Parents, you're stupid!

<p>From [Who</a> is the Real ‘Dumbest Generation’? - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120502601.html?nav=hcmoduletmv]Who”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120502601.html?nav=hcmoduletmv)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>(I wonder if someone will point out to the author that someone – me, for example – who was born in 1957, which is the “late 1950s,” isn’t in her late 40s anymore, but is now nearly 52, which ain’t in the 40s at all, late or otherwise. But what the hey; maybe the author was born in the early 60s, so his math deficiency isn’t his fault.)</p>

<p>That’s okay with me. My SAT scores weren’t that high (I wouldn’t get into BC today) but I’ve managed to do reasonably well with the few working brain cells available.</p>

<p>Haha, owlice, since I was born in 1951, I am smart!!!</p>

<p>oh, c’mon, we know they’ve just “dumbed down” the tests…</p>

<p>ug … OK, let’s see a few of the problems with this analysis (I didn’t read the article but am responding to the experts). A couple minor issues. </p>

<p>First, a ton more kids take the SATs than used to. In general in the 60s the kids who took the SATS were dominated by kids shooting for more elite schools … over time who takes the SAT has moved lower into HS classes as more and more graduates head to college. That may just have a slight effect on the average SAT score.</p>

<p>Second, the SAT scale is adjusted occationally … the recent recentering added, on average about 100 points to a score compared to when I took the test … so perhaps these changes in the grading scale make make comparing averages slightly risky.</p>

<p>New math I blame it on “New Math” - at least it was new in 1967-1969.</p>

<p>Re op: my used to be teenagers used to act like as if that is so. So their opinion is supported by fact ??!! :eek:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s addressed in the article, 3togo. </p>

<p>munchkin, I’m afraid so!! Don’t let them know, however, or you will never hear the end of it!!!</p>

<p>I went to the same high school that my DS attended and my DD is still attending. We even shared a few of the same teachers. I took the most rigorous schedule available at the time - and my kids are also on that track.</p>

<p>When I look at what they are doing - and, thanks to a pack rat mother, compare some of their work to mine, the expectations are much higher on this bunch of kids. My English essays from my senior year - which got A’s - would have gotten C’s at best. They go further in Math and Science - more like what I was doing in College. Social Studies is about the same and Foreign Languages have gotten easier (although I would say that is more a function of a great teacher when I was in school vs their teacher.). </p>

<p>Are they smarter than I was at that age? In some ways sure - in other ways perhaps not - but they certainly are better educated.</p>

<p>My kids got about the same math and science as we did; H and I did much more work in English and History. </p>

<p>And our SAT’s, recentered, would be higher than the kids (in raw numbers, roughly the same.) Where did we go wrong? ;)</p>

<p>Maybe it was all those psycho-wacko hallucinogens and water-bongs while listening to Dark Side of the Moon that our generation imbibed in! :eek:</p>

<p>didn’t they reformulate the scale a few years ago. I remember seeing a chart that said if you got XXXX on the old version that is really YYYY on the new version.</p>

<p>That said, my son’s combined score (math/reading) was 400 points higher than my score. I would not have been accepted where he is now, NYU.</p>

<p>Right, sueinphilly, the people at the Washington Post may have forgotten the re-centering of SAT scores. Info at
<a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools;
shows that “730 is the new 800” verbal (CR)–i.e., if you’re of the “parent generation” and you scored 730+, your score corresponds to an 800 now. Similarly, 780 M on the old scale converts to 800 now. 500 on the original SAT V was re-centered to 580; 500 M to 520.</p>

<p>OP - You’ve got it all wrong. The 17-year decline was a strategic effort to position 40-somethings for a government bailout!</p>

<p>I am closer to 60 than to 40 and the main difference I see is that everyone I knew took it cold - no prep at all. We showed up with pencils and had never seen even a practice test. There was no PSAT. No one took it more than once either. I had no idea what was on the test, but according to QuantMech’s post, I scored a 800 on the verbal. We won’t be discussing my math score, however.</p>

<p>Oh, yeah, forgot to mention with my last post–we need to have Congress distribute something like 700 billion SAT points.</p>

<p>this thread is hysterical; owlice: thanks for the link…I knew I was stupid, but now I see why…because I took the SAT cold, once and was done!!! Boy, those were the good old days…</p>

<p>owlice, I saw that article yesterday, too…S1 would be 90 points lower on CR+M using the old scale (and 10 points lower than his dad’s CR+M).</p>

<p>When I rescale my score and throw in my perfect TSWE score, I’d have a 730 CR, 630 M and 800 W (and I had the second highest SAT score at my HS). Boy, the CC denizens would be all over my sorry unbalanced tail to retake and bring up that math!!!</p>

<p>Anyone wonder what they’d get if they took the SAT today, cold? I’ve been doing the SAT question of the day, I do pretty well with the verbal but the math is a disaster.</p>

<p>I can’t believe it!</p>

<p>My 773V became 800, significantly above the score required to ceiling the recentered test, but my 700M went DOWN to a 690! I protest!! Virtually everyone else’s scores went UP!!!</p>

<p>I’ve been robbed! ;)</p>