These were intuitive for D22, who doesn’t really know any of the rules but reads A LOT.
Having said that, while on one hand you bleed points in writing, it’s the easiest to fix. A small amount of time working through the Erica Meltzer Grammar Book can really help.
I had a part time job as a copy editor / typesetter when I was in high school (it was a pretty cool job at a local science fiction book publisher), and this experience definitely served me well when I took the SAT.
As for the Article, I’m not paying to read it, but the very first sentences are pretty indicative of its quality. In that very first paragraph, we have everything from cherry picking results and use of hyperbole.
So they look at increase in graduation rates at two high schools in one city in one state, Springfield Massachusetts, and claim " High scores on the SAT, a college-admissions test, have tumbled by 15%". Not a drop in the average, not an increase in the number of kids with very low scores, but a drop of 15% in the top scores. Then they use “tumble”, implying some serious collapse, rather than something that is barely a dip, and is consistent with normal variation.
They also call the SATs, “a college-admissions test”, which is very clearly, an attempt to push their political point. I mean, who among the readers of The Economist doesn’t know what the SATs are, and suddenly needs an explanation? Moreover, the SAT is NOT a “college admissions test”. They are only making that claim to drum up the hysteria of “THIS IS HURTING THEIR CHANCES OF GETTING INTO COLLEGE!!!”
As for the graph. Oh man, where do I even begin. First - exactly where is this data from? Are these the only SAT scores that the students did? How are the ACT scores converted? Both IL and MI mostly did ACTs in 2007. Is a 14 on the ACT converted to a 780 or to an 820? How did they decide which is which? Did they convert before or after they checked whether a student dropped out?
Are these data from all schools, or only a small subset of high schools?
Of course, let us also talk about the fact that the SAT scores in 2007 were on a 2400 scale, while in 2022, they were on a 2400 scale. How did they convert? They’re not even mentioning the fact on the graph.
Finally, the most glaring and revealing point of the entire graph: they fail to mention that 2022 was right after the pandemic. They are trying to push a narrative of some long-term trend between 2007 and 2022, while pretending that there didn’t just happen to be a global pandemic in 2020 and 2021 (and 2022).
I am also sorry, but you are trying to support your claim that higher scores on the SATs demonstrate higher mastery of the material. However, this graph already assumes the point that you are trying to make.
You are, essentially, saying: “the fact that this study assumes that higher scores on the SATs demonstrate higher mastery of the material supports my claim that higher scores on the SATs demonstrate higher mastery of the material”
That is either Begging the Question, “assuming that X is true, that proves that X is true”, or it is Argument from Authority “these researchers assume that higher scores on the SATs demonstrate higher mastery of the material, therefore this assumption must be correct”.
All that the graph demonstrates is that, in these fours states, students who did not do well on the SATs in 2021, during the pandemic, were more likely to graduate than students who did their SATs in 2006. Nothing more.
Classic.
“I’m not going to read it, but here’s why it’s wrong”.
Why not give it a chance before trying to dismiss it.
Talk about bias.
And no, I didn’t read your rebuttal to the Economist. Want to know why? You didn’t read the article.
I am biased against paying for stuff that I don’t actually need.
That’s your loss.
To have a descriptive phrase describing the SATs in that way is class writing in The Economist. There is no hidden agenda there. The Economist is a British publication with worldwide readership. Not all their readers know what the SATs are, and they do not suffer from Americentrism.
And the SATs are pretty much a college admissions test. I mean I don’t think too many high school kids decide to take the SATs because they are bored on a Saturday morning and feel like doing some math problems and reading some passages. The test exists for and is used extensively in college admissions.
Posts deleted. Please stay on topic.
I disagree, but, even if they are, I still claim that it was inserted there for the reasons that I stated above.
Far more students sit for the Gaokao, but neither I nor the Economist would presume everyone is familiar with it. Additional explanation never hurts. For those who read articles.
I’m pretty certain that articles written in China for a Chinese audience don’t explain what the Gaokao is. That is the American version of The Economist published in the USA for a USA audience.
Let’s look at the British version, all about the A-levels. Do they explain what the A-levels are? No, they jump right into it. They do explain the International Baccalaureate, because it’s not British, but assume that the reader knows what A-levels are:
Actually it is the comma. I and a friend of mine both took the verbal section of the SAT on Bluebook out of curiosity. We are both HYP+ undergraduate and graduate alumni with honors. We scored in the 600’s because of comma and punctuation rules, both missing only 1 question involving reading comprehension. After learning about 10 rules, we both scored in the mid 700’s. Test prep does, in our own experience, and in the empirical data make a difference of about 100-200 points. Our HS has already had 2 school-sponsored SAT mock exams for our current sophomores, and we’ve had multiple counselor meetings to discuss this. This simply isn’t the case in other districts.
And if you want to talk about Bronx Science and Stuyvesant, you’re really talking about poor and underprivileged asians. And that’s a whole different situation - it’s a cultural situation. Thousands of years of culture embracing nation-wide examinations under Confucianism. Also not a significant factor in Yonkers.
Neglect or undercounting of the advantages of wealth and birth perpetuates the privileged perception of superiority. Yes a poor child can succeed, but it does take more. And yes, fewer poor children will likely succeed, for the same reason - it’s harder. Other things that perpetuate the privileged sense of superiority? >70% of athletic recruits being wealthy and privileged. >70% of legacy admits being wealthy and privileged. That secures 1/4 of college seats to the wealthy and privileged before the game even starts. Now let’s talk about how some poor, disadvantaged kid can just figure it out like everyone else.
My best friend and I both scored >99% on the LSAT prior to admission to top 10 law schools coming from HYP+ undergraduate degrees with honors. Glad that your high schooler is so intuitive. That grammar isn’t taught in schools with any regularity. So, without test prep, there’s a fairness problem.
About 50% (48.6% for 2021/22 which is the most recent data) of ALL public school students in the US qualify for free or reduced lunch (based on need…a higher proportion of students actually receive free/reduced lunch because some schools provide it to all students, regardless of need).
I agree test prep is relatively more important in some cultures. But the reality is that a student’s k-12 education is the most important part of that prep, which is where many students have ‘lost’ or fallen behind well before college admissions.
If learning 10 rules about commas can improve SAT scores by 100 points, then test prep is even easier and more accessible than I surmised. I mean it is not really fair that Confucius identified those 10 rules many years ago, giving his adherents a massive advantage on the SAT. Now that they have been uncovered, however, the kids in Yonkers can finally boost their scores.
I guess you’re trying either to be sarcastic or funny. Either way, if you’re trying to say that it’s just as easy for poor students as rich, you really need to check your privilege.
If you think it’s just as easy to learn from a couple review books as having a prep course, a lot of rich people really are wasting their money on private coaching, personal trainers and college counselors. I mean all you need is a tennis racquet and an empty court, a fitness app and a barnes and noble near you right? So easy. So simple. So fair and equal. It’s just as easy to go find a book and schedule time to review it in an organized way as to get driven to weekly classes in mommy’s Rivian. That kid really shows a lot of initiative scrolling her instagram in the back seat.
It’s impossible to imagine that as a class, that wealthy and privileged kids will do better on the SAT - with the same amount of initiative and hard work - because mommy and daddy are sophisticated and savvy enough to pull them away from Fortnite. Or are around. Or aren’t working the night shift.
And no, commas are not Confucianism, but neither is lacrosse or theater. A true nationalized exam would lead to exactly the kind of meritocracy that the privileged can’t handle - a Harvard that looks like Stuyvesant. It’s really to be expected that >70% of the recruited athletes in the Ivy League are privileged and wealthy. That’s just how all elite sports look. Rich kids dominate the NBA, NFL and Olympics right? Check your privilege.
In The Economist article that contains a phrase explaining that the SATs are a college admissions test, they use the British spelling of “neighbouring”.
They didn’t switch the spelling on the US website, and they didn’t remove the phrase. Nothing to really see here. Time to move on.
That seems to make sense as it’s a paywalled article that most of us don’t have access to, so can’t read it.
Yes, they are when it comes to test prep. Khan Academy is excellent, and free.
Reminder to users that our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others.
Posts will be edited to comply with ToS or removed.
I used to think that way too, and pointed out earlier that improving SAT scores takes a lot more than learning rules about commas. But then it was pointed out back to me that this is completely wrong. SAT scores can in fact be improved 100 points by learning 10 simple rules about commas. Furthermore, I learned that long-time adherents to Confucius do well in the SATs.
So I figured that these 10 rules about commas must be hidden from the general public, but somehow known to long-time adherents of Confucius. But then I also learned that the 10 rules are known to the wealthy (who keep them hidden from Yonkers residents), and can be uncovered by graduates of Top 10 law schools. It all started to get very confusing and somewhat conspiratorial.
To be honest, it all seems rather far fetched. I think I will go back to my initial conclusion — it takes a lot more than knowing rules about commas to do well on the SATs. I think most people can agree with that.