****! They're changing the SAT AGAIN!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Wood5440
Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:34:59 +0000

Much of the difference between the SAT and the ACT is in the approach they take to the question, ‘What is the test for?’ The SAT began as a test that would level the playing field between students who had social and financial advantages over most other students. The original idea was that one should measure what students could actually do, not who their parents were. But criticism of the test itself intensified as the use of the test expanded, and the College Board found itself constantly on the defensive. First, they had to defend the "achievement’ idea and then they changed it to “aptitude”. Soon they dropped that and it became a test of “developed abilities”. Now they have given up and maintain that the initials SAT don’t really stand for anything. Interestingly, the primary criticism of the SAT now is that it is an instrument for maintaining the advantages of the wealthy over middle and lower income students for a ‘myriad’ of reasons.

At the bottom, I see the fundamental philosophy of the basic SAT to be unchanged in that the test strives (with whatever degree of success) to be a measurement of some essential ‘talent’ for learning (which they call “verbal and mathematical reasoning”) as opposed to measuring the degree to which a student has mastered a specific body of knowledge. That seems to be more the purpose of the AP tests offered by the College Board and of the ACT.

One manifestation of a conservative turn in in American philosophy is an emphasis on utilitarian education. What we learn now must be concretely useful to both the student and the student’s prospective employer. (As opposed to being a contributing factor to the spiritual, social and emotional development of the student as a goal in itself.) I think Coleman’s appointment to lead the College Board is a reflection of that shift, and that is why I expect the SAT to change to follow the trend. If students want to get a preview of coming attractions, Google “Core Curriculum Standards” and read them. Coleman was apparently instrumental in developing them.

I could go on, but won’t except to say that I don’t see any great threat to civilization in these changes, largely because the wealthy have never seen their advantages seriously threatened in the US and because at the bottom of all these tests lies one’s ability to think critically about what one reads and about one’s mathematical problem solving skill. The same students who score well on one will score well on the other.

PS Thanks, Dave, for the definition of DBQ/Synthesis. I like it.