The only study I’ve seen is on the College Board’s own site, and it’s a few years old: OSP Technical Report - College Board Research
It also doesn’t claim to demonstrate a huge increase in scores. “Students who used Official SAT Practice for 6+ hours scored an additional 21 points higher than students who did not use the practice tool but 39 points higher when they also demonstrated at least one of the three best practice behaviors.”
That SAT increase from that prep seems to be equivalent to about a half to one ACT point based on concordance tables.
So, not at all a significant increase. Good to see some study results.
My daughter was invited to be a tutor for the ACT or PSAT (I need to go back and check). We set that aside for a while, but it has been in the back of my mind. Have your kids found it to be rewarding or a chore (if a bit of both, did one outweigh the other)? Thank you!
ETA: It was tutoring for SchoolHouse for the upcoming March SAT. I thought it incredibly odd for her to be tagged on this as she had never taken (practice or real) the SAT before.
I believe that once you reach a fairly high plateau it is hard to significantly increase scores through test prep. This also aligns with the guarantees offered by many test prep companies. Once you have a certain score their are no guarantees offered. Below these lines I think that work aligning comfort with the testing format, time management strategies, and training to better understand question formats will provide benefits as practicing fundamentals provides benefits across many things in life.
That said, the College Board has a vested interest in creating studies which show limited improvements from practice. Wide improvements would highlight weaknesses in their current methodology.
Hi, sorry to ask about an old post…but since I’ve come to a similar conclusion I am wondering if you found any further information regarding such algos and how schools use them? Has there been a discussion on the subject in a different thread? Thanks
I agree. The biggest (or perhaps the quickest) gains are from building familiarity in the test process (all in one chunk, timing/pacing for each section, question phrasing, etc). I’m not in the camp that believes if the general public “studies for the test” for a year straight without other academic learning that everyone would be walking out with 1600s.
Wouldn’t you need to look at the SAT scores of the ones that don’t graduate to determine that standardized test scores don’t matter?
They do -but sometimes students somehow slip through the cracks. Having the ACT makes it quick to place students in the right level courses.
Why would the amount of money or ability of parents to donate be a criteria for evaluating admission?
I didn’t even know about Khan Academy or Schoolhouse SAT Tutoring. It’s not well advertised (and I read everything the schools send home). So -not sure that are leveling the playing field that much.
Also - you can be a poor student in a wealthier district.
As a parent of three top test takers who used no paid services (just the $12 SAT prep book from their HS) - I am sick of the complaints that high test scores are only from rich parents sending the kids to the expensive prep places. If you have parents who learned to value studying, you are more likely to value studying and to do well on standardized tests and other tests. Also if your parents learned to value studying they probably make more money than parents who did not. In the same way, if I had a parent who played in the NBA or MLB - I’d be more likely to take my game to a higher level than someone whose parent never made it beyond Little League.
Not sure I buy this. Lots of people who greatly value studying don’t do well on standardized tests. Standardized tests test a fairly narrow set of concepts and are can not really reflect a general love of learning or love of studying. You can love studying history, but hate memorizing mathematical formulas or whatever. You can be a dedicated bookworm, but not do well when a clock is ticking and you have time pressure to respond; you can be great at essays, but overthink multiple choice questions and get them wrong as a result. It is WAY more complex than “if you value studying, you should do great on standardized,” imo.
The fact that one person is not a good test taker is not reason to throw the SAT out the window. The SAT was never the only factor in college admissions. Even 10 years ago it was maybe 20% of the evaluation. My objection is entirely trashing the test as worthless on mostly on flimsy theory that rich kids only do well on it because their parents sent them to Kumon or one of the other prep academies.
In the eyes of those against the SAT, your kids are fortunate to have a parent like you who instilled the value of studying since they were little. What you did, however, is considered unfair to kids whose parents speak no English, are absent from their lives, have no idea what education could bring, or simply dislike education. These disadvantaged kids deserve a fair shot in life, too, say those against the SAT. Therefore, your kids’ SAT scores will be “viewed in context,” which is the same as saying they will be penalized a few hundred points come admission time even though they, like the disadvantaged kids, have done nothing wrong. But your kids are somehow less worthy. It’s sad.
I have never seen this cited as a reason for schools choosing to go test blind or test optional. Not to mention the kids who do well on the tests can still submit their strong scores to test optional schools.
I’ve seen it given often by those groups who want to do away with standardized testing and make the selection process more subjective. The public rationale for the schools doing away with required SAT/ACT is opaque. But my feeling is that it’s been bowing to pressure to groups demanding diversity by any means. If our group does poorly on the SAT, then it must be systemic racism involved so get rid of it. Etc.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true…many have directly said they are doing so in order to increase the diversity of their class. This is exactly what Michigan said this week (just to use a current example).
A number of schools have also published data comparing outcomes of test optional vs test submitters over the last decade or so, which we have talked about at length on this thread.
Have your kids re-tested since volunteering for Schoolhouse? I’m wondering if their own scores increased as a result.
It could be that those who scored high on the SAT or ACT with little or no prep were already using the test-taking tactics that are taught by test prep companies and books.