SAT and ACT scores are, on a macro level, a measure of social status and parent's wealth.
In contrast, holistic measures like looking at extracurriculars are much more correlated to wealth and social status.
"Once scholars control for all these factors as best they can, they find that coaching has a positive but small effect: Perhaps 10 or 20 points in total on the SAT, mostly on the math section, according to careful work by Derek Briggs of the University of Colorado Boulder and Ben Domingue of Stanford University.
...a 20-point improvement to a score in this range would have no practical meaning for students who are trying to get into more selective schools. Even when it comes to less selective schools, just 20 percent of the counselors said a boost from 430 to 450 would make a difference. In other words, research has debunked the myth that pricey test prep gives a major bump to students’ scores, but it’s also hinted that whatever modest bumps they do provide are more likely to help the people who are already at the top."
https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/sat-prep-courses-do-the...
I really don't understand how this statement is even remotely true.
The only thing I can think of is that "coaching" is too broad--ie. includes both students who spend 100+ hours and students who spent an hour at a talk by the guidance counselor.
Doing nothing other than taking a couple sample tests has to net you a bunch of points because you don't have to waste time reading the directions.
Simply drilling basic mathematics so I could do "1+1" and come up with 2 regularly netted me almost 250 points in Math (standardized tests like the SAT are really nasty about having answers that match the common mistakes).
Going through 6000 vocabulary words pulled my verbal up almost 250 points (and had a dramatic effect on my writing). But that's far beyond "coaching" ... that's a multi-year commitment.
- Access to unlimited test prep material (from College Board, Princeton Review, Kaplan, others). Each book was $100+, and I must have easily spent a few thousands on books, sample tests, vocabulary lists and other material.
- A laptop and stable internet connection.
- My own quiet and comfortable room to study in.
- No other real responsibilities taking up my time. I didn't have to cook or take care of younger siblings. Didn't have to work part time jobs after school and late into the evening/night.
- Access to private counselors through my school which was in an expensive and well-funded school district.
All of this made a huge different to my test score, and I don't see how anyone can argue that someone in a worse financial condition won't be adversely affected.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat...
If if just getting a better education gives you a better score on the SAT then that is a "problem" impossible to fix. However, teaching kids tips and tricks to do better on the SAT would have minimal effect on their actual intelligence. That right there is the main problem: Preparing for the SAT has no substantial increase in intelligence but does make it seem like you do.
I don't have much time when I'm writing this so if your confused by something just ask
Do you have a citation for the causation that you seem to strongly imply?
More importantly, why use the SAT when your highschool grades are more accurate? This is what I'm really annoyed about! Why put everyone though a stressful test when your grades are more accurate?
https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/predicting-college-suc...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2018/06/11/what-...
I expect a lot of people will anyway, if the test scores are good.
No, just that's a marginal side effect. The whole point of standardized testing is the "standardized" part - to provide a common metric upon which to base large scale institutional decisions.
The edge cases (and also the large biases in the system) are handled by other criteria, like weighing other aspects of a candidate's background against their academic performance.
If we accept all that, the question becomes this: if you were a poor but talented kid, which metric would you like them to focus on? I was a poor immigrant raised by a single parent, and to me the answer is that I want them to focus on the SAT.
We could never afford the prep courses, but the prep books were cheap at the local bookstore and free at my high school library. I took advantage of that. Now there are even more options, such as the Khan Academy's free prep course. There's even some data suggesting the free course produces outcomes that rival the paid courses[1].
Bottom line, the SAT gave people like me a fair shot. It can be gamed a little, but I worry that replacing it with a "holistic approach" will just become a proxy for social/class status that will penalize people like me.
[1] https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/new-data-links-20-hours-pe...
This insane unfairness has to end.
Note that never at any point did I claim that _only_ money could lead to success on these tests. It's then irrelevant that a group of children from specific socio-economic and cultural circumstances and backgrounds happen to succeed on them. It doesn't matter—I didn't say it couldn't happen.
Money plays a role because of the nature of the test. It's an unescapable reality that children who would otherwise score much lower scores highly simply because their parents can afford a tutor to hammer questions into their child and resolve doubts every day. They don't learn many life skills, true mathematical appreciation, scientific knowledge, or real literary analysis skill from the 'tutoring'—the test, then, is purely a reflection of the tutoring money they spent and not their actual college readiness.
I didn’t say that “Asians are outliers”. I said that the fact that some people don’t pay to excel at a test doesn’t make the test inherently fair.
You also never mentioned what exactly your social status or wealth was then. Were you living in poverty when you got those scores?
You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things.
Somethings I just don't volunteer as they are private, but since you asked in this very public forum:
>Did you worry about food or housing situations
yes
>have to take care of the household and siblings cause parent's were working
yes
>deal with substance abuse of parents
luckily, no. but abuse from parent, yes. parents with undiagnosed medical conditions, yes.
>or any number of things that are common experiences among poor families
yes
>You're basically saying your material conditions didn't matter, which is just untrue for most things.
To quote the Dude, "that's like, your opinion, man". There were definite obstacles to overcome. I was able to, others are not. I'm not judging anyone for not being able to as situations are different, yet you seem to be wanting to judge me. My economic situation changed as did the economy dictated the earning ability of parent's jobs. I was taught how to talk to people that came to the door looking for the "adults" or called on the phone (before we finally went without a phone all through my high school years). Did I live in the ghetto? No. One of the better financial decisions my parents made and were able to do was built their own house. Not paid a builder, my dad and grandfather cut the wood, swung the hammers.
What was your situation like?
I didn't go to college until I was 26, mostly because it never seemed like an option. Now that I've been through it and have a job and career and have been able to work through the mental damage from my childhood, I feel a huge amount of empathy for kids who are coming from similar situations.
Anyway, didn't mean to be judgmental, so apologies for that. I just feel strongly about the topic.
I think one needs to be careful of survivorship bias here -- "the system worked for me, so it is fine".
The issue with banning SAT/ACTs, etc. is that is the system they're using in its place with actually better?
However, many well off parents will feel like they worked hard to move up, and provide their kids with best educational opportunities... but now the rules are changing. It is definitely a hard problem to try to equalize for wealth and at the same time not overly penalizing somewhat wealthy parents that also care about kids' education.
This is true of pretty much every single thing they can use to measure students, though. Test scores, classwork scores, sports, extracurricular activities, social interactions; all of these things are easier for children in wealthier families.
Life, on a macro level, is not fair.
1. number of AP/IB classes student took (mostly dependent on how rich the school and how attentive and educated their parents are)
2. participation in extra-curriculars (again, participation in things Model United Nations are highly highly correlated with wealth)
3. volunteer experience or other outside of school experience (again highly correlated with wealth, students working pizza delivery at 16 don't have time for volunteering)
I'm not saying the SAT/ACT is perfect, but at least everyone can easily get free or very cheap study materials and practice exams online and from libraries.