<p>I agree with those who have cited all sorts of methodological concerns with this particular study. It’s hard to believe that the College Board has not done some pretty extensive research on this already. For example, when they added the new writing sections:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>from “The Research Behind the New SAT”</p>
<p>The College Board’s analysis of their research can sometimes be self-serving, but I think it’s usually pretty solid data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those whose constituencies have a more difficult time being competitive in admissions if they are evaluated on a level playing field.</p>
<p>The problem of only 24 questions is that one silly mistake would really distort the score.</p>
<p>A great deal more testing would have to be done with a much more diverse set of students. You can’t project from a limited data set of three colleges which admit students within a band of scores to the general universe.</p>
<p>Why is it wrong to have a long, difficult admissions test? There are people who get the top scores and easily handle the stresses of the length; do we have to accomodate the majority with a ceiling on the test so that they don’t feel frustrated, tired et al? Sometimes it seems those near the top think they should be able to do everything without any struggle; let the rare individual who is used to breezing through everything have to work to get their score. With a valid test the added endurance factor helps sort out those at the pinnacle while the rest of us are not hurt by it. Remember the scoring reported is not a percentage right, but rather a comparison amongst test takers.</p>
<p>The test is too long for one sitting, but the solution is simple.</p>
<p>Take the Writing section out of the SAT 1 test day, and offer it along with SAT II tests.</p>
<p>Most colleges are not using the Writing score anyway. Those that want it, should require it, just as they may for SAT II Subject tests.</p>
<p>This is fair, and it is more comparable to the way students have been tested for decades.</p>
<p>right - a 15 minute test would keep everyone happy - it would finally become THE PERFECT TEST</p>
<p>In the Land of Oz no doubt</p>
<p>“There’s a difference between the Bar and the LSATs, in that the former is a test of the knowledge required to practice law, while the latter is a test of ability”</p>
<p>The bar is not a test that proves anything about the ability to practice law - apparently you are not a lawyer</p>
<p>This “study” clearly is POINTLESS - a non-solution to a non-problem</p>