<p>
</p>
<p>If it sounded in any way agressive then I should apologize even though it wasnt meant to be that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It certainly appears that you have found a new strategy :)</p>
<p>I’m not a fan of this superscoring business in general; a slippery slope argument essentially negates all you have to say, mifune. What would be the next step? Allowing students to take the SAT over a weekend and submit it on Monday? The fine line between increasing accessibility and artificially inflating scores is blurred already with the Score Choice system.</p>
<p>Moreover, if such a system was implemented, the amount of studying for the SAT (already inordinately high for a rather irrelevant test, at least when it comes to learning information that is relevant to future occupations) would only increase. As someone brought up earlier, people will essentially start treating the SAT Reasoning Test as three distinct Subject Tests to be tackled separately. This naturally means SAT study would be extended over a longer period of time and therefore a detraction from actual learning.</p>
<p>I feel like the SAT/ACT/Any test meant to similarly be “reflective of individual aptitudes” ought to be taken completely cold. Obviously, this is an impossible suggestion to implement, so consider the following points as just food for thought, I guess.</p>
<p>First, the influence of socio-economic class on the SAT score would be very limited, if it were possible to ban preparation. There wouldn’t be any ridiculously expensive classes where the secrets to the mystical 2400 were divulged to the elite. Therefore, the SAT would actually assess the (I’m hesitant to say intelligence) aptitude of test takers. </p>
<p>Second, students would focus their efforts on meaningful tasks like developing their ECs, studying for academic subjects, etc. Multiple choice test taking skills, which are key to success on the SAT, do absolutely nothing for one’s academic progress. I contend (and hope that most of you will agree) that taking SAT tests out of the Blue Book yields little gain in any area other than the SAT itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When considered as 3 subject tests, I still believe that many takers will take it all in one sitting. As someone who was oblivious to standardized testing until June of my junior year, I rushed to take 3 subject tests. I had to study for all of them within a month; granted, I knew a thing or two about all 3 before I started studying. I did well enough on all 3 to think that I was not overwhelmed by studying for all 3 as opposed to one at a time.</p>
<p>Also, when we bring up the implications that socioeconomic differences have on the SATs, it becomes obvious that it is more frugal to take them all in one sitting. So yes, I agree with you in this aspect: if it is split up into 3 tests, then it allows students who can afford to take the test on 3 dates to gain an upper-hand. (3 sittings, one for each test isn’t as big of an impact (maybe 30 dollars more than taking them all in one sitting). however, when students want to retake, it becomes a bigger issue (we are at square one again, arnt we).</p>
<p>Agreed on the impracticality of enforcing the ban on test prep services.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SATs do not further one’s academic progress. However, it is, in my humble opinion, as close of test designed to measure aptitude as possible with the current availability of testing schemes. It can be improved, if not perfected.</p>
<p>I cant speak for the blue book part because I dont own one and I never took a practice test out of any book for that matter. However, in one’s course of study for these dreaded SATs, one develops/enhances certain skills:</p>
<p>-a strong vocab lasts a lifetime and could very well be relevant in one’s professional life.
-ditto for strong grammar.
-math is a bit murkier, but it does invite students to tackle problems in different ways.</p>
<p>Agreed on the part about ECs and grades. While I do give assent to mifune’s superscore proposition, I do not like the fact that it indirectly encourages students to revere it as the thing that will make or break their academic careers–even more so than they currently do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is absolutely no “artificial inflation” through the use of Score Choice. Superscoring has been standard policy far before Score Choice was implemented. The initiative provides students with the choice to exclusively submit scores that are best reflective of their abilities and has absolutely no effect on synthetically enhancing scores. The only quantifiable difference would be that the incoming average scores would be higher – the scores with which the student is ultimately evaluated upon. Even if a hypothetical policy was initiated to permit submission by best section (which is what institutions do anyways) the superscore of the student would not change in any fundamental way. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is completely groundless mockery of the basic point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There tends to be an unwarranted degree of pessimism towards the reliability of the SAT and its ultimate societal worth. College and career success are positively correlated with SAT scores and such measures serve to quantify the ability to succeed in future scholastic and career endeavors. Unfortunately, many irrationally view it as biased in content, a means of preserving the aristocracy and status quo of specific subpopulations, a barrier to eventual success, a measure with absolutely no real-world applicability, a poor evaluation of the degree to which essential skills are present, and so forth. </p>
<p>The primary benefit of actually preparing for the SAT is that it works to properly train students to focus on broad intellectual talents that are highly valued in academia and beyond. The SAT assesses reading, writing, and mathematical reasoning, which are aptitudes that are very representative of the skills required to excel in nearly all academic and professional situations. For those wishing to maximize their scores, enhancing one’s vocabulary is essential. Given the close association between language and thought, this expands one’s ability to reason and communicate effectively. Reading passages force individuals to read closely and objectively, as the SAT does not reward students that choose to read with their own pre-determined biases and dispositions. The Writing section compels students to materialize an argument through the essay and discriminate between muddled and clear communication. Mathematical reasoning assesses one’s ability to problem solve and reason abstractly. These are qualities that are absolutely critical beyond the test itself.</p>
<p>Moreover, the amount of study for a particular test does not necessarily increase simply because one is offered the opportunity to take individual tests over the course of more than one sitting. Certainly, the amount of study put into the Subject Tests would not necessarily decrease if one was required to take three per sitting. There would be absolutely no causational impulse to decrease the duration and intensity of study.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If aptitude were to be the exclusive concern, then yes, the SAT would be taken free from outside assistance. But the SAT values skills that are advantageous for the future of the student and investing the effort into attaining these skills is of significant interest for those willing to seize the opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given how broadly applicable the skills assessed on the SAT are to real-life necessities, the test is not encapsulated in its own sphere irrelevant to the outside world. The SAT is one of the best instruments available for predicting future academic and career success and this is precisely why it has been so successfully sustained as a statistical gauge for evaluating aptitude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I apologize as well if I took it too sensitively. 
You have made good points and nothing was meant to even border on personal, it’s all part of a good debate eh?</p>
<p>While I will not say the SAT is completely worthless…I am hesitant about the actual degree of its usefulness. While studying for the SAT, I have expanded my vocab significantly, although I’m not sure how much of this is for the long term yet. I know more about grammar rules and am now even more of a stickler than before. I’m better at Critical Reading- but SAT CR, to be exact. I don’t think I’ve learned anything drastic. </p>
<p>But what I do think is useful about the SAT is that it indicates how well a student is doing now and how well they will do in the future (not how objectively intelligent someone is)- which would again bring up the preparation vs. taking the test cold argument. Considering the reality of the situation, that is, that most people do prepare in some way or another (whether that way is taking practice tests or taking the real test), I’d say a student’s willingness to invest time and effort in yielding a good score is an admirable quality. </p>
<p>Of course, I do not condone the idea that an increased emphasis on the SAT I would lead to students slacking off in other areas. A student’s GPA and ECs are more important. Which is why I’m glad the SAT is not the only thing considered in an application.</p>
<p>Another genius post by mifune in #45.</p>
<p>Vaeliant: No I don’t really agree with much of what you say. The artificial inflation belief is flawed since superscoring does not raise scores it just allows colleges to see the best score and therefore the ones they actually care about. I always hear how studying for standardized exams only teaches an irrelevant test or anyone can get this score if they study this much but it isn’t true. Intellect plays a role and colleges are after that. If students have the intellect to master the test through effort it should definitely be rewarded. But colleges and employers have no way of knowing aptitude without testing it objectively.</p>
<p>And no studying wouldn’t increase just because you are allowed more flexibility. Focusing on one thing decreases studying, not increase. If the Reasoning Test was separated into three sections (again no one is advocating this) I think many would just choose to take all three anyways just as most students prefer to take more than one SAT II per sitting. The SAT just doesn’t distract people from learning – preparing for the SAT allows students to focus on crucial skills that will be used through college and beyond.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Youre being way too shallow and focusing only on what the test is rather than what it does, what it assesses and what skills in objectively quantifies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your comment is spot on…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re misunderstanding my point. Sure, I agree with you in saying that the SAT helps build certain basic skills that are necessary for future success. However, studying for a 2400 on the SAT yields a focus that is not on those basic skills (which such students tend to have already mastered) but rather on concepts like test-taking skills (i.e. when to guess). If you question that, look at the advice Xiggi, the perennial SAT guru, gives. On the other hand, the benefits you outlined should already occur as part of a high school curriculum. The argument that the SAT leads to significant benefits in that regard is fairly shallow, because the reality is that those benefits are negligible and can and are replaced by regular school. The negatives therefore far outweigh the positives.</p>
<p>Another problem:
By essentially removing the number of times one has taken the test as a factor in considering the score, we’d be sending the wrong message. Instead of calling it quits after a point, students again and again, from sophomore to senior year, will continue to take the test month after month, in an effort to attain a higher score (this already happens under the Score Choice system and would only be exacerbated under this proposal). After all, if the number of times the test is taken does not matter, then there is absolutely no personal negative involved with such a practice.
There is fairly significant societal detriment though, one that should be fairly obvious. A focus on scoring HIGHER, not WELL, on the SAT will clearly lead to a focus on test-taking gimmicks rather than any sort of applicable learning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Colleges use the SAT score as a comparative assessment of students. To my understanding, it allows colleges to determine if grade inflation is the cause of Student X’s perfect GPA and therefore acts as an unbiased factor in determining who to admit. Allowing students this much ‘freedom’ in taking the SAT will naturally increase scores as a whole, essentially by definition…All this will do is make it tougher for colleges to make their decisions and therefore cause the weight of the SAT in the admissions process to decrease accordingly, since it will no longer be a factor that can be used to consistently differentiate candidates. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I question the role of intellect in scores if students are allowed that much freedom. Rewarding effort is one thing. Not telling students that at some point they should quit is another. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. We need an objective measure of aptitude, which is currently the SAT (though it is flawed). However, artificial inflation of scores would only undermine this purpose.</p>
<p>Also, I’ll respond to some other arguments brought up when I finish this Physics IA -_-.</p>
<p>Referencing an earlier side discussion, I believe that I am a better student because of the SAT and I appreciate its objective to allow universities to make more informed decisions and objectively draw comparisons between students.</p>
<p>This is irrelevant to the original discussion, but it is a falsehood that the SAT only measure how much one has practiced for it. The skills assessed on the SAT are not applicable exclusively to the test itself. In addition, the amount of preparation for the test will not increase a score indefinitely since much of the required reasoning can simply not be taught. That is, although socioeconomic status may allow one to afford personalized service to increase one’s score, it can provide only so much benefit. Although the social effects of a poor background hinder one’s ability to achieve, it is not the exclusive factor. Again, I come from a low-income household so my statements are not purely slanted in favor of my own beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, excellent comment.</p>
<p>
Your entire argument is based upon the premise that liberalizing score policies will substantially increase the volume of tests taken. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please cite your arguments if you are going to make such claims that Score Choice has wildly increased the volume of tests taken, even despite adjustments for demographics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Test-taking strategies are an important portion of the test and for one’s personal style, but if one has not developed the required skills from preparing for the exam and/or simply does not have the aptitude to achieve beyond a certain extent on the test, continuing to take it will provide no additional benefit. Again, please support the claim that Score Choice has instigated an immediate obsession with high achievement on standardized tests (as proven through excessive test-taking).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no substantial data that Score Choice is monumentally increasing the number of SAT tests taken per student. </p>
<p>Again, the submitted scores may or may not be of greater quality (depending on if a superscore exists, which does not for many students) but it would not change a student’s superscore in any way. </p>
<p>As for your assertion that superscoring will render the SAT as “a factor that can [no longer] be used to consistently differentiate candidates,” do I honestly need to explicitly point out how outrageous that claim is?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, the entire argument that you assert is based upon the unsupported assumption that the volume of tests taken is significantly increasing to the extent that, as you claim, “students again and again, from sophomore to senior year, will continue to take the test month after month.” The burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate (through the use of credible sources) that Score Choice has created an epidemic of excessive test-taking. Until then, your statements hold little validity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Your arguments, Vaeliant –- assumptions actually – are outrageous and unsupported. If you cant support the one claim that the volume of SAT tests are going up because of Score Choice (not b/c of the increasing number of people taking) your entire argument has no legitimacy. When you find that statistic then we’ll talk about the pros and cons of Score Choice and superscoring, but until then your argument means nothing.</p>
<p>You guys haven’t asked me to support it.
Let me do some googling and see if I can find data from the CollegeBoard.</p>
<p>The fact that I don’t have empirical data right now (which hasn’t been used by either side in this discussion until you folks requested it) does not invalidate my argument in anyway. Analytically (as we say in debate) or logically speaking, my argument certainly holds weight. Students, knowing that the number of tests they take is irrelevant due to Score Choice, take the SAT again and again in hopes of a higher score. I see no logical fallacy in that statement. Let’s not rely upon strawman arguments here…
My ‘assumptions’ ARE supported and are certainly not outrageous. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stating that a claim is outrageous does not make it so. If the number of high scores increase (I noticed that neither of you disputed this…), then colleges will obviously have a harder time distinguishing scores. The SAT score distribution would become skewed to the left, so percentiles, which are commonly used in the college admissions process, would become much narrower in relation to scores. At that point, the colleges face a quandary: “Do we differentiate between a 2250 and a 2350 because there is a decile between them, even though the difference is only 2 or 3 questions?” I hope you can draw the logical link between this quandary and the limitation in utility of the SAT that would result.</p>
<p>At this point, you’ve addressed my arguments by saying that they’re outrageous and that they’re unsupported by evidence. Let’s have some logical debate here rather than a rhetoric contest, please…</p>
<p>I <3 Score Choice. W/o, colleges would see my 1500, not just my 2100</p>
<p>I would def support this. It would take pressure of students, you only have to concentrate on a single section per test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Statistical evidence has not been needed until this point in the discussion and if you are to make such assumptions that Score Choice has immediately created compulsive test-taking behavior, you ought to support that numerically or else you are promoting nothing but empty falsehoods.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a logical fallacy to assume that test-taking behavior is radically different than before the Score Choice option was implemented. Students will take the test until they feel that their scores properly represent their academic abilities – just as before the policy was initiated. It is not as if the number of attempts was somehow limited in the past or that students before this year’s graduating class were unwilling to retake it if they felt that they could have quite possibly fared better on an additional effort. If students wish to invest the additional money, time, and effort into a higher score, then that is entirely their decision. It is absolutely no one’s responsibility to disrespect that. Again, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that the Score Choice policy has created a pervasive and instant upsurge of obsessive test-taking behavior. </p>
<p>Moreover, Score Choice is not universally accepted as demonstrated by [this link]( <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-score-use-practices-list.pdf”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board) beginning on page five. I sincerely doubt that students would establish their list of colleges exclusively on the basis of those that do and do not honor the Score Choice option.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are not correct. Statistics have demonstrated that those who take the test a second time see modest score increases, while taking the test three times or more offers diminishing returns. Score Choice in no way decreases the predictive validity of the test and taking it multiple times will not inflate scores to any appreciable extent. Yes, there is a margin of error in the SAT if that is what you are referencing but that is the purpose of the score range feature. But it is patently false to say that since a student with a baseline section score of 500 will often score between a 470 and 530, scoring a 530 on a subsequent test is fundamentally equal to a 560, which, in turn, is the equivalent of a 590, and so forth. In JaeRon’s case, clearly if he can achieve a 2100, a 1500 certainly isn’t reflective of his scholastic aptitude and is not something that should serve to damage his academic record or future prospects. </p>
<p>Here is a quote directly from the College Board’s website: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Additionally - from the College Board website (<a href=“The SAT – SAT Suite | College Board):%5B/url%5D”>The SAT – SAT Suite | College Board):</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yes, I have addressed the falsity of your “artificial inflation” claim on more than one occasion:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Score Choice policy is clearly not at fault since it merely attempts to provide students with a degree of flexibility and mitigates any excessive anxiety by reminding students that one’s performance within a four-hour time window will not necessarily ruin their academic profile or future opportunities. A more interesting inquiry is why colleges would wish to view every score when superscoring is the standard policy for applicant evaluation purposes and the fact that some scores are not recent aptitude assessments. Considering the reality that universities have no means available to judge whether a given student is using practice material for preparation or the actual test itself, what incentive is there to provide an admission advantage to someone who takes the test least? For the sake of not repeating my own arguments I will simply continue this with what I have already stated: </p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no point in debating the false argument that it is now universal behavior for students to compulsively retake the SAT because of Score Choice. Students use Score Choice for the sake of demonstrating what they have best achieved and considering that superscoring is exercised in the appraisal of an applicant and in universities’ academic profiles, additional testing uniformly serves as superfluous data.</p>
<p>I would a disagree because
someone could pull this off:</p>
<p>200 200 800</p>
<p>200 800 200</p>
<p>800 200 200</p>
<p>Which would technically end up being a 2400.</p>
<p>That scenario has already been discussed and considering the superscoring option, the incentive to engage in idle behavior through two-thirds of the test is already present. The primary deterrent under current Score Choice policy is that these scores would be visible to admissions officers. But I frankly doubt that anyone capable of scoring a 2400 would have the motivation to do so poorly and merely compensate by wasting an additional $90.00 to simply sit through another ten hours of testing.</p>
<p>
I would. Taking a long test requires stamina and I’d love to have to opportunity to focus on specific sections and sit back.</p>
<p>There’s a benefit to be achieved with little marginal cost, so naturally the rational response would be to exploit it.</p>
<p>For the record, I don’t think that option should be allowed—clearly it favors wealthy students.</p>
<p>And no, under current score choice policy, it is <em>not</em> an option—adcomms still see those 200s and they would raise red flags.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I responded to this earlier:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hence, my statement: “The primary deterrent under current Score Choice policy is that these scores would be visible to admissions officers.” That brought up the discussion of offering the Reasoning Test as a series of individual exams similar in the way that the Subject Tests are presently distributed.</p>
<p>This thread is beginning to repeat itself and I dont blame mifune for simply quoting statements made earlier in the thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, I do not feel the need to re-type earlier discussion.</p>
<p>Also, I think we all realize that score choice will not go this far right? I think asking for honest opinion was good tho and to assess pros and cons of which there are many.</p>