Welcome to College Confidential!
The leading college-bound community on the web
Sign Up For Free
Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.
Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)
As a CC member, you can:
- Reply to threads, and start your own.
- Post reviews of your campus visits.
- Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
- Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Quick Links
Find A College
Articles: Expert Advice
Top Forums
Featured Threads
- Graduating HS Seniors Reveal What They Wish They'd Known About the Admissions Process — CCEdit_Torrey
- I'm Freaking out Because I Can't Find A Roommate — CCEdit_Torrey
- This Student Explains Why Community College Is the Right Choice for Him — CCEdit_Torrey
- How Many Test Sittings Constitutes "Too Many?" — CCEdit_Torrey
IVY's accept Greenwich, Connecticut untimed SAT scores? Why?
CITATION X
. Posts: 741 Member
http://www.slate.com/id/2141820/device/html40/workarea/3/?nav=ais
It has been widely reported by various souces that in Greenwich, CT ALLEGEDLY somewhere between 30 to 50% of students in this highly affluent community are taking either UNTIMED SAT tests (or at a min getting 50% more time) . This of course is just the tip of the iceberg, but if true - represents possibly the most outrageous use of untimed SAT testing.
It may or may not be true - as it's difficult to ascertain for sure
Such non-standard testing conditions offers huge advantages to test takers
A decade or so ago approximately one-half of ONE percent of SAT takers were given special extra time, probably the majority for very valid reasons, and now its more than 2% nationwide, yet Greenwich, CT is apparently somewhere between 30 to 50%?
Educational Testing Service will not release precise figures to answer this question
Note that people with learning disabilities before 2003 who used the LD status to obtain special conditions - had it noted on the test
Since 2003, such non-standardized test taking conditions are not noted on the test results - meaning the colleges are now effectively operating blind
How is this possible that THIS many people have "Learning Disabilities in this community"?
Why would top colleges accept SATs results when this many students are quite clearly gaming the system?
Consider that the legal case that caused this LD non-disclosure to become standard - was a case about a student w/o hands - yet is now being abused by people with SOMETIMES either exaggerated or made-up or hyped-up learning disabilities, syndromes, or even claimed slow reading or slow processing deficits - which represents a massive abuse of the SAT testing system
It has been widely reported by various souces that in Greenwich, CT ALLEGEDLY somewhere between 30 to 50% of students in this highly affluent community are taking either UNTIMED SAT tests (or at a min getting 50% more time) . This of course is just the tip of the iceberg, but if true - represents possibly the most outrageous use of untimed SAT testing.
It may or may not be true - as it's difficult to ascertain for sure
Such non-standard testing conditions offers huge advantages to test takers
A decade or so ago approximately one-half of ONE percent of SAT takers were given special extra time, probably the majority for very valid reasons, and now its more than 2% nationwide, yet Greenwich, CT is apparently somewhere between 30 to 50%?
Educational Testing Service will not release precise figures to answer this question
Note that people with learning disabilities before 2003 who used the LD status to obtain special conditions - had it noted on the test
Since 2003, such non-standardized test taking conditions are not noted on the test results - meaning the colleges are now effectively operating blind
How is this possible that THIS many people have "Learning Disabilities in this community"?
Why would top colleges accept SATs results when this many students are quite clearly gaming the system?
Consider that the legal case that caused this LD non-disclosure to become standard - was a case about a student w/o hands - yet is now being abused by people with SOMETIMES either exaggerated or made-up or hyped-up learning disabilities, syndromes, or even claimed slow reading or slow processing deficits - which represents a massive abuse of the SAT testing system
Post edited by CITATION X on
This discussion has been closed.
Replies to: IVY's accept Greenwich, Connecticut untimed SAT scores? Why?
Excellent Education
Greenwich Public Schools (10 elementary, 3 middle and 1 high school) are rated first or second in Connecticut—40% of the graduates go to the "Most Competitive Colleges." The school budget is $70 million. The average class size is 20 students and over 90% of the teachers have masters degrees. SAT scores had a mean of 1125 (571 in math and 554 in verbal). Eighty-one percent of the students scored at the Mastery Level set by the State of Connecticut
http://www.greenwichspecialists.com/Overview.htm
Because so many kids are diagnosed LD, they are able to get exceptions to various tests, like the SATs. I'm not sure if it's completely untimed, or whether they are simply given a set amount of additional time. Not all Greenwich students get this perk, just the students who are diagnosed LD. The parents of kids in Greenwich are top executives, lawyers, doctors - basically, people at the top of their professions. I imagine they tend to be extremely competitive and will find whatever advantage they can to keep their kids in the same tax bracket.
Ask yourself this: the non-LD students UNDER NORMAL TESTING TIME GUIDELINES - who are Greenwich students - how would they be judged? A college wouldn't be able to segregate who did what in what time.
If true -it would in fact be a scandal, and I cannot understand how the number could be this high
By some definitions, nearly every person on the planet might have some "learing disability" The SAT exam will soon become meaningless if these clear abuses continue
Now we have companies which offer "Psychoeducational evaluations." Check out this "resource" and you will see how much potential abuse is likely going on here
http://www.edufax.com/faqld.html
Part of the problem apparently is that ETS in their haste to prove that the SAT is not partly a disguised IQ test (which it no doubt is on a timed basis) - started to suggest the time factor was only one of logistics in the testing centers, when everyone knows time is an integral component to nearly any measure of intelligence - even the so-called non-standard measure of intelligence such as EQ skills and/or introspective or other abilities etc
I'm not talking simply about slow reading or processing. I've heard a number of parents who have gone through the wringer to try to get added time or a computer for the writing sample for kids with severe dysgraphia, fine motor problems that significantly slow the ability to fill in dots or write an essay by hand.
I have no personal experience to report. Being the cynic I am, my gut feeling is that there are probably outrages on both sides.
I wonder how the Greenwich percentages compare to those of other affluent areas.
To what extent is added time an advantage? Do people feel they could have significantly higher scores if they had more time? I know that the ACT seems more time constainted to many. But do people have problems finishing the SAT in the time given? My kids did some sample tests at home, both timed and untimed, and their scores were pretty much the same for both.
I also wonder if colleges have seen any differences in their admitted classes once the flagging of nonstandard administrations ceased.
I know, I am raising more questions than giving answers. This subject is one of concern to many; I wish there were some hard facts out there.
one of many examples:
http://www.connsensebulletin.com/badidea.html
"But in places like Greenwich, Conn., and certain zip codes of New York City and Los Angeles, the percentage of untimed test-taking is said to be close to 50 percent."
There is no source quoted as saying this. "Said to be" is an easy way to avoid quoting a source, if there really is an authoritative source. What does "close to 50 percent" mean? And I find it extremely difficult to believe that anything like 50% of the kids are literally taking the test untimed. Although I am aware of accomodations of 50% extra time and 100% extra time, I am not aware of these tests being literally untimed. If this is an accomodation that truly is available (it is not one of the options on the CB application form), I'm sure it happens extremely rarely, even in Greenwich, CT.
Given the sloppy reporting in the article, I have trouble accepting any of its conclusions. While I'm sure that abuse does exist, and that families with lots of money have more potential to game the system, I know that CB has made the hurdle quite high for those applying for accomodations.
I looked at the paper referenced in the Slate article. It reported that test takers getting time accomodation in recent years were getting scores that were on average 0.1 to 0.2 standard deviations higher than the authors expected. This means about 10 or maybe 20 points. I don't think this something to get overly excited about.
The article says close to 50% in Greenwich are taking untimed tests. Yet the other article says it is nearly one in three that are labeled (more common to be labeled than to get additional time, and untimed tests would be rarer than being given a certain amount of additional time). Both cannot be correct.
The article says that some DC parents are trying to get their kids into Ivy League schools by means of accommodated tests. With average scores of 1,105, I don't think they are getting very far. The fact is that only motivated (and likely affluent) parents are likely to get accommodations or special ed in DC schools. Without accommodations in one's school, there is no way of getting them from the College Board.
The DC special ed system is very bad. (The sources of my conclusion: I live in a suburb and for a time had a child in a private special ed school. I met many DC parents during that time and they all told the same story. There are also periodic lawsuits and exposes in the paper and we know some attorneys handling such work.) To get service at all often requires hiring an attorney. The likelihood that there are kids who should have accommodations but don't is fairly high in the District. Couple this with the fact that socioeconomic level or parental interest in education tend to make for higher scores, and I see nothing sinister in the fact that scores from nonstandard tests are higher than those with standard tests in the city. The regular education system is also poor.
This time through I read the Connecticut psychiatrist's response. This is closer to the anecdotal reports I've heard in recent years of the difficulty in getting SAT accommodations.
I wonder if some are assuming that anyone with an IEP or a Section 504 plan necessarily is being allowed to take the SAT with extra time or completely untimed?
Interestingly enough, I share some of the second article's concerns about kids being labeled and accommodated, rather than having weaknesses being remediated. There seems to be too much of a tendency to label those children on the far side of the normal curve in developing certain abilities as having disabilities that need accommodating, rather than as weaknesses that might be overcome with the proper intervention (or the passage of time). My daughter went through the labelling game for years and we reached the point where all the public school wanted to do was accommodate. That is simpler and cheaper than actually remediating. They even gave her accommodations she didn't need and we didn't ask for; it was much easier to treat all special needs kids the same way.
So how much of the increase in accommodations is due to parents trying to game the system and how much due to trends in special education, with educators telling parents that their children need those accommodations?
seriouslly, we have a community with a much higher average rate of breast cancer and studies are finally being done, after much pressure from famlies, etc.
so why aren't these families going, hey wait a minute, is there something wrong here? why are our kids so much more affected with LD than other students around the country
if it was really an true case of that many kids with LDs or whatever, I can assure you those parents wouldn't just make the one adjustment with a national test