Here's a well-intentioned, if slightly clueless, SAT article from Post-Standard (NY) writer Kate Perry. It seems she's convinced that the SAT is unfair because kids who pay for test prep might do better on the SAT than kids who don't:
It's no secret that the SATs are as much about knowledge of how the test works as about the questions on the exam. [By the way, this isn't true, but testing critics keep repeating it.]Students who are more acquainted with the test have an advantage over students who are unfamiliar with the strategy needed to crack it. This advantage comes at a price.
Students who can afford private tutoring sessions, books and high-tech calculators have a distinct edge over students who can't afford any of these things.
That this is stated as a serious criticism of the test amazes me. Let's take an analogous situation. You want to take a driver's license exam. You think you're naturally a bad driver, so you go to driving school, or you pay someone to teach you, or you just practice a lot. You end up passing the test, while a friend who did much less in the way of preparation failed to pass. You now have a driver's license, and she does not.
Is this proof that the driver's license exam is unfair? Don't be ridiculous. Test takers gain an advantage on virtually every exam under the sun (except perhaps for IQ tests) by preparing for that exam. The fact that the SAT, or any test, can be prepared for does not mean that the test is not a valid measure of acheivement or skills or knowledge. As this principal puts it, the key to better SAT scores is practice, practice, practice. That's also how you get to Carnegie Hall, should anybody ask.
What's more, this journalist buys wholesale the claim (made only by the test prep companies, not by the College Board) that she can expect a 200-point increase by taking a few practice exams - a few expensive practice exams, that is. If you refuse to grant her that assumption, and I do, then her entire argument that SAT point increases can be "purchased" falls apart.
What does it always come down to with these types of crusading journalists? Money. What this writer wants you to believe is that:
(a) it's inherently unfair that some kids grow up in richer families than others, when those kids have more options for academic practice open to them,
(b) it's possible to create any valid measure of academic achievement on which kids who are better prepared will not have an advantage, and,
(c) that no poor kid has a chance to do well on the SAT.
I believe (a) and (b) are bunkum, and it can be shown that (c) is pure poppycock. Every library in the US has practice SAT books, and these same books can be bought online, either from ETS or from booksellers, at a very reasonable price. Any kid who is discliplined enough to sit down with the tests, take many practice exams under the time limit, and ask a teacher or parent for help with the items they got wrong is going to get as much benefit from it as those rich kids whose parents can foot the bill for the test prep companies.
And that $28 test fee? Every testing company in the US allows for fee waivers from students who can't afford the bills. Some give partial waivers, some full; some high schools foot the bill as well.
Although I've written about this before, I still remain amazed that a journalist can get an article published despite the fact that they don't bother to do their research (re: cheap test prep and fee waivers), and despite the fact that they take the inflated claims made by test prep companies and restate them as criticisms of the tests themselves.
What I said to that other credulous reporter back in February still stands:
Last I checked, not only is there no solid research indicating that test prep courses work for all kids, but there's also no research showing that price is any indicator of the quality of a test prep course. Let me point out again that the test was designed as an equalizer and in fact works as one - but our society is unequal with regards to wealth, and always will be. A poor kid with great SATs will not be poor for long. A rich kid who can't pass the SATs will be dependent on familial influence and money to get into college. The kid who works the hardest and had the most ability will probably do the best. The test prep companies will charge whatever credulous customers...are willing to pay. And this is a criticism of the tests how? It isn't ETS creating that divide.
Posted by kswygert at September 24, 2003 12:02 PM