Devoted Reader Dr. Michael S. (I actually have two of them, so you'll have to guess which one I mean) sends along this masterpiece of anti-testing hyperbole (free sub required):
They're trying to reform the SAT again, which is like trying to turn a pit bull into a toy poodle. What they ought to do is euthanize this mutt.
This time they've added a writing section to the Scholastic Aptitude Test. That's because educators have been saying that writing is critical for success in college. Actually, university professors have been saying this for centuries. You have to wonder why the College Board, which administers the test, has only now caught on...
I guess I should give this guy (one Joe Rodriguez) credit for being original. While everyone else is having hissy fits over the fact that the SAT is changing and adding a writing component, he's kvetching about the fact that there wasn't one all along.
The highest possible SAT score is 1600. I can't remember my exact score, because I don't want to, but it was under 900.
On second thought, I don't think a writing test would have jacked up my score all that much. And it won't make much difference today for students in schools like mine. They don't have as many advanced placement classes or experienced teachers. Nor do they have affluent parents who can pay for expensive SAT preparation courses, as they do at privileged schools. Poor schools that can't teach reading and mathematics aren't going to teach writing any better.
And does Joe use this claim as the basis for supporting school reform? Better SAT preparation at poor schools? More focus on the core skills of readin', writin', and arithmetic?
No. He just brings in the old eugenics argument (which I've addressed before), because he's one of those guys who believes we don't need the achievement gap to disappear, we just need the test to disappear.
Instead of tinkering with the SAT, we should kill it.
Although the test has its roots in the racist eugenics movement of the early 20th century -- they thought Jews and African-Americans were inherently dumb and college-incapable -- the supporters of scholastic testing doggedly pursued an exam that would measure how much a student had learned in 12 years.
It wasn't a bad idea if it weren't so simplistic, lazy and easily exploited.
A major flaw of today's SAT is that it's vulnerable to coaching and short-term improvements. How can you trust a test that, for the $800 price of a quickie prep course, can produce a gain of 100 points?
How can you trust a columnist who takes the outrageous claims of test prep companies at face value, despite a total lack of independent evidence that score gains this high are routine? But don't worry, Joe, bigger fish than you have been suckered by this worm.
A test isn't much good if it can't predict something, and the SAT hasn't been proven to be a reliable predictor of college success.
A few years ago, plucky little Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania measured the first-semester grades of freshman with SAT scores of about 1000 against freshmen with 1200 scores or better. The results were virtually identical.
Ooh, bonus points for finding the one tiny piece of data (could you find Muhlenberg on a map? and what makes it "plucky"?) that appears to support his arguments, but which can easily be dismantled with the concept of restriction of range, which every first-year stats student learns.
But the absolute, worst assumption of the SAT is that any young person's potential can be reduced to a number. It assumes that, after four years of college, a 900-point student from a poor school cannot catch up to or surpass the 1400-point student from a wealthy school.
No, it doesn't reduce a person to a number, and it doesn't say that person cannot catch up. But college resources are finite. College resources are best spent on those who have the most potential to use them. If that weren't the case, all colleges would have open admission, and the value of a college degree would subsequently plummet (further than it has already). I mean, in a day and age when a decent school has the gall to brag about admitting students with 900 scores on the SAT, this characterization of low scorers as innocent victims whose lives are totally ruined by that one score is ridiculous. Students with scores that low won't get into the Ivy League, but they will get into their local community college, and maybe UGA as well.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sure glad my boss didn't ask for my SAT score when I applied. Come to think of it, none of my employers have ever asked.
Maybe that's because it's only supposed to predict first-year college grades. How you then do in college is what your employers care about.
Some years ago, former University of California President Richard Atkinson called for dumping the SAT. He wanted to replace it with tests that try to measure achievement in specific subjects, rather than overall aptitude. The testocrats shot him down, but it's still a good idea and much better than a one-size-fits-all test that doesn't live up to its promise.
So, you're in favor of tests that, while they may be more predictive in some cases, also may continue to show a score gap and may be just as susceptible to coaching - as long as they're more specialized? Just checking.
And - "testocrats." I love it. My favorite Disney movie as a kid was The Aristocats, so I need some words here to go to those melodies. I suck at that sort of thing, so I'll leave that to my more creative Devoted Readers.
Posted by kswygert at August 23, 2004 08:56 PM