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.

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?

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.)