Obsession with “one and done”

[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.

[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.)

+1

[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.

YES

[Anonymous]

When people brag “one and done”, it’s about their kid being smarter than yours. At least that’s the idea. There is a group that thinks retakes don’t show real ability compared to someone who aces it on the first try. Ironically, the “one and done” student has probably practiced on many old tests. For some reason, in the bragger's mind, those don’t count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people brag “one and done”, it’s about their kid being smarter than yours. At least that’s the idea. There is a group that thinks retakes don’t show real ability compared to someone who aces it on the first try. Ironically, the “one and done” student has probably practiced on many old tests. For some reason, in the bragger's mind, those don’t count.

How do you perform on tasks that you've never done before vs. tasks you've done before? Exactly. Next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people brag “one and done”, it’s about their kid being smarter than yours. At least that’s the idea. There is a group that thinks retakes don’t show real ability compared to someone who aces it on the first try. Ironically, the “one and done” student has probably practiced on many old tests. For some reason, in the bragger's mind, those don’t count.

False. Many want one and done to reduce stress on their children and family. we did. It was never a brag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At colleges, you only get one shot for midterms and finals.

Except when you get two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people brag “one and done”, it’s about their kid being smarter than yours. At least that’s the idea. There is a group that thinks retakes don’t show real ability compared to someone who aces it on the first try. Ironically, the “one and done” student has probably practiced on many old tests. For some reason, in the bragger's mind, those don’t count.

False. Many want one and done to reduce stress on their children and family. we did. It was never a brag.

OP here. I wasn’t talking about families like yours. I think it’s great if kids are pleased with their scores after the first try and can move on to other things. I was talking about the people who seem mad that kids are allowed to take the test several times, and who say that they should be restricted to one or two attempts.

[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?

I'm the one whose kid got to a 1480. In his specific case -- a business applicant with Indiana/Kelley on his list -- a 1500 would have qualified him automatically for the Hutton Honors College. (He already had the GPA, and also met the qualifications to be a Kelley direct admit.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument in favor of limited testing is that unlimited testing contributes to inequities because kids with less means cannot pay for the second/third/fourth test and cannot pay for the the prep in between to bolster the second/third/fourth test scores. The argument against limited testing, paradoxically, can also be used to support equities, in that children who have been prepped beforehand or just have base knowledge that can help will get a leg up versus those who don't even know what they are getting into with the first exam. Doesn't occur so much in our rarefied DMV atmosphere because the schools have prep etc. But in other more rural or inner cities areas, it definitely has an effect.

The test is free if you are FARMS, they can take it as many times as they like. Test prep is also free on kahn academy and is really the only prep needed to do well

[Anonymous]

I think folks are coming at "one and done" from two angles:

- There is the group that loves to brag their kid sat for the test once and received a 1580...that's the "one and done" braggards;

- The other group wishes it was one-and-done with a kid that scored a 1420 as an example...prior to 2012 when superscoring really started taking off (according to College Board), even Harvard's 25%-75% range was 1420-1570. Sure, you may have wanted to take it again to do better, but many would have been perfectly happy with their 1420 and be done with it.

I think now, the feeling is that you should be able to superscore to a much higher score. Again, just an escalation of the arms race that you feel pressure to participate.