITUDE. (The "A" in SAT)

One of the many measures colleges would like to understand is an applicant's core aptitude. Historically these tests were better at reflecting aptitude because students took them once or maybe twice. Now with students taking them over and over again with lots of prep and only reporting their highest score, it's no longer an accurate reflection of aptitude. Nor is it an equitable comparison vs. the kid who took the test once. It also gives an unfair advantage to wealthy applicants who can afford to retake the tests over & over. (Historically the SAT was a great way for bright kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to gain admission to a top college and change their trajectory.)

While it might be admirable that your child can improve their score after studying hard, that's a different skill than raw aptitude. (And YES, I understand these tests aren't perfect, but it's one helpful data point.)

Exactly, and as noted earlier in the thread, the student with a "one and done" 1600 on the SAT or a "one and done" 36 on the ACT is unable to demonstrate their own further potential with additional bites at the apple because the range limitations prevent them from transforming their score of 1600 on the SAT into a score of 1730, by way of example; or from transforming their score of 36 on the ACT into a 41, by way of further example.

OK...this is kind of ridiculous. Only 300 kids in the entire country score a 1600 on any specific SAT (ie., not superscored). Perhaps there should be a way to signify that (maybe some special award), but I don't think there needs to be a vehicle to now score above 1600.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encouraged my son to be "one and done" because I didn't think his test score was all that important in the grand scheme of things. The time he could spend on additional test prep could be better used studying for class, socializing, volunteering, working out, sleeping, etc. (He ended up taking it multiple times to get his verbal up, but that was his choice. He didn't really prep for the second and third sittings.)

I could not care less if other people are one and done. Whatever works for them.

Yes, basically trying to get it out of the way and can focus on different things that may be more important or useful.

This. It's great if kids can get it off their plate. It didn't work out that way for my kid, but it would have been nice. But there are some people who use the term as bragging rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason goes back to the origin of these tests: APTITUDE. (The "A" in SAT)

One of the many measures colleges would like to understand is an applicant's core aptitude. Historically these tests were better at reflecting aptitude because students took them once or maybe twice. Now with students taking them over and over again with lots of prep and only reporting their highest score, it's no longer an accurate reflection of aptitude. Nor is it an equitable comparison vs. the kid who took the test once. It also gives an unfair advantage to wealthy applicants who can afford to retake the tests over & over. (Historically the SAT was a great way for bright kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to gain admission to a top college and change their trajectory.)

While it might be admirable that your child can improve their score after studying hard, that's a different skill than raw aptitude. (And YES, I understand these tests aren't perfect, but it's one helpful data point.)

Exactly, and as noted earlier in the thread, the student with a "one and done" 1600 on the SAT or a "one and done" 36 on the ACT is unable to demonstrate their own further potential with additional bites at the apple because the range limitations prevent them from transforming their score of 1600 on the SAT into a score of 1730, by way of example; or from transforming their score of 36 on the ACT into a 41, by way of further example.

OK...this is kind of ridiculous. Only 300 kids in the entire country score a 1600 on any specific SAT (ie., not superscored). Perhaps there should be a way to signify that (maybe some special award), but I don't think there needs to be a vehicle to now score above 1600.

That's the point! The range limit (1600 or 36) prevents them from partaking of the same potential for advantage (demonstrating whatever attribute relates to taking an assessment more than once, and improving the score). Repeated bites at the apple provide a potential advantage to the lower scoring student without any opportunity for the highest scoring student to avail themselves of the same potential advantage.

It's not a major issue for me, but yeah - I think that there should be no superscoring and that a student should have two attempts max.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason goes back to the origin of these tests: APTITUDE. (The "A" in SAT)

One of the many measures colleges would like to understand is an applicant's core aptitude. Historically these tests were better at reflecting aptitude because students took them once or maybe twice. Now with students taking them over and over again with lots of prep and only reporting their highest score, it's no longer an accurate reflection of aptitude. Nor is it an equitable comparison vs. the kid who took the test once. It also gives an unfair advantage to wealthy applicants who can afford to retake the tests over & over. (Historically the SAT was a great way for bright kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to gain admission to a top college and change their trajectory.)

While it might be admirable that your child can improve their score after studying hard, that's a different skill than raw aptitude. (And YES, I understand these tests aren't perfect, but it's one helpful data point.)

Note, SAT is no longer an acronym. It stands for nothing.

Also note, the SAT stopped trying to measure aptitude a long time ago. The current test, under CEO David Coleman, attempts to measure academic skills, which are closer to achievement. Generally, students with greater aptitude will score better than students with lesser aptitude, of course. But the test isn't a direct measurement of aptitude any longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason goes back to the origin of these tests: APTITUDE. (The "A" in SAT)

One of the many measures colleges would like to understand is an applicant's core aptitude. Historically these tests were better at reflecting aptitude because students took them once or maybe twice. Now with students taking them over and over again with lots of prep and only reporting their highest score, it's no longer an accurate reflection of aptitude. Nor is it an equitable comparison vs. the kid who took the test once. It also gives an unfair advantage to wealthy applicants who can afford to retake the tests over & over. (Historically the SAT was a great way for bright kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to gain admission to a top college and change their trajectory.)

While it might be admirable that your child can improve their score after studying hard, that's a different skill than raw aptitude. (And YES, I understand these tests aren't perfect, but it's one helpful data point.)

Exactly, and as noted earlier in the thread, the student with a "one and done" 1600 on the SAT or a "one and done" 36 on the ACT is unable to demonstrate their own further potential with additional bites at the apple because the range limitations prevent them from transforming their score of 1600 on the SAT into a score of 1730, by way of example; or from transforming their score of 36 on the ACT into a 41, by way of further example.

OK...this is kind of ridiculous. Only 300 kids in the entire country score a 1600 on any specific SAT (ie., not superscored). Perhaps there should be a way to signify that (maybe some special award), but I don't think there needs to be a vehicle to now score above 1600.

That's the point! The range limit (1600 or 36) prevents them from partaking of the same potential for advantage (demonstrating whatever attribute relates to taking an assessment more than once, and improving the score). Repeated bites at the apple provide a potential advantage to the lower scoring student without any opportunity for the highest scoring student to avail themselves of the same potential advantage.

It's not a major issue for me, but yeah - I think that there should be no superscoring and that a student should have two attempts max.

No, I think you misunderstood the previous post. PP was rightly pointing out that there’s hardly an epidemic of kids getting perfect scores the first or second try who are being held back by the scale not exceeding 1600. If there were thousands more of them nationwide, then sure, but that’s not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

[Anonymous]

Super scoring was around at least as far back as the 80s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

Our kids prepped summer after sophomore year, took the test in Aug/Sept of Jr year. One got a 35, the other a 34, both scores were good enough for where they were applying, so, one and done. Could spend jr year focusing on the AP courses and exams, not the ACT/SAT. What's the problem?

[Anonymous]

Never noticed a one and done obsession. Guess it give mom a chance to brag about the genius of her kid? Unfortunately it's anonymous so no one really cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

Engineering.

If they wanted a liberal arts school 1400s would probably be sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

Engineering.

If they wanted a liberal arts school 1400s would probably be sufficient.

I still don't understand...it does not matter even for engineering, except if the scores are like 780 verbal and 700 Math. If they are the opposite (780 Math and 700 verbal), then it really doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason goes back to the origin of these tests: APTITUDE. (The "A" in SAT)

One of the many measures colleges would like to understand is an applicant's core aptitude. Historically these tests were better at reflecting aptitude because students took them once or maybe twice. Now with students taking them over and over again with lots of prep and only reporting their highest score, it's no longer an accurate reflection of aptitude. Nor is it an equitable comparison vs. the kid who took the test once. It also gives an unfair advantage to wealthy applicants who can afford to retake the tests over & over. (Historically the SAT was a great way for bright kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to gain admission to a top college and change their trajectory.)

While it might be admirable that your child can improve their score after studying hard, that's a different skill than raw aptitude. (And YES, I understand these tests aren't perfect, but it's one helpful data point.)

Note, SAT is no longer an acronym. It stands for nothing.

Also note, the SAT stopped trying to measure aptitude a long time ago. The current test, under CEO David Coleman, attempts to measure academic skills, which are closer to achievement. Generally, students with greater aptitude will score better than students with lesser aptitude, of course. But the test isn't a direct measurement of aptitude any longer.

+1 Seems like many people don't realize that the test changed:

The most famous school test in America got a new name yesterday.

The Scholastic Aptitude Test, the exam 1.5 million high school students wrestle with for three hours each year, dropped "Aptitude" after 67 years because of concern that it implied measuring innate intelligence.

"We hope this action sends a strong message . . . that it is wrong to think of the SAT as a measure of IQ," said College Board President Donald M. Stewart, announcing that the new name is Scholastic Assessment Tests.

The change is an effort "to correct the impression among some people that the SAT measures something that is innate and impervious to change regardless of effort or instruction," he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/03/27/sat-changes-name-but-it-wont-score-1600-with-critics/c8bf8809-2c0f-4582-9911-9e5f74ed4c6d/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. A lot of people on here strongly advocate for a “one and done” approach to testing or say that kids should be limited to taking the SAT or ACT twice. I really don’t get that. Why does it matter? I understand the socioeconomic argument that kids who can afford coaching will have an advantage, but that doesn’t seem to be the motivation for most of the posters here who push for limits. This seems to be a mantra of parents who are taking issue with schools’ acceptance rates, individual decisions, etc.

I would genuinely like to understand the arguments. If a kid learns from mistakes or studies and improves between tests isn’t that a measure of success as a student? Of their ability to learn? What is the crucial significance in your opinion of getting your score in only one or two tries?

We chose one and done because both my kids hit over 1500 with no prep. At that point, there is no reason to keep retaking to edge that 1520 to a 1530 or whatever.

Saves on money and time.

If they were below 1490, they would have retaken it, perhaps several times.

But there is a point to edging a 1480 to 1500? Why?

It's a better looking number with good associations and slightly harder to achieve. E.g. would you rather have graduated class of 1998 or 2000 if you were job hunting today?

Deep in the weeds of a college's website, I found a reference to merit aid beginning at 1450. My kid was one and done at 1430. Oopsie! Possibly worth $5K/year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it's hard for kids. even for good test takers, there's always an outstanding question of doing it again for another 20 points. and for the majority, they want a lot more. plus it costs money

Those tests are bargains considering the scholarships kids can get with even a slight increase in score.