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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?