GameBanshee Forums

*looks around* Okay, first of all, am I the only one who enjoyed taking the SAT?

Originally posted by C Elegans
1. If only rich schools can afford special teacher to teach students how to perform well in SAT, and only students from rich families can afford the special SAT prep-classes, then this means it's an economical selection method rather than an aptitude test. To me, it's an abhorration that how much money a family has, should decide the kids future. Only talent and motivation should decide who can study at the best universities, not money

Hmm...I'm not sure how much this really applies. I've got several comments on this.

1.)Just because someone has taken a prep-class doesn't mean they'll do good on the test. My mom could take all the prep-classes and still do horribly because she just isn't good at tests, no matter how well she knows the information.

2.)Some people can do very well on the test without any prep classes at all.

3.)There are computer programs you can buy for $20 that include help for various subjects, as well as the SAT. From what I've heard about the prep-classes, the programs teach the same stuff.

I have one of those programs, but I scored just as good on the practice SAT it had before using the program as I did after using the program. On the real SATs, which I took before finishing the 10th grade, I scored better than 75% of everyone else who was taking the test. According the program I have, all the SAT does is test your ability to take the SAT. Since I'm generally good at taking tests, whether I know much about the topic or not, it doesn't surprise me that I did good on the SAT.

Originally posted by humanflyz
@Sojourners:

Yeah, being well-read is going to help out a lot. But in California, there are a lot of immigrants that aren't well-read, and they don't have enough time to learn as much as English. In their cases, they really really need test-prep, and they can't really prepare on their own. So their only option is prep classes, but considering that their economic situation, they may not afford the classes. Sure, they maybe hard working and learned, in their own language, but compared to a native, their chances are a lot lower.

As a daughter of an immigrant who read English literature to learn the language, I beg to differ with you. Any self-motivated immigrant who wishes to learn the language would more than likely have a vocubulary that far exceeds that of the average native, and would have far less need for a prep class. What we need is better education, not classes on taking tests. What we need are better-paid teachers who actually know something and teach their students to think. I could go on and on, but what we don't need are stupid programs on how to take tests taking time away from education.

Originally posted by Sojourner


As a daughter of an immigrant who read English literature to learn the language, I beg to differ with you. Any self-motivated immigrant who wishes to learn the language would more than likely have a vocubulary that far exceeds that of the average native, and would have far less need for a prep class. What we need is better education, not classes on taking tests. What we need are better-paid teachers who actually know something and teach their students to think. I could go on and on, but what we don't need are stupid programs on how to take tests taking time away from education.

I am in complete agreement, it is not just schools though, the same can be said for learning to drive, they teach you to pass the test; not how to drive. It is completely illogical, it seems that the education board think it is more important that a person goes away with letters after their names rather than the necessary skills to fulfill a job they may find.

@Timekeeper:
I personally believe that students in honor classes should get a grade inflation. The honor classes are more challenging than the regular classes, and if you do good in these challenging classes, you should be rewarded more for your effort.

I believe that the US should just have government-endorsed SAT preparation classes at little or no cost available at all public schools. This gives everyone an equal chance of preparing. Also, I am disgusted at these people who make something that can determine your future into a money-hungry business.

I'd want free prep schools for every student as well, but of course that is an un-American sentiment and has no chance of being enacted.

The fact is, unless every high school across the nation creates a portfolio of a student's work, a standardized test combined with GPA is the best measure of a studen't academic performance during college's first year.

@TimeKeeper:

Unfortunately, that's the only way the US has right now to measure a student's abilities. Your views may be disappointing, but I certainly can't disagree with them. Hope someone will eventually make a difference.

Originally posted by Timekeeper
The fact is, unless every high school across the nation creates a portfolio of a student's work, a standardized test combined with GPA is the best measure of a studen't academic performance during college's first year.

Perhaps, but another important question still remains - is a standardised test and GPA:s the best predictor on how well a student will do at higher education and eventually, his or her chosen career?

If the SAT:s remain, of course all students should have equal access to prep classes etc, but as several posters have pointed out, I doubt if there is a point to teach people to take tests. I would be in favour of abandoning the idea of standardised tests as a selection method, and use other methods instead, methods that actually provide a measure of variables that we know are connected both to academic and professional performance, such as motivation.

Originally posted by C Elegans


Perhaps, but another important question still remains - is a standardised test and GPA:s the best predictor on how well a student will do at higher education and eventually, his or her chosen career?

If the SAT:s remain, of course all students should have equal access to prep classes etc, but as several posters have pointed out, I doubt if there is a point to teach people to take tests. I would be in favour of abandoning the idea of standardised tests as a selection method, and use other methods instead, methods that actually provide a measure of variables that we know are connected both to academic and professional performance, such as motivation.

I have a question about this. How do you measuer motivation? I happen to know that, to most people, I have always appeared to have little to no motivation, yet I was a straight A student throughout elementary, junior high, and high school.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

I have a question about this. How do you measuer motivation? I happen to know that, to most people, I have always appeared to have little to no motivation, yet I was a straight A student throughout elementary, junior high, and high school.

It is very difficult to measure motivation, and it's of course not the only thing that should be considered, but it's a major part. I very well understand that you perhaps appear unmotivated to teachers, since I guess you have been rather understimulated during your school years. The school system also makes students unmotivated in many cases (I would however like to say that here at SYM, you certainly have shown great motivation to study physics for instance.)

I think that a procedure that includes that the student writes a motivation when applying to a certain school/education is a start. Then the students should be called to interviews, much like when you apply for a job - more than one round of interviews could be used here. Then, for very popular educations, I think the students should be called to some kind of introduction before they are selected, an introduction where the education and the profession it leads to are thouroughly presented to the students so the students also get the opportunity to ask themselves if it's really like they imagined.

The medical university I work at has a selection procedure similar to this before the medical students are selected. According to the studies they have made of student's achivements and professional achivement, this system has turned out very well. If you have top grades, you write a letter of application and explain why you want to study this. If your motivation is considered good, you are called to interviews, I don't know how many before the final decision is taken. Also, there is a certain number of spaces especially for people who don't have top grades in all subjects (you still need to have good grades though), and in this group, interviews are the only selection method. What my uni lacks though, is some more concrete presentation for the students - it's a fact that many students quite their education very early because they realise it wasn't as they had imagined, but this is solved by accepting more people than there are spaces. IMO a bad solution, since you can't be sure from year to year how many students are going to quit. At the best art school in my city, they have an introduction to the applying students, similar to what I described, so obviously it's not impossible.