Yes this lines up with the target SAT scores in my day. For elite schools, you needed 1300+ to be in range with 1400+ as your goal. Now it is 1400/1500. Not knowing about the recentering when my kids applied, I was shocked by how high the 25/75 scores were in the CDS’s.
I realize that some (now flagged) comments above are either kids being kids or kids who don’t know what they don’t know, but nevertheless I hope this book (graphic novel) gets translated. It’s actually fun and the concepts, which are essential to contemporary social analysis, are made very easy to understand through various teens’ lives and experiences.
https://www.amazon.com/Distinction-Librement-inspiré-Pierre-Bourdieu-ebook/dp/B0CL21W5DV/
I think it’d be a great book to discuss in AP Lang.
Btw adcoms are fully cognizant of the concepts developed and that informs their reading of " 501(c) founder", “charity trip to third world nation” “worked 30h at McDonalds” “playing handball”, test scores etc.
Intelligence is also correlated to wealth.
Test prep is free.
3 Likes
Examples: Poet. Physics researcher. Journalist. Archeologist. Family doctor. Akkadian specialist. Environmental biologist.
BTW, Yale seems to be very wary of kids who equate intelligence = STEM = wealth
Correlation does not equal causation.
There are plenty of wealthy poets, physicists, journalists, doctors, environmentalists, etc, btw. I dont know what an Akkadian specialist is, forgive me.
1 Like
Move on. This isn’t a debate society, particularly when debating off-topic subjects
Agree with this observation. That was how my kids prepped, do a lot of practice tests because there are clear patterns of questions and time management is critical.
However, I suspect this improvement based on familiarity is at the margins at the upper end. The questions themselves are pretty basic math concepts that everyone on a college track should have been taught in HS and the EBRW section tests basic reading comprehension and writing/editing skills. So, for the vast majority of scores, I would think it reveals different levels of base competency in the subjects. A 1400 from a student from a disadvantaged background, represents that diamond in the rough that I believe exists and many on this forum pooh pooh. I say this with conviction because one of my roommates and best friends was that kid and he ended up as CFO of a company that most anyone would be familiar with.
To say any test that could be prepped for makes it useless is saying too much. The LSAT’s, MCATS, GRE’s, GMAT’s and almost all licensing exams involve prepping by taking practice exams. That was most definitely the case for me for both the NY Bar and the Series 7.
11 Likes
doesn’t your “fact” depend on why a person is missing the question? If one doesn’t understand right triangles, all the repeat tests will not suddenly turn that person into the second coming of Euclid.
btw: what about the ACT, which is much more straight-forward & focused on material, but that requires speed. The questions on the so-called Science test are rather simple chart/data interpretation, but speed is of the essence. In contract, the SAT asks questions in a ‘roundabout’ way but gives ample time for many. (There is more than one way to get to Rome, and more than one way to test. For my two, one did well on the SAT and literally bombed the ACT, whereas my other one did just the opposite.)
Right and spending cycles discussing the SAT is not gonna address the root problem, K12.
But they are in college and can/will receive a college degree. Not sure what your point is here, or are you suggesting that testing kept them out of a higher ranked college?
3 Likes
I hereby nominate BlueBayou for breaking the internet today. Spit out my coffee trying to laugh and cry at the same time. Bravo!
9 Likes
I believe MWolf’s fact is applicable to those SAT 1400+ kids who already mastered the material and are aiming for perfection, where doing multiple practice tests will bring them closer. His fact is not applicable to those below 1200 who may not have understood how to simply fractions, calculate percentages, interpret graphs/tables, find the y-intercept of a straight line, etc., all of which would require review of the material. These basic math skills are really not too much to ask for someone on a college track, STEM focused or not.
1 Like
Umm, why then do many colleges offer remedial education? In my state, nearly half of the entering Cal State Frosh require remedial ed in math and/or English.
Regardless, MWolf made no such distinction. Are we concerned about FGLI students getting into college or are we only concerned about them getting into hyper-selective sleep-away colleges?
1 Like
I support requiring test scores because generally more data points are better than fewer and gpa is becoming less predictive. Wealthier kids have an advantage on most aspects of the application due to having both schools and parents with more resources (and the wealthier the school, the more likely there is to be grade inflation). Colleges will have to control for that at the review stage.
The one concern I have is accessibility of the test, but I think that will return to pre covid status as more schools return to test required.
2 Likes
Speaking of math only, kids who are asked to take remedial classes normally don’t go into these classes knowing nothing about the topics. For example, they have heard of the quadratic formula, but aren’t sure how to correctly apply it and/or what does the discriminant say about the number of real roots. Or they have heard of sine and cosine, but keep mixing up their definitions or didn’t see how they would be helpful when solving problems involving right triangles. Remedial classes provide them a chance to solidify these fundamentals. SAT preps like Khan Academy would, too, even if they don’t end up taking the SAT.
Didn’t the CSU system get rid of all remedial math and English classes a few years ago? I’d be curious to see where you got this info - can you post a link?
1 Like
Here’s an interesting article from 2019 about CSU reformed it remediation program. Not sure what it looks like post-COVID, though.
1 Like
yes, in an experiment to boost graduation rates, in 2017, CSU eliminated the non-credit remedial courses. Instead of mandated remedial non-credit work, now students get special assistance in for-credit Algebra (“essentials”) and other math courses (Intro). The taxpayers are still footing the bill for this alternative form of remediation.
At Cal State Northridge, 40% still fail math. OTOH, students at Sac State have shown improvement. It’s too early to see if Grad rates will improve.
1 Like
I mean, of course, you need to have some background to do well on the SATs - if you are illiterate, you won’t do well on the SATs no matter how well you try. If you don’t know basic math, no amount of training will help. But we have kids who are doing well on the SATs without having taken trig and pre-calc, and who really cannot use what they learned when training for the SATs in any meaningful ways. In fact, I know people who teach classes which require the material covered by the SATs, and the students, who did well on the SATs, are incapable of using what they learned.
In fact, I have taught and TAed undergraduates who did well on the SATs and who don’t even understand the very basics of algebra. My wife has taught undergrads who aced the SATs ho didn’t really understand what a variable is.
Multiple tests won’t help a slow kid or an entirely ignorant kid do well on the SATs, but it can allow an average kid to do very well, and an above average kid to ace the SATs. So is the average kid who was a solid B/B- with training who gets 1350 on the SATs better than the above average B+/A- who did not train for the SATs and got a 1300? I’m giving grades without grade inflation. Or is another B+/A- kid who trained and got 1500 on the SATs better than the A kid who didn’t train and got 1450?
Training can allow a B students to get a B+ to A- equivalent on testing and a B+ student to match A students.
As for the ACTs, training is even more important, and not training in how to understand what the answer should be, but to do it quickly. That is something else that doesn’t indicate any deeper or wider understanding of the material, just a learned or innate skill in solving problems quickly. Moreover, speed at that level is not something that is required either in college or in the workforce, at least not that level of speed.
That is my point.
I am simply stating that their lower SAT scores are not indicative of these students being academically inferior than their wealthier peers.
Regarding “elite” colleges, public and private, my argument is that using SAT scores to gatekeep admissions gives a boost to higher income students not because wealthier students are smarter or better prepared, but because being wealthy allows them to perform better on the SATs.
My first issue is, and has always been, with using SAT scores, whether individually, for high school averages, or for the average for admitted students in a college, as an indication of academic talent or intelligence.
My second issue is that using SAT scores as a proxy for a student’s mastery of the material that they learned in high school and have retained is also problematic, if the SAT scores of a wealthy kid will be 200 points higher than the score of a mid income kid with the same mastery of the material.
A second post, sorry:
That is indeed what I meant, though I would say below 1000, rather than below 1200.
1 Like
I certainly hope and expect that is the case. “Bribing” is a strong word, and it is not that to which I intended to allude. It’s more in the sense of people manipulating situations that may have some element of legitimacy but are being abused for illegitimate purposes.
But my main point was that parents who can influence both because they can pay for diagnoses and know how to advocate (and have the discretionary time to advocate) tend to be better off financially. At least that’s how I would expect the data shake out.