Seems like the easy answer is to make it mandatory for all.
3 Likes
Who would/could make it mandatory for all and why?
Would that make sense when 80% of four year colleges are test blind or test optional?
1 Like
Check out the dozens of states which have done so for high school graduation already. Apparently it isnât hard to do.
1 Like
Yes, I also find this to be puzzling. I am not convinced that factors like âmore money to throw at accommodations and test prepâ would explain a difference between the top 1% and top 0.1%, because it would seem that the top 1% would have enough money for these things and also perhaps more motivation to acquire them, since as @MWolf noted about the top 0.1%, âat that level of wealth, SATs arenât really something that they have to worry about.â
I think it is possible to be curious about why the wealthy are scoring higher (and why the VERY wealthy have an even higher chance of scoring higher), while at the same time feeling that the SAT can be a useful tool in college admissions.
1 Like
Agreed
Does no one want to note that there is a correlation between wealth/earnings and intelligence, that intelligence is heritable and that SAT scores correlate with intelligence?
Whatâs the percentage of top 0.1% wealthy parents who scored the equivalent of >1500 SAT back in the day vs the percentage of top 1% wealthy parents with this score?
3 Likes
Yes, states can make that choice. I thought you were talking about some nationwide mandate.
I also donât know why, if most states require the test to graduate HS, that the proportion of low income students taking a test wouldnât be higher than the 20%-25% numbers that various sources estimate. Clearly there must be some process in some of those states to be exempt from that requirementâŠthat would require some research, state by state, to figure out what is really happening. ETA: just thinking perhaps some states merely offer a state sponsored school day test, but itâs not actually a graduation requirement.
1 Like
And who would pay for it? And couldnât that money be better used to support teachers and schools and buy needed textbooks that our PTA is always trying to scramble to find money for? As a taxpayer, I would much prefer my tax money go to needed school supplies and teacher retention than to mass testing. And actually it is MORE mass testing because we already have state testing. Isnât that enough testing? Would they SAT replace state testing? If so, does that mean we are happier giving our money to the College Board? So my tax money will go to support the College Board rather than local schools? I would not be happy about this personally.
(If it is required for graduation, my understanding of California law is that it would in fact be illegal to require public school students to pay for it themselves.)
1 Like
@RWatterson did mention this,
And I agree. Families that I know in the top 1% are typically headed by smart and well paid professionals. The difference between these people and top 0.1% families in my personal acquaintance circles would seem to be more a matter of fortune rather than smarts⊠such as being one of the early founders in a tech company, or having family money from generations ago.
@MWolf also noted,
I was curious about this statement as I wasnât sure what was meant by âevery other academic achievementâ? But if this is true, it would seem to indicate that the high SAT scores for the very wealthy would be a function of something other than extraordinarily high intelligence at that level.
I donât think Yale has that power. Regardless, this still wouldnât address the second part. Kids who take the test and donât score 1500+ donât think they have a chance at Yale so they donât bother applying. It is impossible for Yale to adjust for students who donât apply.
1 Like
California could of course choose not to offer the test for free to all its students as part of the school day (and thus ensure poorer students have access to it).
Other states make different choices. The choices they make determine what percentage of their own poor residents take the test.
No college can adjust for those who donât apply, or who drop out of high school, or choose other paths or whatever. Colleges do the best they can with applicants they have and try to grow that pool.
1 Like
This was one of the objectives of the TO policies. TO expands the pool and brings in qualified applicants who wouldnât otherwise apply. This positive is almost completely ignored by those who insist that tests must be mandatory for all schools.
I actually agree with @roycroftmom that statewide School Day SAT might benefit students in CA, many of whom have difficulty getting access to conveniently located test sites. I have looked at the pricing model and there are discounts for low-income students and for multiple assessments. Perhaps CA could also persuade College Board to offer additional discounts due to the huge number of students in our state.
3 Likes
Time will tell if the test mandatory colleges are able to do this. Historically they havenât been able to.
And weâve heard from mitchris how hard it is, even with dedicated staffers. These schools canât control testing availability, anti-testing sentiment, counselors telling students no need to test because âthese test required schools donât want students like youâ (Iâve personally heard this, more than once) and âmost schools are test blind/test optionalâ, counselors telling a FGLI and/or URM to not apply with a test score of 1400 (or whatever) because they see the reported score ranges of these schools. I could go on but you get the point.
Well, they could expand the pool even more by not requiring a high school diploma either, but most colleges feel it is an important prerequisite. If some feel the same for the SAT, so be it.
2 Likes
I donât disagree a state testing day could help. One would just need a politico to advocate for that change and use their âchitsâ. In a world of pick your battles, mandatory testing seems quite insignificant in the education landscape especially in California.
1 Like
Given that 85% of students 85% of CA students attend colleges that donât ask for the SAT, it seems more like a for-profit boondoggle for the College Board than anything useful to CA students. It also reinforces the false notion that these tests are more meaningful than they really are.
1 Like
Or it gives more students a better chance at the many merit scholarships out there to those with good scores. Anyway, the states that have it seem happy. Cali can stay in Cali if it wishes
I would certainly like to see increased access to testing for those students who want to test, but I still have reservations about the funding model and the degree to which the College Board ultimately financially benefits from the requirement.
Ultimately the school districts would have to pay for it, however. The state I suppose would need to kick in some money. Even with discounts, many districts are strapped for cash.
I think it would be great if more schools could offer it, creating more testing sites, but once it becomes required, then the school has to foot the bill. (At least for public schools, private schools can require fees from students.)
Donât most students in the US as a whole attend colleges that arenât selective, though?