Jump to content

The SAT Disadvantage score


rukawa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Saw that, not sure what the right answer is, but kids who have families that can pay for test prep/go to better schools etc. are clearly at an advantage. When I was a kid my parents didn't even know what the SAT was, I studied for it by checking out an old prep book from the library, while I worked a part time job bagging groceries. I did well enough to get into college, but I had no chance vs the people who were in the know about the stakes of it and had the money to prepare, given the same intelligence. So I'm not sure how comparable our scores were. I bet there are enough people out there who are pretty smart, but just don't have the resources to prepare, which is skewing the results enough that they have decided to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAT and standardized tests are more about aptitude than test prep or circumstance. Math/logic and grammar/spelling... you either know it or you don't. If you have to memorize how to find the measurement of an angle or what quintessential means... you probably are going to struggle in life anyway. Common sense gets you to 650+ on each section, which along with solid grades and a bit of extracurriculars, gets you into most schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like the alteration is implemented to help traditionally under represented races such as Hispanics and African Americans stand out during the application process.  I have a "hunch" that this may actually uncover that Asian Americans in the rough neighborhoods are actually outperforming.  So a new objective score that is supposed to uncover outperformers in predominantly Hispanic and African American school districts may once again find itself uncovering that Asian American students outperform in these rough neighborhoods.  It could get a bit awkward. 

 

Let's not forget that there are actually poor Asian students. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAT and standardized tests are more about aptitude than test prep or circumstance. Math/logic and grammar/spelling... you either know it or you don't. If you have to memorize how to find the measurement of an angle or what quintessential means... you probably are going to struggle in life anyway. Common sense gets you to 650+ on each section, which along with solid grades and a bit of extracurriculars, gets you into most schools.

 

I think this is a bit of a misconception. Sure, raw intelligence will get you very far on standardized tests, but studying also helps immensely. There are obviously limits on both extremes - i.e. if you're smart enough there's likely a floor on your score, and if you're not very sharp then there's probably a ceiling, but prep will help you within a neighborhood of your reality to a material degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAT scores have been 'gamed' for years, we just don't talk about it.

Makiing it a little 'fairer' for all is not a bad thing, and forces everyone to raise their game.

 

Agreed it's hard to do well if you don't prepare for the exam.

But it's a very different thing when you're always hungry, poverty is pulling the family apart, and you're dodging bullets/gangs in the shooting range outside your door. Versus well-fed Johnny/Suzie living in that quieter, often wealthier neighbourhod, who is often also doing an exam prep course. It would be surprizing if rich Johnny/Suzie did NOT do well, and a minor miracle if poor Johnny/Suzie actually managed to match their good score. Either handicap BOTH horses, or remove the handicaps entirely.

 

SAT's serve as a screen to find the 'best', for future development; no different to a NHL farm team.

Obviously the better your feedstock, the more of a competitor you can be. 

 

However SAT's are ALSO a screen for trade school .....

Still a very attractive option for poor Johnny/Suzie, often a social step-down for rich Johnny/Suzie.

But neither can do anything until they know how to read, write, add, reason, use basic lifeskills, etc.

SAT test material?

 

Jusr a different POV

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAT scores have been 'gamed' for years, we just don't talk about it.

Makiing it a little 'fairer' for all is not a bad thing, and forces everyone to raise their game.

 

Agreed it's hard to do well if you don't prepare for the exam.

But it's a very different thing when you're always hungry, poverty is pulling the family apart, and you're dodging bullets/gangs in the shooting range outside your door. Versus well-fed Johnny/Suzie living in that quieter, often wealthier neighbourhod, who is often also doing an exam prep course. It would be surprizing if rich Johnny/Suzie did NOT do well, and a minor miracle if poor Johnny/Suzie actually managed to match their good score. Either handicap BOTH horses, or remove the handicaps entirely.

 

SAT's serve as a screen to find the 'best', for future development; no different to a NHL farm team.

Obviously the better your feedstock, the more of a competitor you can be. 

 

However SAT's are ALSO a screen for trade school .....

Still a very attractive option for poor Johnny/Suzie, often a social step-down for rich Johnny/Suzie.

But neither can do anything until they know how to read, write, add, reason, use basic lifeskills, etc.

SAT test material?

 

Jusr a different POV

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

People can choose to ignore SAT scores.  But top firms actually still ask for SAT score 1-5 years AFTER candidates graduate from college.  It used to be called an aptitude test.  Prep can add 50-200 points.  But it can't turn a 1,100 into a 1,500 even if they hire an one-on-one tutor. 

 

SAT adjustments is similar to companies using Adjusted EBITDA

 

Community Adjusted SAT Scores

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undergraduate programs are cookie cutter. No real difference between tier 1 and tier 2 schools. Plus when you're rich it's real easy to pay for "tutors" and such.

 

Personally I don't like this idea much...the best students should get into the best schools.

 

But in general I think the SAT is a poor scorecard, so I don't think it really matters if you take an inaccurate score and continue to add to the inaccuracy. Probably a net positive as you are getting more diversity (presumably) this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read people here defending this. I'm lost for words this is a sad day  :'(

 

I guess in the not so distant future a paralyzed man will win the 100m sprint at the olympics because we have to adapt his time because he's clearly disadvantaged ...

 

If you don't understand this makes SAT scores worthless and this teaches the completely wrong lessons to kids (don't try to do well but try to victimize yourself most in the eyes of others so they grant you favors out of pity) I have no hope for you ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a horrible idea. People are going to get into schools with curriculums they can't handle and might drop out.

 

If that's true, why didn't some of the celebrity kids from the college scandal drop out?

 

I haven't really looked into the scandal, but I doubt they'd have a problem. They could just pay people to take their exams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a horrible idea. People are going to get into schools with curriculums they can't handle and might drop out.

 

If that's true, why didn't some of the celebrity kids from the college scandal drop out?

 

I haven't really looked into the scandal, but I doubt they'd have a problem. They could just pay people to take their exams.

 

Grade inflation has made it difficult to flunk out,

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2019/03/30/the-other-college-scandal-grade-inflation-has-turned-transcripts-into-monopoly-money/#5a56c8a04182

 

One of my students took a faculty position at a prestigious private university. He told me he was teaching a course similar to a course we had at Purdue.  After each semester the department head and dean would call him into their offices because he was giving Ds and Fs. They would tell him that there are no D and F students at their university. He told me these students would be getting Ds and Fs at Purdue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I went to a pretty poor (not super terrible) but rated 3-4 on great schools. I'm also the first on one side (and possibly both sides) of my family to graduate with a 4 year degree.

 

My test prep was a cd rom. And I'm sure a lot of the students didn't even have that. There was no tutor or coaching to help out. Very few people I went to school with attended college (and many fewer actually graduated). I don't know a single student who went to an upper tier school or went anywhere other than local schools.

 

Most who went on to college attended a community college or the one of the public local universities. My parents didn't really save money for college so I stayed at home and commuted. I received a grant and scholarship and my parents helped cover the rest through wages.

 

So yeah, if the wealthy can afford to hire tutors and coaches and the poorer kids can't, I see no issue with trying to level the playing field a bit. If it's "unfair" to adjust SAT scores, it's certainly not "fair" for the other student to have unearned advantages.

 

So do you think the kid with a cd rom is going to beat the kid with tutors, a test coach and a private school on a test score (all else being equal)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what people are saying but I think they are missing the point of the test. The components for college admission have always largely been... work ethic (GPA), aptitude (standardized tests), well rounded (extracurricular activity), and connections(letters of recommendation). Probably in that order. I didn't get an adjusted college resume because I didn't grow up in an area where I could play baseball year round... I mean schools aren't stupid and have resources large enough to be able to realize Johnny from The Bronx might not have the same background as Lisa from Greenwich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what people are saying but I think they are missing the point of the test. The components for college admission have always largely been... work ethic (GPA), aptitude (standardized tests), well rounded (extracurricular activity), and connections(letters of recommendation). Probably in that order. I didn't get an adjusted college resume because I didn't grow up in an area where I could play baseball year round... I mean schools aren't stupid and have resources large enough to be able to realize Johnny from The Bronx might not have the same background as Lisa from Greenwich.

 

And GPA, work ethic, is a better predictor of college success than SAT score.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2018/06/11/what-predicts-college-completion-high-school-gpa-beats-sat-score/#6f64be0b4b09

 

"the expected graduation rate of a student with a given GPA doesn’t change very much depending on her SAT score. But the expected graduation rate of a student with a given SAT score varies tremendously depending on her GPA."

 

Also participating in the same extra-curricular activity in high school for at least two years is a better indicator because it indicates grit. (I can't find it right now but I believe this is from a study done by Angela Duckworth.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I went to a pretty poor (not super terrible) but rated 3-4 on great schools. I'm also the first on one side (and possibly both sides) of my family to graduate with a 4 year degree.

 

My test prep was a cd rom. And I'm sure a lot of the students didn't even have that. There was no tutor or coaching to help out. Very few people I went to school with attended college (and many fewer actually graduated). I don't know a single student who went to an upper tier school or went anywhere other than local schools.

 

Most who went on to college attended a community college or the one of the public local universities. My parents didn't really save money for college so I stayed at home and commuted. I received a grant and scholarship and my parents helped cover the rest through wages.

 

So yeah, if the wealthy can afford to hire tutors and coaches and the poorer kids can't, I see no issue with trying to level the playing field a bit. If it's "unfair" to adjust SAT scores, it's certainly not "fair" for the other student to have unearned advantages.

 

So do you think the kid with a cd rom is going to beat the kid with tutors, a test coach and a private school on a test score (all else being equal)?

 

I've always been confused about this. I used a Kaplan prep book and took 2 mock tests and somehow, beat my classmates who were taking a higher level of math than me and who took an SAT prep course that lasted a whole summer (while I worked.) And I know these people were smarter than me, because I sometimes asked them for help!

 

But the more I think about it, a disadvantage score is better than asking for a person's ethnicity, which they shouldn't even ask for.

 

I know grade inflation is real, but it doesn't save students from the chopping block in the 2nd or 3rd year (I forgot which one it is.) I always feel bad for those people who were forced to change majors, because they most likely could've gotten the degree they wanted if they just picked an easier school.

 

I personally think people knock on community college too much. Many good schools give cc students first priority for Junior year and it's a lot less competitive by then. It's also a much cheaper route!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a horrible idea. People are going to get into schools with curriculums they can't handle and might drop out.

 

If that's true, why didn't some of the celebrity kids from the college scandal drop out?

 

I haven't really looked into the scandal, but I doubt they'd have a problem. They could just pay people to take their exams.

 

Grade inflation has made it difficult to flunk out,

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2019/03/30/the-other-college-scandal-grade-inflation-has-turned-transcripts-into-monopoly-money/#5a56c8a04182

 

One of my students took a faculty position at a prestigious private university. He told me he was teaching a course similar to a course we had at Purdue.  After each semester the department head and dean would call him into their offices because he was giving Ds and Fs. They would tell him that there are no D and F students at their university. He told me these students would be getting Ds and Fs at Purdue.

 

Just another example of the rot & corruption in the edukation industrial complex.

 

Another example is that when I applied to law school, I barely got in with a 3.5 GPA....now?  People with under 3.0's are regularly being admitted.  In the end, it is all about keeping the seats full, and keeping the spigot of money flowing to the edukators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a horrible idea. People are going to get into schools with curriculums they can't handle and might drop out.

 

If that's true, why didn't some of the celebrity kids from the college scandal drop out?

 

I haven't really looked into the scandal, but I doubt they'd have a problem. They could just pay people to take their exams.

 

Grade inflation has made it difficult to flunk out,

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2019/03/30/the-other-college-scandal-grade-inflation-has-turned-transcripts-into-monopoly-money/#5a56c8a04182

 

One of my students took a faculty position at a prestigious private university. He told me he was teaching a course similar to a course we had at Purdue.  After each semester the department head and dean would call him into their offices because he was giving Ds and Fs. They would tell him that there are no D and F students at their university. He told me these students would be getting Ds and Fs at Purdue.

 

Just another example of the rot & corruption in the edukation industrial complex.

 

Another example is that when I applied to law school, I barely got in with a 3.5 GPA....now?  People with under 3.0's are regularly being admitted.  In the end, it is all about keeping the seats full, and keeping the spigot of money flowing to the edukators.

 

So that 3.0 today is probably equivalent to a 2.7 when you had your 3.5 to get into law school.

 

Universities aren't compared on GPA, they are compared on retention rates and graduation rates. How do you raise these rates? By raising GPAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a horrible idea. People are going to get into schools with curriculums they can't handle and might drop out.

 

If that's true, why didn't some of the celebrity kids from the college scandal drop out?

 

I haven't really looked into the scandal, but I doubt they'd have a problem. They could just pay people to take their exams.

 

Grade inflation has made it difficult to flunk out,

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2019/03/30/the-other-college-scandal-grade-inflation-has-turned-transcripts-into-monopoly-money/#5a56c8a04182

 

One of my students took a faculty position at a prestigious private university. He told me he was teaching a course similar to a course we had at Purdue.  After each semester the department head and dean would call him into their offices because he was giving Ds and Fs. They would tell him that there are no D and F students at their university. He told me these students would be getting Ds and Fs at Purdue.

 

Just another example of the rot & corruption in the edukation industrial complex.

 

Another example is that when I applied to law school, I barely got in with a 3.5 GPA....now?  People with under 3.0's are regularly being admitted.  In the end, it is all about keeping the seats full, and keeping the spigot of money flowing to the edukators.

 

So that 3.0 today is probably equivalent to a 2.7 when you had your 3.5 to get into law school.

 

Universities aren't compared on GPA, they are compared on retention rates and graduation rates. How do you raise these rates? By raising GPAs.

 

Another thing that I forgot to mention and have seen no analysis of.  If a skool gives out a "D" or an "F", they risk losing a paying student.  In the end, it is only about the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is that colleges/universities COLLECTIVELY cover a wide spectrum of student.

Perhaps for 15% of all students, the school you went to, and it's 'standards' matter. For the remaining 85%, it's that you WENT TO school; 3-5 years after graduation, students hired primarily on what they have done with their diploma/certificate (experience), not where they got it from, or how it was delivered (in-class/on-line).

 

Within academia, the SAT score is just a filter that enables a pricing strategy.

Skim the market. The 'guild's' appoach of taking the highest scores only, keeping the annual intake small, charging a high price for graduate 'quality' & 'rarity', and restricting supply, to back the 'value' of the diploma. Ivy league approach.

Go for volume. Take lower scores to maximize 'butts on seats', volume discount prices, don't restrict supply, and rely on what graduates do with their certificates 3-5 years down the line. Community college approach.

 

The underlying premise is give ALL bunnies a roughly equal chance at an education.

Then let them either drop out, or graduate, as 'life' changes them while they are attending your college/university.

 

While a college/university may prefer to cull hard, and early, society typically objects.

Moms don't appreciate their little Suzie's in tears because they failed, couldn't handle the stress, or didn't get their 'fantasy' grade.

...... even if little Suzie is as thick as a plank.

 

Obviously not the best approach,

but ultimately we will get what we asked for.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

This AM there was yet ANOTHER article of the rot & corruption in the Edukation Industrial Complex.

 

Turns out the "well to do" are gaming the system yet again for their progeny.  Apparently there are tons and tons and tons of well to do students who are learning disabled and need extra time for their tests.  Check it out at:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-more-students-especially-the-affluent-get-extra-time-to-take-the-sat-11558450347?mod=djemalertNEWS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw that, not sure what the right answer is, but kids who have families that can pay for test prep/go to better schools etc. are clearly at an advantage. When I was a kid my parents didn't even know what the SAT was, I studied for it by checking out an old prep book from the library, while I worked a part time job bagging groceries. I did well enough to get into college, but I had no chance vs the people who were in the know about the stakes of it and had the money to prepare, given the same intelligence. So I'm not sure how comparable our scores were. I bet there are enough people out there who are pretty smart, but just don't have the resources to prepare, which is skewing the results enough that they have decided to do this.

 

People who study more will get a higher SAT score? Well ya, you don't have to tell me that.  But don't taint the result just because it is not a perfect indication of ability. It is like saying you can subtract 20lbs from your weight when you apply to go to the army because you were born in a disadvantaged socioeconomic class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the result measures what it's intended to measure. For the reasons I have cited, and some new ones that I wasn't aware of like what DTEJD1997 posted.

 

Saw that, not sure what the right answer is, but kids who have families that can pay for test prep/go to better schools etc. are clearly at an advantage. When I was a kid my parents didn't even know what the SAT was, I studied for it by checking out an old prep book from the library, while I worked a part time job bagging groceries. I did well enough to get into college, but I had no chance vs the people who were in the know about the stakes of it and had the money to prepare, given the same intelligence. So I'm not sure how comparable our scores were. I bet there are enough people out there who are pretty smart, but just don't have the resources to prepare, which is skewing the results enough that they have decided to do this.

 

People who study more will get a higher SAT score? Well ya, you don't have to tell me that.  But don't taint the result just because it is not a perfect indication of ability. It is like saying you can subtract 20lbs from your weight when you apply to go to the army because you were born in a disadvantaged socioeconomic class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the result measures what it's intended to measure. For the reasons I have cited, and some new ones that I wasn't aware of like what DTEJD1997 posted.

 

Saw that, not sure what the right answer is, but kids who have families that can pay for test prep/go to better schools etc. are clearly at an advantage. When I was a kid my parents didn't even know what the SAT was, I studied for it by checking out an old prep book from the library, while I worked a part time job bagging groceries. I did well enough to get into college, but I had no chance vs the people who were in the know about the stakes of it and had the money to prepare, given the same intelligence. So I'm not sure how comparable our scores were. I bet there are enough people out there who are pretty smart, but just don't have the resources to prepare, which is skewing the results enough that they have decided to do this.

 

People who study more will get a higher SAT score? Well ya, you don't have to tell me that.  But don't taint the result just because it is not a perfect indication of ability. It is like saying you can subtract 20lbs from your weight when you apply to go to the army because you were born in a disadvantaged socioeconomic class.

 

I think that the ACT and SAT & such are ROUGH guides as to intelligence.  A person who is marginally retarded is not going to get a perfect or close to perfect score no matter HOW much coaching/studying/preparing is done.

 

Somebody with a 105 or 110 IQ and at least a moderate education is most certainly going to be able to score MORE points with coaching/practice tests/studying. 

 

One of the problems with this testing & higher education in general is that there is all sorts of craziness going on in the Edukation Industrial Complex.  You've got minorities & other economically disadvantaged areas with simply horrendous education.  A great example of that is Detroit.  Generations of minority children have been sold down the river by politicians to get the edukators support & votes. 

 

Then you've got grade inflation...

 

Then you've got bribery to get kids into select skools...

 

Then you've got a whole industry of test preparation and practice.  No doubt this is "gaming" the system.  Question is by how much?

 

Then you've got gaming of the testing by having your child declared "learning disabled" in order to get longer time & other favorable testing conditions.

 

Then you've got scandal after scandal of insane amounts of capital being wasted in primary education.   

 

With all of these problems being known, what is else is out there going on that we do not know of? 

 

The whole system needs drastic reform.  This is really critical, because without adequate education, things will fall apart pretty quick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...