Expect to see more gloom-n-doom articles on the new SAT as the March 12 unveiling approaches:
The SAT, the test students love to hate, is about to get even more unpopular...
Ledes like this suggest we're dealing with journalists who just don't think about their topics, and rely on stale cliches. Does every kid hate the SAT? Not those who win merit scholarships or gain college entry because of the exam. And why should we assume that an updating of the test means that it's only going to get worse?
The test was reworked to reflect better what students are learning in high school and to address the concerns of some university administrators who see widespread writing deficiencies, according to the College Board, the nonprofit parent company of the SAT.
Longer and more expensive than ever, the three-hour-and-forty-five-minute, $41.50 exam is drawing all sorts of reactions.
If it was reworked for such good reasons, why aren't those in the lede graf? And it costs $41.50 for a family to go to the movies these days - hardly extortionist rates. And it's still under four hours long, which isn't exactly exhausting.
"Now I can't really ask my older sister questions about the test," said Andrew Kitchel, another South Eugene junior registered for the March 12 exam.
Uh, yes, you can, because it's still measuring many of the same attributes. Unless you were hoping Sis would feed you live items, you can still benefit from her experience.
Kaplan has good things to say about the exam, but I still balk at the "my-gosh-four-hours-is-just-too-long" attitude:
Jennifer Karan, national director of SAT testing at Kaplan, says the new test is a big deal...Karan says the test is more challenging, especially for students with weak verbal skills. While the old exam was divided down the middle into verbal and math questions, the new version is roughly two-thirds verbal sections and one-third math.
Some students may balk at the length of the test, she said.
"Most students find 45 minutes a challenge, let alone three hours and 45 minutes," Karan says. "That's a (long) time for a young person to really manage to keep strong focus and concentration."
So now, attending college will require demonstration of (a) good verbal skills and (b) the ability to focus attention for longer than an episode of The Surreal Life. Anyone see a problem with that?
I shouldn't be so hard on the article, or those quoted in it; the information is accurate and useful. I just can't help rolling my eyes at all the "conventional wisdom" that we're supposed to accept when testing is discussed - all students hate tests, students hate to write, students can't be expected to focus, etc.
For a juicer, behind-the-scenes take on the new SAT, go here:
The behind-the-scenes look at the making of the new SAT suggests that there is no single formula for achieving a high score on the writing portion of the test, and that formulaic writing can result in a lower score. At the same time, it is legitimate to wonder whether the eccentric spark of genius will continue to be rewarded when thousands of test-graders across the country try to implement the guidelines established by the experts.
Last I checked, the SAT wasn't meant to reward eccentric genius. It was meant to assess the basic skills necessary for college. I'd like to see at least one of these reporters give me an example of a true genius who deserves to attend college, yet is unable to write in such a way as to get a decent score on the SAT. Unless their genius involves a disdain for spelling, grammar, and punctuation, I don't think they'll be at too much of a disadvantage.
Posted by kswygert at February 6, 2005 04:57 PM