Reply to Obsession with “one and done”

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Obsession with “one and done”"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.)[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics