The College Board Says "Take a Mulligan"

The SAT is a learnable, beatable test. You can learn exactly what skills will be tested, and you can learn what tricks the College Board might sneak into the multiple choice questions. Now, with the inclusion of Score Choice, the SAT is going to be even more beatable.

Beginning with the high school class of 2010, students who take the SAT will have the option of only sending their highest scores to colleges, withholding lower scores they don't want college admissions offices to see. Under the current system, students can take the SAT as many times as they want, and the College Board automatically sends all scores. Starting next fall, students will have the option of hiding their bad scores using a system called Score Choice.

At my private high school, there were many students who took the SAT multiple times. Taking the SAT reasoning test costs $45. In response to the announcement of the new Score Choice system, several critics have voiced concern that it will only help those students who can afford to take the test multiple times and can afford the tutoring and coaching required to improve scores.

The SAT is a test that, theoretically, is meant to test intelligence. In reality, the test is an inadequate judge of intellect. Adding Score Choice only further detracts from the original point of this standardized test. Laurence Bunin, a senior vice president at the College Board, says students can "feel very comfortable going into the test center because, goodness forbid, if for whatever reason they don't feel comfortable, it won't be on their permanent record forever."

Having just made it through the college process, I am fairly confident in saying that I don't think it's possible to make standardized test taking a comfortable experience. Sure, maybe you would feel a little less nervous if you knew going into the test, as you sit there with your calculator and sharpened number two pencils, that if you really, really bomb it, no worries! You can just do some more test prep, take it again (and then another time, if necessary) and nobody will ever have to know that you really screwed up that Math/Reading/Writing section.
But is this really a good thing? And, doesn't it make the SAT even more of a game than it already is?

I was in one of the first waves of students to take the new SAT--the SAT that included an essay section and was scored out of 2400 as opposed to 1600. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to take an SAT preparation course, and, during one of the lessons, I was given guidelines for writing an essay that would receive a high score. The most important thing was to use two divergent examples, I was told, and somehow make them relate to each other. Writing about personal experiences is always good. But, don't worry, you can write about a made up personal experience. Wait, what? I asked. You can make up a personal experience? Yup.

I understand that the essay is supposed to test writing skill as opposed to authenticity of content, but, I wonder, isn't this a little silly? In spring of senior year, the topic of the SAT essay came up in my English class. My AP English teacher was horrified to hear that it was perfectly acceptable to make up personal experiences for the sake of the argument. I know people who have invented dead uncles, divorced parents, and adopted siblings. Personally, I invented a love for Martha Stewart (which I somehow managed to tie to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness).

From the student's perspective, this might not be a bad thing. The number of applicants with SAT scores of 2400 is huge, and because of this, even a perfect score doesn't mean acceptance to the college of your choice. As an applicant, it is in your best interest to have as high an SAT score as possible, and Score Choice will make this more achievable.

That may be good news for some applicants. But for admissions committees looking for a reliable measure of intelligence, not so much.

 

 

Comments

[TopProf]

Once a nonprofit, now the opposite. It's all about the money.

[LorinM]

OH MY.

If you want to make someone dumber, send them to Harvard, where any inadequately thought out idea is lauded.

Sorry, Isabel. The SAT is a damned good measure of general cogntive ability - there is a great deal of research to back this up. This is a fact, on which you are just plain wrong.

You're also wrong that the SAT is "learnable­." There is a practice effect that asymptotes after 3 or 4 attempts. You can accomplish the same thing by borrowing a prep book from your local library and reading it through. No need to pay for a prep course, so the economic injustice argument is somehwat invalid (although I agree most folks don't know this). But you can't add more than about 1/2 of a standard deviation to each subsection score, which is basically just practicing a little on concepts you already know, like solving 3:4:5 triangles, or recalling strategies to solve syllogisms.

As for whether it's a good indicator of college success, well, after controlling for school selectivity (restriction of range), the SAT and high school grades do about as good of a job as you could expect. There are lots of reasons people don't succeed in college, but ability (measured by the SAT) and study habits (measured by HS grades) is just about the only ones you can identify in advance.

[TopProf]

The highest correlate of SAT is socio-economic status of family. Sorry.

[wolfgangmo]

OH MY.

An employee of the same group of companies that makes the SAT.

Bucking for employee of the month there, Lorin?

[DonHeller]

I don't know whether Lorin is an employee of the College Board, ETS, or ACT for that matter. But he/she is a bit disingenuous in stating that, "As for whether it's a good indicator of college success, well, after controlling for school selectivity (restriction of range), the SAT and high school grades do about as good of a job as you could expect." The overwhelming research evidence (conducted by independent researchers) is that SAT scores add very little to the predictive ability of high school grades and the other information available in a holistic admissions review. And the predictive ability is of first-year grades only, not overall college success, as measured by the probability of graduation or later grades.

And Isabel - not even ETS or the College Board would claim that, "The SAT is a test that, theoretically, is meant to test intelligen­ce."

[cheesebeanswindy]

As someone who aced the SAT (pre-essay) without test prep, and then went on to work my way through college tutoring mostly well-to-do children on how to pass standardized tests, I think there are two issues here. First, standardized tests will likely remain important in the college admissions process because they are the only/best way found to date of comparing students from many schools, as flawed as they may be. That being said, I think it is fair to give students a way of "managing" their scores if they have a bad day, just as test prep and taking the test multiple times is allowed. Second, on the essay portion I think the idea that someone can't get creative when writing an essay for the test is ridiculous. I don't know that I would have thought to do this, but it shows they can be resourceful when making an argument (which is what they are being graded on, not whether or not they are honest). Copying your neighbors essay is dishonest, this is not. The personal essay portion of your application would be the place to let the college know what you are all about. I doubt they are looking to the essay portion of the SAT to learn something about you as a person. It's testing whether you can write.

[lisakaz2]

The test was watered down already AND there was a GRE option to not report scores if you took the test on computer. I don't know that schools don't ignore the lower scores anyway. The issue is always interpretation.

I read AP exams and I know the students are not great writers and the line about inventing relatives and such probably doesn't work. It sure sounds like a stretch that a grader would see as bs.

[lisakaz2]

Last sent. should have "not" see as bs. We see lots of it and tend not to like it.

[lisakaz2]

Sorry, I meant would not see this as bs (last sentence). We see lots of garbage and bs and always recognize it and laugh about it with each other. My table last year kept a running record of stooopid remarks.

[HappyHumanist]

I tutor high schoolers for the SATs. And, yes, making s**t up is fine. They want to see if you can put two cogent sentences together, not have had a fascinating life. Kaplan is right. The test can be "beaten" by understanding some basic aspects of what they are looking for. It has nothing to do with intelligence or with all you learned in school (aside from basic mathematical functions and basic writing skills/vocabulary). It's about knowing the kinds of questions they are going to ask and knowing the pre-set answers for those questions.

I always tell my students that the College Board doesn't love them. It hates them. It does, however, love their parents' money. That's why I wouldn't recommend taking the test more than twice. Why give that company any more of your hard-earned money than you have to.

[WeAreTheBorg]

"My AP English teacher was horrified to hear that it was perfectly acceptable to make up personal experiences for the sake of the argument." I agree with your AP English teacher. Unless you are writing fiction, this is called "lying" or possibly "sophistry­."
I have a BS degree in Writing and Communication, work as a technical writer, and I would never do something like that. This is a symptom of much deeper problems with the S.A.T. and testing in the US in general.
We wonder why we have problems in academia and journalism with plagiarism, misleading/made up data and false reporting - but the system covertly seems to encourage such behavior. A system based on falsehoods will fail - It cannot survive on pretend data. The universe works on facts, not fiction.

[Idytme]

Grades in high school and graduate level of college are not about how smart you are but how well you take tests. A friend who graduated from Berkeley said that there are only three degrees in college; memorization, BS'ing, and math. By his count I majored in memorization (biology) but I had a lot of courses that after knowing how to write, BSing was in order. Any of the humanities makes it necessary to know what your teacher is looking for in an essay and giving it to them. What ever style they want, whatever they want emphasized, what ever POV they lean towards - adding your own creative twist, of course.
There is a skill to taking a test, even a memorization test like Anatomy, There is a skill to taking any class - even a math class to see what the teacher really wants you to know and not to learn everything they teach. It is all about what will be on the test.
A economy teacher told us that college is not about learning so much, but corporations want to know that you can conform to a system. Many of the best entrepreneurs left college early to do their own thing. (and now run massive corporations that require you to finish college!)
By doing what they are doing now with the SAT's they are really admitting that it is all a big game.

[lisakaz2]

I want 'em to answer my question(s). And to have read the piece I assigned. A little thoughtfulness would be nice too. What category is that? (I generally am pretty harsh with bs or plagiarism).

[Idytme]

I graduated from a top 100 in the US of public high schools. I graduated in the early 80's and my trick was to go to the library and find critical analysis's of the classical books I was reading. Put on 8x10 cards and had my interpretation of symbolism and anything else. No one else went beyond Cliff Notes and askin' their parents. And I have to say that I can write the best conclusions, tying everything together with a great "universal" note. This, to me, is BS. This to me, is conforming. This got me top grades. This is working the system and gives any intelligent person a huge note of cynicism. I bet you would give me straight A's. Add that to my A's in humanity courses in college (that I enjoyed). Some teachers believe that they are so altruistic they cannot be figured out, when it is easy to tell what they want emphasized and what they do not.
Which isn't to say that school isn't a great place to learn, and that learning isn't great. It is saying that our system of education is all about taking tests, learning how to write the right paper for that professor and being very good at memorizing. Those who are good at those skills excel, when those skills have very little to do with real life. You can't take a test about being a leader, running a business, being good at marketing and how good your people skills are.

[planofstudy]

I agree with HappyHumanist and Idytme. Like the GRE and GMAT, the SAT doesn't test how smart you are, but how quickly you can solve problems. Obviously, if you give test takers more time and/or chances to complete the test, then they'll score better. That's why the CB is so upset. Read: http://planofstudy.blogspot.com/2009/01/gmat-prep-should-i-take-course-to.html

[PATina]

A economy teacher told us that college is not about learning so much, but corporations want to know that you can conform to a system.

I've been saying this for years. That's why college is such a 'must'. Not because you learn anything..­. but because it shows you will play by the rules (and pay to play at that).

[lisakaz2]

Maybe that person is a cynic. I find such badly informed students (at least sometimes) that I want them to know something. And I'm in charge of my class. Instructors who have PhDs usually are committed to more than having students learn a system since they deal with the minute' of facts and interpretation.