IHE article: New SAT score

[Tenured_Feminist]

The problem is that the SAT/ACT are just capstones on top of a vastly unequal system of primary and secondary education in the US. Wealthy, invested parents will work any system developed. Even without the new adversity score, keep in mind how magnet schools often work -- they're placed in poorly performing districts and attract wealthy white high performing students by in effect setting up a school within a school, where the enrichment programs segregate a small group who then reap the advantages of both the extra educational investment and the cachet of applying from a low-performing district.

My offspring attend a high school with a 15.4% free and reduced school lunch rate. Because they are in honors/AP, they are in classes that are almost all white and Asian (we have a tech business base that has drawn many wealthy Asian immigrants over the last decade). Their classmates take the SAT and ACT multiple times. Some have consultants to "help" them with their essays and determine which schools should receive their early decision applications. And this is nowhere close to peak wealthy college admissions gaming behavior.

I suppose on some level something like a regents' exam system can at least determine which schools are handing out As for showing up, but no matter what metric is chosen, the privileged will leverage it.

[marshwiggle]

I do agree with not simply using school grades for admission — these can be so heavily weighted by factors invisible to admissions committees.  The more sources of information, the better, seems to me.

Would you think differently if you were operating in a country where educational achievement at the secondary level was very even across the board, including between students of different class and ethnic backgrounds? (I guess I'm wondering to what extent you think the need for these extra measures is driven by problems particular to/particularly acute for education in the US.)

Presumably countries who can do that must have some may of ensuring consistent standards in high school, which would mean they've managed it earlier in the pipeline. (Examples???)

[mamselle]

Or, by one means or another, they channel students more directly into vocational vs. liberal arts tracks earlier on.

Friends in France had to really push to get into the theology courses they wanted to take, because theological studies weren't in the profile of courses included in their program.

M.

[marshwiggle]

Or, by one means or another, they channel students more directly into vocational vs. liberal arts tracks earlier on.

So is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Friends in France had to really push to get into the theology courses they wanted to take, because theological studies weren't in the profile of courses included in their program.

M.

Is it better to try and funnel students into programs where they are more likely to be successful, or to let them try whatever they like and then try to remediate like mad when they struggle?

[apl68]

I think moving away from standardized tests (SAT, ACT, GRE) entirely is the better approach, personally. I don't find them substantively reflective of students abilities,

So what do we use instead?  I've spent a lot of time at nearly open enrollment institutions and have thus encountered a fair number of students who had transcripts indicating excellent performance in high school, but were not ready for college.

A colleague called it the zip code effect where some of these high schools were doing so little education that:

• A C meant "Handed in some work at some point and didn't contribute to an assault on a teacher that resulted in hospitalization".
  
  


• 
  A B meant "Handed in at least half the work and attended class regularly, probably without assaulting the teacher at all".
  
  
• 
  An A meant "Did everything that was asked and was moderately respectful of the teacher".
  
  

I dealt with tears every term as I had to explain to the diligent A students who came from terrible high schools that they were so underprepared that the hardest they've ever worked will be at best a C in the class.  I handed over the tissue box regularly as I explained that the local performance indicated needing remedial work in math, despite that A in high school calculus that seemed based more on attendance and willingness to try than demonstrated ability to solve problems.

The standardized tests generally aren't all that useful in discerning the difference between good, great, and excellent for those who score pretty well, but a poor score can indeed indicate areas that need improvement even when the transcript indicates the subject matter has been mastered.

True story about just how hard it is to predict student achievement.

My brother and I grew up in the same household, were taught the same values, ate the same foods, learned most of the same skills in our summer job days, etc.  We attended the same public school--a small-town school that wasn't great, but was hardly a sink school either.  Our grades were pretty similar, and we made similar standardized test scores.  Both of us won full scholarships to the same nearby SLAC during our respective years of graduation.  According to any conceivable set of measurable metrics, our academic potential should have been nearly identical.  If the metrics took into account extracurricular activities, he might have been rated a bit stronger.

I did well at our SLAC and graduated as one of the top students in our class, aced the GREs, got a fellowship for a PhD program at an R1 university, and went on to demonstrate that great GRE scores do NOT reliably predict success in grad school.  That's why I'm a librarian now, not a career academic.

My brother blew off his classes in his freshman year, switched his major to something that seemed less demanding, kept blowing off his classes, and finally had to drop out.  He eventually went into the military, and became a successful career NCO.  After retiring from the service he went back to school and finally completed his education.

What set of metrics or algorithms could possibly have predicted such an outcome?  Individuals are just too different to predict their futures through testing.

[Parasaurolophus]

I do agree with not simply using school grades for admission — these can be so heavily weighted by factors invisible to admissions committees.  The more sources of information, the better, seems to me.

Would you think differently if you were operating in a country where educational achievement at the secondary level was very even across the board, including between students of different class and ethnic backgrounds? (I guess I'm wondering to what extent you think the need for these extra measures is driven by problems particular to/particularly acute for education in the US.)

Presumably countries who can do that must have some may of ensuring consistent standards in high school, which would mean they've managed it earlier in the pipeline. (Examples???)

Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Canada.

[kaysixteen]

Like democracy, the standardized college exams are the worst solution, except for all the others.  Polly is sadly absolutely correct to note that all high schools are not created equal, and college admissions staff need to know what a kid's real level of academic achievement is.  Someone mentioned the value of college admissions essays, further, but these are often
, ahem, well let's just say one can buy success on these as well.

[marshwiggle]

Presumably countries who can do that must have some may of ensuring consistent standards in high school, which would mean they've managed it earlier in the pipeline. (Examples???)

Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Canada.

Since I've lived in 3 different provinces, and have some knowledge of the educations systems here, I'd say one of the main differences between here and the US is related to the teacher salary point; namely, that in Canada people expect government services to cost money, whereas in the US there seems to be almost a paranoia about the cost of government services and an obsession about eliminating "waste" in spending. (Also a dread of governemnt oversight, so things like national standards tend to raise alarm in the US, whereas in Canada having similar expectations across the country seems to be kind of "duh".)

Having said all that, in Ontario, and no doubt in other provinces, there is constant concern about whether and to what degree performance is declining over time.

[mamselle]

Answer: 1776 vs. 1982.

;--}

M.

[marshwiggle]

Answer: 1776 vs. 1982.

;--}

M.

Also, revolution vs. negotiation. :)

[mamselle]

Yeah, that was what I was thinking.

Also, that over the two hundred years' difference, more or less, between the two, different scholastic practices evolved in the colonies-that-became-the-USA and the programs-used-in-the-UK-that-Canada-more-or-less-adopted before breaking off the bromance between London and the northern provinces.

Bailyn's study of the former is helpful in pointing out how some of those differences started, but they didn't have to move in the directions they have taken now.

The structures in Canada seem to have held back some of the stupider relativisms that have boiled up here (Alexander Hamilton is probably doing rotations in his grave, saying, "I told you so..") but the general trend of humankind to embrace stupidity and laziness wherever possible (the real deadly sin, in my book) seems to be putting things almost equal (maybe, by distant observation and the input of a couple of friends).

M.