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

[mifune]

<p>

Also, I think we all realize that score choice will not go this far right?

</p>

<p>Oh, of course. Considering that many colleges refuse to honor the Score Choice policy as it is currently, a further liberalization would not be likely although it certainly is not a one-sided argument.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>

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.

You’re embracing a false dichotomy.</p>

<p>Just because you don’t qualify for a fee waiver doesn’t mean you’re wealthy. Fee waivers are pretty difficult to get, and most middle class families don’t qualify. However, that doesn’t mean they’re rich enough to afford 2 extra tests. I know my parents wouldn’t stand for it.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<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.

Right. You still haven’t responded to the original argument: what would deter a student from simply breaking the test into 3 sections?</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Just because you don’t qualify for a fee waiver doesn’t mean you’re wealthy. Fee waivers are pretty difficult to get, and most middle class families don’t qualify. However, that doesn’t mean they’re rich enough to afford 2 extra tests.

</p>

<p>Sure, I do not qualify for a fee waiver even though my family earns $40,000 per year. But the College Board truly does make an effort to accommodate circumstances that prevent a student from affording the exam.</p>

<p>

I know my parents wouldn’t stand for it.

</p>

<p>If that is the case, then why did you state that you would simply neglect two-thirds in order to focus on one section at a time in that hypothetical scenario?</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>

But the College Board truly does make an effort to accommodate circumstances that prevent a student from affording the exam.

Sure, maybe one exam—but they don’t give waivers for multiple exams.</p>

<p>

If that is the case, then why did you state that you would simply neglect two-thirds in order to focus on one section at a time in that hypothetical scenario?

If I could afford it, I would do so. However, I wouldn’t be able to. Thus, it creates a new socioeconomic effect on results—something you’d think the CB would want to avoid.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

what would deter a student from simply breaking the test into 3 sections?

</p>

<p>Basically the wish to avoid spending an additional sum of money, avoid having to take the test over the course of more than one test date, and many students have some sense of intrinsic motivation to not simply dismiss two-thirds of the test when the option is available to put forth one’s best effort on the initial attempt.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

but they don’t give waivers for multiple exams.

</p>

<p>Up to four, actually - two on the Reasoning Test, two for the Subject Tests ([SAT</a> Fee Waivers](<a href=“The SAT – SAT Suite | College Board”>The SAT – SAT Suite | College Board)).</p>

<p>

Thus, it creates a new socioeconomic effect on results—something you’d think the CB would want to avoid.

</p>

<p>Under the theoretical policy in the original post, that influence could be eliminated if the test were to be simply separated into three sixty- to seventy-minute exams. It would also allow for more flexibility in a student’s testing schedule and would not be any less partial than the method in which the SAT II is presently administered.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>

Basically the wish to avoid spending an additional sum of money,

If your family is very wealthy, this is a neglible concern.

avoid having to take the test over the course of more than one test date

Considering the importance of the SAT in the admissions process, this is a rather weak deterrent.

and many students have some sense of intrinsic motivation to not simply dismiss two-thirds of the test when the option is available to put forth one’s best effort on the initial attempt.

Sure, but there are clearly plenty of students who will exploit a system. Just look at the statistics of students who cheat in school.</p>

<p>

Up to four, actually - two on the Reasoning Test, two for the Subject Tests (SAT Fee Waivers).

By this, I meant that they don’t give waivers to students for whom one exam is not a burden but 3 would be.</p>

<p>

Under the theoretical policy in the original post, that influence could be eliminated if the test were to be simply separated into three sixty- to seventy-minute exams.

There’s a $20 fee for each examination. So, it would be $40 cheaper to take it in one sitting—a not insignificant amount of money for a lower middle class teenager.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

If your family is very wealthy, this is a neglible concern.

</p>

<p>Actually, spending an additional $45 or $90 is a fairly negligible amount of money considering the payoff of potentially attending a university of higher quality.</p>

<p>

Considering the importance of the SAT in the admissions process, this is a rather weak deterrent.

</p>

<p>It would certainly be an inconvenience and I can assure that many would prefer to complete the SAT experience after one test sitting rather than over the course of three or more, especially if mental fatigue is not issue.</p>

<p>

Sure, but there are clearly plenty of students who will exploit a system. Just look at the statistics of students who cheat in school.

</p>

<p>Just as there are many students who exploit the current Score Choice system by not honoring the score submission demands of those who do not honor the policy.</p>

<p>The main point is that superscoring is the uniform policy by which colleges evaluate their students and particularly for purposes of boosting their academic profiles. Why not allow students to eliminate all extraneous data and submit the scores that best reflect their scholastic abilities?</p>

[hotinpursuit]

<p>The SAT should clearly not superscore. By doing this, they are increasing their average score(that is sent to colleges). But, the ACT does not superscore in any way. It’s a one time shot.
Now, it is easier to get a higher superscore on the SAT. Weirdly enough, I feel CB has a good reason for this. </p>

<p>The reason CB decided to superscore is that they foresaw that the number of ACT takers is increasing exponentially(quite a common fact), while the SAT population is decreasing. People are finding that the ACT is a much better test(no tricks, just pure knowledge). Therefore, SAT needs its student population back. How to do this? Increase the average high scorer’s score by 100+ points. A smart ploy in itself, but unfair it would seem to some who score well on the ACT but do relatively poor on the SAT. </p>

<p>I guess that category fits me, so there is some bias in my opinion, but it still seems like a valid explanation.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>^ Some colleges do superscore the ACT. </p>

<p>

no tricks, just pure knowledge

</p>

<p>An aptitude test, not an achievement test, would be better as a metric for college admissions officers; they should care more about what the students will learn than what the students have learned. Moreover, I have never seen a trick on any SAT test.</p>

[hotinpursuit]

<p>I was under the assumption we were talking about Ivies. </p>

<p>And I see your point that the future is more important than the past, but the tests have been regarded with equality in admissions(as mostly all colleges say)</p>

<p>The tricks I refer to are ones that cause careless errors. I constantly see people blaming mid-700 scores in math due to careless errors. Similarly, the reading passages involve questions and answers that are often ‘jumbled’ up. In contrast, the ACT reading questions are very straightforward.</p>

[kameronsmith]

<p>I have never seen a trick question on the SAT. All questions are phrased in straightforward ways that anyone of reasonable aptitude can understand.</p>

<p>

The tricks I refer to are ones that cause careless errors. I constantly see people blaming mid-700 scores in math due to careless errors.

careless errors ≠ tricks; I make careless errors, sure, but I don’t blame them on “tricks” — I blame them on not reading the question well. To do anything else would be to embrace victimization and shirk personal responsibility.</p>

<p>

In contrast, the ACT reading questions are very straightforward.

That may be: they tend to be more factual and involve regurgitation. Which seems awfully stupid to me. A student’s knowledge is generally <em>not</em> a good indicator of how likely they are to perform in college.</p>

<p>Full disclosure: I scored a 226 on PSAT and a 28 on PLAN.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Originally Posted by hotinpursuit
The reason CB decided to superscore is that they foresaw that the number of ACT takers is increasing exponentially(quite a common fact), while the SAT population is decreasing.

</p>

<p>More precisely, the SAT population is not quite growing at the rate of the ACT population.</p>

<p>

Originally Posted by hotinpursuit
Increase the average high scorer’s score by 100+ points.

</p>

<p>Please support your belief that Score Choice has suddenly elevated the typical student’s SAT superscore by over one hundred points. Score Choice was implemented due to a variety of factors. College Board’s foremost objective was to match the ACT’s longstanding policy of submitting the most favorable results to thereafter allow students an equal degree of liberality.</p>

<p>

Originally Posted by hotinpursuit
And I see your point that the future is more important than the past, but the tests have been regarded with equality in admissions(as mostly all colleges say)

</p>

<p>Based on data that points in a different direction even despite reasonable compensations for demographics, I am skeptical to mindlessly accept the claim that each test in equitably evaluated.</p>

<p>

Originally Posted by silverturtle
An aptitude test, not an achievement test, would be better as a metric for college admissions officers; they should care more about what the students will learn than what the students have learned. Moreover, I have never seen a trick on any SAT test.

</p>

<p>

Originally Posted by kameronsmith
I have never seen a trick question on the SAT. All questions are phrased in straightforward ways that anyone of reasonable aptitude can understand.

</p>

<p>

Originally Posted by kameronsmith
A student’s knowledge is generally <em>not</em> a good indicator of how likely they are to perform in college.

</p>

<p>I agree with the above comments. The SAT is not designed to favor those who are less likely to be deceived and faults are often associated with misapprehension (which may be what you are referencing) rather than a ploy to deliberately mislead. </p>

<p>Aside from that, here is more to consider: </p>

<p>If universities uniformly and unwaveringly claim to evaluate students’ scores through the highest section scores, doesn’t it suggest that requiring the submission of all scores reveals that these are being used for purposes other than for meritocratic assessment? At what point and to what extent does the revelation of poorer earlier performances negatively affect one’s candidacy?</p>

[hotinpursuit]

<p>Ok thanks for clearing up some of my misconceptions. </p>

<p>As for the other topic:
I would have to say that even a single previous test score will affect a candidate negatively because it tarnishes the image of a person, however minute the effect may be.</p>

<p>@ mifune
You write extremely well - your word choice and the structure of your sentences are remarkable.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

You write extremely well - your word choice and the structure of your sentences are remarkable.

</p>

<p>The polarization is amusing. :)</p>

[antonioray]

<p>

I would have to say that even a single previous test score will affect a candidate negatively because it tarnishes the image of a person, however minute the effect may be.

</p>

<p>My son, you are trying too hard.</p>

<p>I don’t think anyone doubts a subpar score hurts your overall score report. However, one should keep in mind that colleges are aware that most kids do not storm in and storm out with 2400s. Therefore, it may be more advantageous to send 2 score reports: one showing a modest score, and the other showing a drastic improvement over said modest score.</p>

<p>If the issue at hand is actually how many times one had to take the test to achieve a desirable score, then score choice becomes more critical in its suppression of what may be a laundry list of “failed” attempts.</p>