Ah, the first signs of spring have arrived. No, I don't mean the 70+ temps, bright sunshine, hyacinths, or sandaled feet. I mean the parade of "SAT as a rite of passage" articles that are sometimes informative, and often critical.
This article, in the Tri-Valley Herald, suggests that SAT "mania" is gripping students like never before:
Today, however, more students than ever before are taking the SAT. The test has taken on near mythic proportions for high school students and their parents, who view a high score on the SAT as a magical Golden Ticket that, if it doesn't guarantee access to the most prestigious colleges, will at least boost a students' application to the top of the pile.
The College Board website note the increase in examinee numbers too, although they present this increase as a good thing, rather than something that should instill anxiety into students and educators. For example, some 38% of all SAT-takers are the first generation in their family to plan for college. But, as the TVH notes, budgets aren't keeping up with the "bubble" of college hopefuls:
A massive bubble of kids are graduating from high school and pushing at the doors of the nation's colleges and universities. Competition for slots is fierce, and students, aware of the pressures, are sending applications far and wide, thus adding even more competition for already scarce slots.
In deficit-ridden California, the storm is worsened by budget cuts that are, for the first time, forcing the University of California and California State University systems to turn eligible students away. By some estimates, as many as 23,000 California freshmen who in better times would be welcomed at CSU and UC campuses won't find a slot in the fall.
The article is honest enough to note that, despite some public anxiety, college admissions are not all about SAT scores:
The truth of the matter, however, is that many colleges don't weigh SAT scores as highly as they once did. In fact, the use of SAT scores in admissions at UC has been a hot topic this year, sparked by a critical report from the chairman of UC's governing Board of Regents that slammed UC Berkeley, the system's flagship campus, for admitting 386 students who scored 1000 or below on the test and turning away 3,200 who scored 1400 or above...
SAT scores are a factor in UC's admissions decisions, but they don't carry as much weight as other factors, including a student's overall grade point average and his or her scores on the SAT IIs, the subject-specific standardized tests that students must also take in order to be considered for UC admission.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, on the other hand, is all about the pressure of the SAT:
Although the new test is nearly a year away, it's been the topic of discussion and planning among colleges and high schools, tutors and guidance counselors - as well as among some students and parents.
The changes were made, test-makers say, to bring the SAT more in line with school curriculums and improve student writing. Critics question, however, whether monetary, not scholarly, concerns inspired the alterations, which come as a growing number of colleges are relying less on standardized tests as the most accurate predictor of student performance.
Ultimately, for the 2.2 million students who will take the test, the change won't be easy.
"The poor kids in the first class to take it will be nervous," said Carol Lunkenheimer, dean of undergraduate admissions at Northwestern University. "They'll be saying, 'Woe is me - why is my class the one taking this exam?' "
What would we do without these critics who have convinced nervous students that the College Board cares only about money? Surely, these naysayers play a large part in creating examinee anxiety with their accusations, but the Philadelphia Inquirer article (which also includes the classic, throwaway, unsupported statement that "critics have long held that the SAT contains class and cultural biases that hamper minority, poor and working-class students") would rather ignore that little detail. Funny, too, how the PI doesn't note that the same critics who are screaming about market shares following the SAT revisions would have been the first to scream about obsolescence and stubbornness if the College Board hadn't modified the test in response to criticism.
Meanwhile, the Orlando Sentinel noticed something escaped many other papers. While more students are aiming for college, fewer of them are willing to tell the College Board their race:
Last August, as it does every summer, the College Board released its national SAT report, showing that the average score on the college entrance exam had climbed slightly, as had the scores of minority students...buried in the data was a fact overlooked by researchers and journalists: A record portion of the test-takers, 25 percent, had declined to disclose their ethnicity.
That's triple what it was seven years ago. And there's no reason to assume that students who refuse to disclose their race can be left out of analyses, or that such students are similar to those who do list their race. There is research (by Dr. Dale Whittington and Dr. Howard Wainer, both of whom are quoted in the article) to suggest that such omissions undercut the ethnic-analysis conclusions that have been drawn from SAT scores in the past.
Some claim that the increase is due to students trying to avoid "stereotype threat" or AA policies. The College Board claims instead that the previous registration forms were too accommodating, and have noted a sharp drop in ethnic-group nonresponders now that students are forced to choose a race category (including, "I choose not to respond").
Posted by kswygert at April 19, 2004 10:57 AM