OPINION: Would you support this change in Score Choice policy?

Kean · February 23, 2010, 10:51pm

^This, although I interpret this negatively. :P

mifune · February 23, 2010, 11:05pm

For the individual who inquired, I retook it twice before I was satisfied with my results. As I stated in my “disclaimer” above, I would support this hypothetical measure even though superscoring (which is ultimately what this discussion involves) was in no way a factor in my own personal situation. Thus, I am not making self-serving arguments nor am I attempting to promote some underlying agenda. I am merely interested in reasoned responses and opinion. Moreover, we do not need to employ any complex rhetorical strategies (i.e. satirize the other argument) to state our points. Nor is it proper to self-righteously declare the superiority of one perspective over the other when each side has its own faults and validities. Detached, reasonable responses are best.

That being said, many arguments, I do realize, may be anchored in favor of individual circumstances. For those who fared well on their standardized examinations in very few attempts, their pre-established perspective of the “unfairness” of Score Choice (since this discussion is intimately associated with the policy’s implications) may influence their opinions towards this hypothetical policy. Similarly, those who benefitted from Score Choice will extol its benefits. That’s understandable.

Okay, I apologize for the digression - back to the main purpose of this discussion.

To varying degrees, there are legitimate points for each side of the argument. I will provide a rundown and a brief discourse of many of the commonly cited claims against Score Choice (please state any possible arguments that I miss below):

[ul][li] Score Choice is prejudicial against low-income students.[/li]
[list][li]The reasoning behind this is that higher-income students are able to pay for more than one sitting of the test and may afford better-quality preparation. This may be true to some extent if it is provided to students who need the motivation and additional assistance. However, aside from the fact that expensive personal instruction may advantage some, it is not wholly accurate since a fee waiver is fully available to anyone who qualifies and the purchase of preparatory materials is not essential. Personally, I was just above the income-level for the fee waiver qualification according to NACAC guidelines; material-wise, I simply borrowed my school’s copy of the College Board’s SAT guide.[/ul][/li]
[li]Score Choice devalues the achievement of those who excel at the test on their first attempt.[/li]
[ul][li]Possibly; a certain score on one attempt may represent a greater accomplishment than that given score combined from the highest scores over the course of two or three sittings. Also, universities are fully aware of the fact that cancelling scores is a perfectly sensible option open to students. By considering this reality, universities have little incentive to pre-determinedly favor a one-time test taker over a student who took it over the course of multiple sittings.[/li]
This can also be applied to the argument that those who have a superscored, rather than a single-sitting, 2400 are not achieving at the same level. The argument is legitimate if the preparation scenarios are the same, but there are certainly difficulties and many factors that are beyond a university’s immediate awareness. It largely depends on a student’s full range of academic opportunities, the volume of practice material completed, the duration that one has been acquainted with the material, the extent of preexisting inequalities due to socioeconomic status, and so forth. Frankly, colleges absolutely have no idea if a one-time taker achieved that after five years of practice and one hundred practice tests. Nor can universities determine if the 2400-superscored student achieved that after taking two or three tests “cold.” I would actually consider the latter individual to be achieving at a greater level in such a case.

The truth is, it is far too difficult to generalize the full range of individual scenarios and preparation that eventually manifests as a standardized test score, which is why I believe that it is still in a colleges’ best interest to simply superscore across all test dates if such a situation exists.[/ul]

[li]* Score Choice allows students to nap through two-thirds of the test.*[/li]
[ul][li]Students fully have the same option to “set an alarm” until another “important” section occurs under the current evaluation policy. If universities truly adhere to the superscoring assessment option, the incentive to have forty winks through two-thirds of the test is already present. The primary deterrent under existing policy is that colleges still have access to entire sittings despite the commonly recognized superscoring evaluation. Would a further liberalization of score submission guidelines rampantly promote such behavior any more than it does now? Here is another potentially divisive scenario to consider: If superscoring is the uniform method by which the SAT is evaluated during college admissions, would the Reasoning Test best be offered in separate sections, similar to the Subject Tests? Would such a policy create inequality in the admissions process since students are not uniformly subjected to the test’s content? If true, wouldn’t the contemporary administration policy of the Subject Tests favor students who focus on one subject per sitting rather than being required to take three?[/ul][/li]
Score Choice is simply another method for the College Board to earn additional profits.

[ul][li]This is a potentially valid claim, since offering an additional degree of flexibility in the admissions process will induce more “practice” attempts and undoubtedly give the test and the College Board a greater popularity among the public.[/li]
In general, I appreciate the College Board’s prerogative to mitigate much of the stress surrounding standardized testing even if Score Choice was slightly initiated on behalf of its own corporate interests. [/ul][/list]

Overall, colleges uniformly evaluate applicants by considering the best section scores possible while ostensibly dismissing the others, which I believe is the most objective accommodation of the full range of personal and preparatory scenarios.

Alt_F4 · February 24, 2010, 3:52am

Average out the scores of the students? This is where a bit of dualism has to kick in for me. For me, Score Choice would definitely offer an advantage. I took the SAT I twice, which I don’t think is a bad record, but my SAT IIs are not so stellar- I would love to use SC and forget about the number of times I took the tests.

But on the other hand, I don’t think it’s fair to the students who were able to get the same score with fewer tries to do that. Again, it’s not that I think they deserve to get in and I don’t- I just don’t think it’s so meaningless that it should be ignored. I think that for the particular test, such a student achieved at a higher level.

As for the “screw the other two sections” argument…of course, the situation illustrated would not be the case for many students just because the policy is implemented. However, I doubt that it would be completely untrue either. It is difficult to concentrate for entirety of the exam; it is also difficult to study for all ten sections as opposed to just three. It is sorely tempting to take advantage of this. :)

I don’t think it’s a disadvantage for low-income students as much as it is an advantage for students from wealthier families. For example, I don’t qualify for the fee waiver. I don’t know the standards, but I doubt I am near the mark. However, that does not mean taking the SAT multiple times is not a luxury for me. Thus I made sure to prepare extra-hard to try to curb the number of times I had to take the exam.

And as for preparation materials, while I envy the people who can cope without them, I will not say this is the case for everyone. It’s easy to fall into the trap of saying these things (i.e, “getting a 2400 is easy” once you get that 2400- though I understand this may be an exaggeration). I’m an international student and I frankly managed a good score through continuous studying and practice- with prep books. It may be possible to do well sans books; I doubt it’s common.

I would not- although this is simply a personal opinion, and I can see how it goes both ways. The latter student may be “smarter,” but the former has, as far as we can see, put in more effort. I value effort as a skill too often overlooked, as it often applies to other areas of work too.

There is obviously no perfect way to evaluate a student. And it may be possible that a student achieved a 2400 on their fifth try while another student superscored 2400 after only two exams. But that is exactly why I don’t support the new Score Choice. I don’t like the idea of automatically placing two students on the same level based on results, regardless of how they got there. This is not to say your past scores will necessarily work for or against you- it’s just something that should be looked at.

Adenine · February 24, 2010, 8:27pm

Holy crap @ #23. I agree with his arguments. I think colleges are doing the best as they are by superscoring the test.

mifune · February 24, 2010, 8:38pm

I hold the same opinion.

Where do universities (those that dismiss Score Choice) draw the distinction between obsession and admirable, effortful achievement?

Alt_F4 · February 24, 2010, 11:18pm

I frankly don’t know. But I’m guessing this is also probably where the “don’t take your SATs more than 3 times” kind of adages come from. But with Score Choice the distinction will cease to exist altogether- those in the “obsession” category will be placed on the same playing field as the “admirable achievement” students. I don’t think that’s fair. I think the latter students deserve to have some sort of recognition for how they achieved their score- regardless of whether it will ultimately impact admissions or not.

Kean · February 24, 2010, 11:44pm

You do not need to be so sensitive. You do need to recognize that I was exaggerating (although it was based in some truth). You do need to stop trying to tell people what to do, because it ends up sounding like this.

No, the contemporary administration policy favors students who are grounded in all three subjects: CR, M, and W. I don’t understand your point here.

Yes, it would. I would do it that way if Score Choice let me completely erase the fact that I got 200’s on the other sections but 800 on one section, and the fact that I did that 3 times.

I disagree. Great achievers are people who understand themselves and the situation around them, work hard to better themselves, and succeed. That’s the spirit of International Baccalaureate, and that’s the spirit by which I learn and work. A 2400-superscored student taking two or three tests “cold” does not show any of that. And when that student has a job, no way can he afford to mess up one or two times before succeeding. That’s unreasonable, and he certainly didn’t achieve.

Adenine · February 25, 2010, 12:21am

“You do not need to be so sensitive. You do need to recognize that I was exaggerating (although it was based in some truth). You do need to stop trying to tell people what to do, because it ends up sounding like this.”

-His point is that you were being sarcastic when it wasn’t necessary.

“No, the contemporary administration policy favors students who are grounded in all three subjects: CR, M, and W. I don’t understand your point here.”

-Yeah, you don’t, he’s saying that if the SAT was given out in separate sections it would be no different than how the subject tests are given, which allows students to take one test at a time. This allows students to focus on one section of the test unlike those who take three tests. Its perfectly legit.

“Yes, it would. I would do it that way if Score Choice let me completely erase the fact that I got 200’s on the other sections but 800 on one section, and the fact that I did that 3 times.”

-Why? Why would you want to wake up on three different mornings and just blow off 2/3 of the test? People will still want to do the best they can to get it over with. Mifune argues that since superscoring already exists and is the basis that students are evaluated on, students would already be doing this which isn’t totally true. I think most kids focus less on sections that are already good because of Score Choice but they dont go through it for a 200 on two sections of the test. At least not any more than they do now.

“A 2400-superscored student taking two or three tests “cold” does not show any of that.”

-Aren’t colleges after sheer ability? I don’t see how you can disagree with his basic point that a 2400-superscored taking two or three tests with no prep would usually have greater aptitude than a kid who got a 2400 after one test but who used five years of preparation and 100 practice tests to achieve that.

btw, how do you guys get those nice quote boxes?

silverturtle · February 25, 2010, 12:32am

[quote.]
message here
[/quote.]

Omit the dots.

Kean · February 25, 2010, 1:06am

First of all, I’m naturally a sarcastic person, especially when I’m ****ed off (which I am today). It’s your choice to take offense from what I say when I don’t even mean to offend.

Second, there is “sheer ability,” and there is “dedication.” And, as shocking as it may seem, the latter is infinitely more important.

mifune · February 25, 2010, 2:23am

I am curious as well.

I would agree with your basic point if each student had the equivalent personal and preparatory backgrounds. But universities cannot rely on any systematic means to gauge or obtain a complete understanding of this.

Taking ten practice tests, for instance, is not any fundamentally different from taking the SAT on an equal number of occasions. Yet the former action is typically viewed as a proactive measure and denotes a respectable level of dedication; however, the latter would be symbolized as obsession, despite the reality that there is no essential dissimilarity between the two. It is simply illogical to view these sets of circumstances as two diametrically opposed cases.

My intent was that this need not be a discussion for self-righteously scoffing at anyone’s argument. Some may understandably view that as a sign of irrational disrespect, which is precisely the reason why detached rationalization is best.

I was referring to an earlier argument in which a poster responded that issuing the SAT by subject matter – similar to the Subject Tests – is a perfectly valid alternative. If superscoring is the uniform procedure for evaluating standardized tests in college admissions (and ultimately the method that universities use to provide the most advantageous boost to their rankings), where is the fundamental flaw in offering the SAT by section other than the fact that students would not be homogeneously subjected to its content?

Similar to what Adenine stated, I could not rationalize the motivation for neglecting two-thirds of the test on each sitting when the opportunity is presented to achieve one’s best at the first. It would be most sensible if one has already achieved an 800 (or the score at which a student is satisfied) on two of the sections. Yet under current college evaluation policy of superscoring exams across all test dates, the incentive to dismiss a portion of the test is already present.

Yes, of course.

So those who achieve fantastic scores with minimal practice are not achieving to the same degree as those who required a larger amount of practice? Again, I fully believe that a dedicated effort towards practicing for this exam in particular should be appropriately rewarded. But a student’s achievement is no less valid when it simply required less effort than that attained by another individual.

A fair quantity of each is absolutely essential. Success and achievement cannot be attained exclusively with one alone.

Alt_F4 · February 25, 2010, 3:20am

It is different. Someone who takes practice tests, finds out what s/he did wrong, and tries to avoid the same mistake again (isn’t that the point of practice tests? to familiarize with the system?) is preparing for the actual exam. The SAT I doesn’t have a set range of questions like the SAT II. Therefore, solving practice tests is the equivalent of studying textbooks for Subject Tests, in a broad sense. You can’t dismiss studying for the exam as the equivalent of actually taking the exam. And when someone takes the time and effort to prepare for the test, they deserve to have this effort acknowledged. This isn’t an IQ test.

As for turning the SAT I into three SAT II Subject Tests…this is pointless. Again, there is a difference between taking three separate subjects on three separate occasions and taking the three subjects at once. The latter requires much more stamina, concentration, and pre-exam preparation.

I’m going to need some clarification here. If taking practice tests is not a way of preparing for the exam, and simply the indistinguishable equivalent of taking the actual exam a number of times, what sort of practice are you referring to? (This is an honest question and not sarcasm)

Of course the amount of effort required is an individual matter. If two students both scored 2400 on their second try, for example, and one prepared extensively while one did not, I would say it is still fair to say both their achievements are “valid,” because one needed more practice than the other. But the number of times you actually take the test is completely different, because then the conditions are disparate. One student had to take a test several times to achieve what another student was able to achieve at once. There’s the distinction.

I don’t agree. Neither would Thomas Edison. While a combination of the two would most certainly make things easier, dedication itself can also drive a student towards success.

Adenine · February 25, 2010, 8:38pm

Isn’t taking the actual test familiarizing yourself with it? Taking the SAT - real or practice - is a huge learning experience. Either way, practice or not, you are taking the test, familiarizing yourself with it, and all that. Sure practice is better since whatever happened won’t show up on your record, you can review answers and you’re more relaxed. If all testing truly matters, why not put all practice test results and cancelled scores on the report as well? By your position, if all previous tests should show up why shouldn’t those if a college needs to know everything about a students background - regardless of the fact that dont even matter and arent considered (supposedly - but we’ll stick to colleges word that they dont)?

as for the first sentence, he didnt say that. He said that issuing them seperately would be a “legitimate alternative” if colleges only are interested in seeing the best scores. He stated that the drawback would be that students would not be “uniformly subjected to its content.” Why would it be pointless? Just have three separate 70 minute exams. It wouldn’t be anymore biased than the way current SATII’s are handed out. As for the second sentence, he agrees with that and that is part of the drawback. But again, although it takes more stamina and all that, its not any more unfavorable than the way SATII’s are administered.

He was responding to another poster who said that someone who achieves the same score with less practice is not achieving at the same level because they did not prepare as hard, which is false. The person who made a high score with less practice and less exposure to the test than someone who put in a lot of work may just have more ability. Because someone did not need to prepare as hard to get a certain score doesnt mean that they achieved less. I don’t see how anyone can really disagree with that. Some just think that not putting in the same amount of effort is not achieving at the same level - without considering the fact that talent plays a huge role in someones life.

The distinction is that you’re forced to follow a schedule and you dont know what youre getting right and you dont know what youre getting wrong. After that its not much different. What I dont get is that for some reason someone improving with several practice tests deserves a good score but someone who improves through taking the SAT more than once doesnt. Its still the same effort! If both students get the same score, they’re still achieveing at the same level! When it comes down to admissions, its all about the final score. Period. If someone got a 2400 why should it matter if they got a 2200 before and a 1800 in 9th grade (or w/e)? Whoever achieved it after one or two times likely started at that SAME LEVEL as the person who took it more than once. But who gives a crap?! Colleges dont care either. What matters is they got a 2400 - end of story.

So talent doesnt matter?! Good luck with proving that dedication alone will give success. BOTH are needed. One can only go so far without the other. For example, despite how hard I try to swim I will never be Michael Phelps or how hard I try to run I will never be Usain Bolt. Natural ability is just as important.

mifune · February 26, 2010, 1:47am

Dismiss? Surely you meant to use a different word based on your position.

Taking a practice test is not mutually exclusive from taking an administered test. Each examination experience contributes to familiarizing oneself with the format, improving skills tested on the exam, increasing time efficiency, and so on. The distinctive differences, as Adenine pointed to, are the structured format (if this is not enforced during practice) and the inability to instantly access an answer key.

Moreover, I believe that Adenine surfaces a completely defensible point regarding the idea of the submission of every trace of experience with the test. To completely eliminate any slant of the system would be wholly unattainable.

Performance on IQ tests, like any cognitive metric, can be enhanced and bettered through preparation.

Actually, pointlessness is embodied by test policies that demand the submission of all test scores despite the fact that they are ultimately nothing more than extraneous figures. Indisputably, a ranking-focused university would never use non-superscored data to contribute to its statistical profile of admitted students so what purpose does their submission hold? If an institution superscores standardized testing data for its own benefit, it is only fair to the student to do the same. It is unethical to evaluate a student’s scores in one way, but to exploit them for its own benefit in another. Considering the unique and wide range of aforesaid factors that eventually manifest a standardized test score, and universities’ recognition that a full understanding of each student’s individual and foundational background is unknowable, superscoring is the most equitable and accommodative policy, which is rightly practiced at a very substantial majority of institutions.

The College Board’s ultimate idealism is to have the SAT Reasoning Test be an exam that solely tests aptitude. It is an assessment unique to any other qualification present on a student’s record in that it exists to reward proficiency in a mixture of aptitude-based skills. In an ideal - but impractical - world, the SAT would test each student individually to determine raw academic aptitude without any pre-existing knowledge of the test’s format, without any potential advantages conferred by socioeconomic circumstances, without many countless hours of study, and so forth.

As I have stated previously, I believe that the SAT should reward effort and initiative, but not to the extent that it becomes more of an achievement-based examination rather than one fundamentally designed to assess reasoning-based dexterity.

That’s what I have already stated. If students were allowed to simply cherry-pick which sections of the SAT to take, it would not be any different from the way in which the SAT II exams are currently administered. Yet it will indeed create disparities since all students are not uniformly exposed to the content of the Reasoning Test. Not that I necessarily advocate separating the SAT into the separate 60- or 70-minute tests, but it would allow a greater flexibility in a student’s testing schedule.

I was responding to the falsehood that an individual who does not necessarily need to invest a substantial quantity of time and effort to achieve at a particular level is not as motivated or as devoted as a student who truly requires more extensive preparation.

Yes, I agree.

Not necessarily so. Taking the SAT in practice and in reality are not diametrically opposed scenarios. For instance, if two students require the same amount of cumulative practice to achieve the same score, yet one forgoes available test dates to complete all of his preparation through practice tests while the other chooses to use each test date as preparation for a later date in which he feels more confident, the distinction, metaphorically speaking, is that each student completed his practice on opposite sides of the fence. In this hypothetical scenario, however, the student choosing to forgo the available test dates to focus on a single future sitting would be plainly viewed as dedicated (which is understandable) while the student utilizing each test date for additional preparation would irrationally be perceived as compulsive.

Edison does not receive as much credit for his resourceful ingenuity as he does his devotion to his work. This is primarily a consequence of his famously quoted aphorisms expounding the virtues of individual fortitude. Despite his mathematical shortcomings and stubborn persistence to not overcome it, his creativity, intuition, and qualitative understanding of the underlying physical concepts manifested the many inventions he created.

But we must accept that there are biological limitations placed upon each of us, as Adenine alluded to. Even if I had the ambition to organically teach a dog to speak a human language or personally run a mile in under four minutes, I know that despite my best efforts, I would never succeed. In each instance, one must recognize any insurmountable barriers. Truthfully, raw ability and dedication share a deep mutuality.

I appreciate your candid replies. The complexity of the situation is precisely why colleges and universities choose to superscore and have little incentive to offer any additional benefits to one-time takers over those who utilized multiple test dates.

Alt_F4 · February 26, 2010, 4:39am

Okay, we need to make something clear. The proposed policy in the OP is a version of superscore and not just Score Choice. And your entire argument is based upon the assumption that the people who’ve taken many test dates are those with pure ability, choosing to forgo practice tests and using the real SAT as experience. That’s not necessarily true, or even usually true. Okay, then if we’re going to go into “what ifs” then what if two students prepare about the same for a test one month, and while one manages to score a 2400 that time, one has to take it a few more times to get it? Would that be a measure of the ability that is so greatly emphasized?

First of all-- sarcasm greatly appreciated. And as far as dedication, I was talking in the context of the SAT. I acknowledge that atheltic abilities may be different, and yes, even intellectual activities. But you don’t have to be a genius to score a perfect on the SAT. I’m certainly not a prodigy in that sense. And if I (hypothetically this time) had to work hard to achieve the same results as someone may have with no preparation, within a similar time period, then I think my effort should be acknowledged.

No, I really do mean dismiss.

I do understand your point better now. Here’s the ultimate question from which the disagreements seem to branch from: is the SAT an exam that simply tests ability, or effort as well? I guess the fact that it is called Scholastic Aptitude Test hints at the CB’s intent. However, then many colleges would be selecting their students largely on the basis on “raw knowledge.” Actually, not even that- how well they know the SAT-framed English language. As an international student, not being able to prepare for the test is a scary thought. And I think we can agree that there’s really no way the SAT can just test aptitude, just as an IQ test can’t test simply IQ.

Colleges aren’t designed to pick only the brainiest students out there. A lot of it has to do, in a nutshell, with how well you do in school and how well you will do in the future. Taking the time to prepare for an exam, any exam, is something that is quite underrated, but should be valued. It’d be nice if the students who take the SAT were doing so just for practice until they get the score they want. I would have personally loved to have been able to afford to do so. It’s just that usually students try to get a score they can stick to.

I don’t like the idea of colleges exploiting students’ scores either. Either way someone’s going to get the short end of the stick-- in other words, someone’s going to say it’s unfair. And it will be. Which is why I’m glad colleges do not pick students based only on SAT scores (well, in a way…I might feel better about my future if they did ).

Haha I’m sorry…>_

Anyway, I tried to cut this as short as I could (I have not succeeded) because the same arguments have been going back and forth a while now. And don’t get me wrong- I really can see both sides of the argument. But I ultimately oppose the policy because I believe that it, like many policies, starts off with good intentions but ends up being more unfair than good. Score Choice is a rather recent thing, and since its happening, I’ve tried to be a student for whom it doesn’t matter which policy CB decides to pursue.

Adenine · February 26, 2010, 8:50pm

My argument was that there is way too much variety in circumstances to claim that this person put in this much effort or has this much talent. We just can’t infer that from all test results - because “all” really isnt all because of preparation, cancelled scores, personal tutoring, etc.

If the preparation is the same then it seems that the person who got the score on the first try might have greater talent (if there was a somewhat large difference between the scores)

When I said “good luck” in proving that talent doesnt matter I really meant it. I wasnt saying the opposite of what I wanted to say.

Its designed for reasoning but its inevitable that it will test effort. But colleges realize that students will study for it to improve their scores. But you really dont need to learn anything to answer anything right besides vocab and maybe some grammar rules. Even if someone does memorize a bunch of vocabulary it doesnt do any good if they cant understand word relationship, which is aptitude. Its pretty intuitive when it comes to writing and there is a lot of problem solving with very basic stuff in math. It takes a level of ability to do well and some things, even with all the practice in the world, just cant be taught.

Agreed.

Agreed as well.

We can all see the other side. We just make different conclusions. I thoroughly agree with mifune’s points but of course they arent going to fit everyones thoughts. Wanting a full score report is up to the school but is unnecessary if a college chooses to do nothing but use the best scores for themselves and (presumably) the applicants. Superscoring is the policy in use and I believe rightfully so.

antonioray · February 26, 2010, 9:36pm

while all scores are not exactly the same as other scores with the same nominal values (ie: 800 with 3 wrong isnt the same as 800 with 0 wrong), I’m assuming that AltF4’s argument concerns 2400 and the validity of a superscored 2400.

In that case, I would say that the difference between a single sitting 2400 (or as I look at it, 800 in all 3 sections) and a superscored 2400 (still 800 in 3 sections) is, in practical matters, negligible.

I look at it this way:

Taker A: Took SATs twice(AltF4 can serve as an example). got whatever he or she got the first time around (but not 2400) and a 2400 the 2nd time around.

Taker B: Took SATs twice. Got 800 in CR and W first time around with an imperfect math score. Got 800 in M the 2nd time around.

now, taking into consideration the stipulation that every 800 = every other 800, AltF4 is by no means more proficient in SAT test taking than Taker B(no disrespect to AltF4, of course).

2400 single sitting means that all the favorable factors were present on that day. No construction workers outside working their drill, no annoying proctors walking on creaky floors(eeek), and just the right amount of luck that lets you look at every question with an answer in mind with no 2nd doubts about other possible answers.

It’s unlikely to have perfect settings on two seperate test days; granted, construction workers are rare and creaky floors are just plain bad, but the point was that all the favorable settings had to be present.

In that regard, 3 800s are not easier by any means to obtain than another 3 800s that happened to be earned on the same day.

Having said all of this, I agree with mifune’s other points about income inequality, the challenge that superscoring presents to the integrity of the SAT I as a whole, and collegeboard profits(Grrrrrrr).

In response to AltF4’s statement that blah blah practice tests, forgone to take hte real SATs as practice “is not necessarily true, or even usually true,” I’d like to say that I am one of the people who never did practice tests and elected to take the real things for practice.

My reasons were, in retrospect, nothing short of absurd. To keep a long story short, I just didnt have the patience to put myself through the SAT (4 hours at a time) if it didnt matter in the end.

the fact that I do not have a 2400 may be related to my perverseness, and it also may not be.

Who is to say for sure?

Also, in response to AltF4’s earlier statement between 2400 and 2350: they are, in all practicality, the same.

a 2350 is merely some combination of imperfect scores that are close enough to perfect, and, had luck been on the taker’s side on test day, he or she may be able to stare at a 2400. Maybe there was a question in CR that had 2 choices that were equally appealing, or maybe a writing section question was worded so poorly that the biggest grammar buff in the world would’ve been stumped.

Of course, I am saying this as a person who does not have a 2400 (speaking for the 2350 ppl here, not that 2350 is my exact score but w/e), but I think I am impartial enough to make such an analyis.

In the end, I suppose that AltF4’s statement that it is not necessarily true or even usually true still holds true(chuckles). But it is sometimes true, which is something that should be taken in to consideration

mifune · February 26, 2010, 10:06pm

The SAT is fundamentally designed to assess reasoning-based aptitudes, but the distinctions between aptitude and achievement tests are not exactly precise. Achieved skills, vocabulary in particular, will certainly influence aptitude test scores. However, these skills are structured within a reasoning-based exam. It is basically designed to assess aptitude to the greatest degree by placing highly academically relevant skills into the framework of a reasoning test. Sensibly speaking, College Board’s intent is to provide universities with an objective, valid, and reliable reflection of a student’s future performance rather than how he or she is currently performing.

As for its name, it was formerly known as the Scholastic Assessment Test and Scholastic Aptitude Test, but now its official title is simply the SAT Reasoning Test (apparently “SAT” isn’t an acronym for anything any longer), which I believe is best representative of its focus.

Okay, you are completely entitled to your opinion and I fully respect that. I maintain my belief that students’ best achievements on standardized tests are most reflective of individual aptitudes and policies that recognize the highest data available are the most sensible for purposes of evaluation.

@antonioray: You make many fine and objective points.

Adenine · February 26, 2010, 10:12pm

Btw mifune, I must say bravo to what you have to say. Your posts never cease to amaze me.

Alt_F4 · February 27, 2010, 12:26am

The 2350 vs. 2400…well that’s a debate for another day (or thread, to be more precise). ;)

Then it was simply a rather rude way to state your point. But you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, and I really do not want to get into an argument about something like this.

I fully respect yours too- and despite our opposing stances, I understand your points and can see why people would be for the policy as well. I come from a country where the emphasis on high scores is ridiculous- where students preparing to go abroad go to extremely expensive academies to prepare for this one exam (I was not, btw, one of these people- the SAT was a self-study project for me). In fact, after the Jan. SATs, some students even booked tickets to go to Guam just to take the March test. Maybe I’m slightly biased because of that (I wouldn’t say I am completely though).

Reading this thread made me wish that we could be more like America in that students may actually take the real SAT for practice, with less preparation beforehand, and that if it was like that I could think differently about the proposed policy.

And a funny story about favorable circumstances for a 2400…reading that made me think of the day of my Jan. exam. I overslept and woke up at 7:20, 40 mins before I had to arrive at the test center, which was at least half an hour away, and I had to run out without a shower or breakfast. I barely got there before the test began and I began my essay in a really upset state. In retrospect I can laugh about it- I might have to set my alarm late for the rest of my exams as well. :P

OPINION: Would you support this change in Score Choice policy?

Related topics

CONNECT WITH US