should the SAT be abolished

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Fri Mar 15, 2002 11:36 pm

So, what do you think? Do you think that colleges abolish the requirement of taking SATs?

Here's what I think:
Yes, we should abolish the SATs. I think the SAT is unjust, it is not a good way to really testing someone's abilities, and in recent years, it has become a business venture that charge exorbitant prices. A lot of fellow students I know have taken SAT-prep classes, and from what they tell me, it's fairly helpful, but very very expensive. SAT-prep classes basically just teach you patterns in the SAT, that to me doesn't help you actually learn anything, that to me just teaches some established steps and applying them on a given problem. That does not take a lot of thinking, all you have to do is memorize the steps. Why should the SAT-prep classes charge so high for something that may be common knowledge within the business?

Now, many SAT-prep classes do actually help you increase your score, some people have been known to increase by 200 points after taking a prep class. That's great if you are well-off financially. What about those people who are not so well off. What about the immigrants who just want their children to have a brighter future in the US. The child may understand English poorly, but how does one know his abilities. On the other hand, the son of a doctor might not be as intelligent or hard-working as the immigrant. Just because he can pay for the classes and get a higher score doesn't mean that he's any better than the immigrant. The immigrant might do poorly on the SAT, but does that alone determine his future? Why should the colleges accept someone who's not really motivated but paid the money, and not someone who's actually hard-working but poor? How many potentials will they waste?

Thirdly, SAT scores have all but lost their meaning. At an earlier time, there weren't so many SAT-prep classes, and getting a high score actually meant something. Nowadays with so many SAT-prep classes popping up, getting a high score no longer have the same meaning. Nowadays a 1500 or a 1600 means a lot less than it did maybe ten or twenty years ago. I live in a very Asian community. The parents have extremely high expectations for their children. I personally take such a SAT-prep class for hoping that I will get a better score. However, as I look around my school and see so many new immigrants struggling with English and their grades, I can't help but feel that the SAT is unfair. Yet hoping for a better future for their children, many of these new immigrants' parents will do whatever is necessary just to get his/her child into such a prep class. These are the fortunate ones, but there are many others who just simply cannot afford such a class. Why should they suffer and toil while some rich white kid from the suburbs pay for the classes and laugh as they stride arrogantly into Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc?

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 10:36 am

YES.

They should also abolish the GRE and ALL standardized tests.

Standardized tests are not a measure of intelligence, talent, or ability. They do not measure a person's ability in their chosen field of study. Many people who want to study literature are not accepted based on low math scores. Then they get told, "You weren't the best candidate because of your low math scores, event hough we know you're taking the English major." In addition, many brilliant students simply do not do well with standardized testing. It's completely unjust.

P.S. @humanflyz: There's already an American Communist Party

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 10:42 am

Is this an American SAT? In the UK we have SATs (Standardized Ability/Attainment Tests?) aged 7, 11, and 14. They aren't really very important as far as I know, just give the Government some statistics, and they certainly don't cost anything. I don't think there are any tests in the UK that you have to pay for. Anyway, explain more and I'll surely put an informative and interesting spin on the topic. ahem.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 11:36 am

Originally posted by frogus
Is this an American SAT? In the UK we have SATs (Standardized Ability/Attainment Tests?) aged 7, 11, and 14. They aren't really very important as far as I know, just give the Government some statistics, and they certainly don't cost anything. I don't think there are any tests in the UK that you have to pay for. Anyway, explain more and I'll surely put an informative and interesting spin on the topic. ahem.

Right on the nose Frogus, the American SAT (Scholastic Acheivement Test) is a way for the American College system to guage the calibre of entries of the students. It is for High School leavers I believe and they are the same as our GCSE's. I think our acronym is the same...

Our SAT's are hardly any better really, they put extra pressure on kids that they don't need and they are incredibly biased towards females, who have a tendancy to work harder at that age, the statistics produced only make the Labour government demand more improvements to education, asking the teachers to do the nigh on impossible. An example, my sister is 7 years old. She is quite poor at reading and writing, it doesn't interest her, but her mathematics are awesome, she already recognises fractions and so on. The government ask her to be able to construct long, complicated sentances, read long books without aid, and write joined up in a clear manner. She's 7! She's got 10 years before the most important exams for her...

While I understand the need to have such tests in England at our age, at one point before the system was really a pure means to group children on level of ability and allowed teachers in Secondary School to guage the level of class they should be in.

Labour abused the results and started demanding more from teachers and pupils. The way I see it, the American system does seem a little wayward...

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 11:49 am

I know nobody loves standardized tests, but i like them.
Why? I do really well on them.
People who do better than me in school otherwise don't do nearly as well on standardized tests.

Buts thats just really a biased opinion.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 12:56 pm

, they put extra pressure on kids that they don't need and they are incredibly biased towards females, who have a tendancy to work harder at that age, the statistics produced only make the Labour government demand more improvements to education, asking the teachers to do the nigh on impossible.

I'm with you, apart from the female bias. If girls work harder at that age, what can they do? Give the lads a pat on the back, a wink and boost their grade up?

...fair play to the girls who work hard, they deserve getting good marks just as much as the boys who work hard, and we wouldn't begrudge them anything.

Labour abused the results and started demanding more from teachers and pupils. The way I see it, the American system does seem a little wayward...

Yeah. ability must be gauged, but point blank exams are a useless way of doing it. You won't get the results you need, and will make the kids neurotic and crazy with stress.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 1:58 pm

Originally posted by frogus
I'm with you, apart from the female bias. If girls work harder at that age, what can they do? Give the lads a pat on the back, a wink and boost their grade up? ...fair play to the girls who work hard, they deserve getting good marks just as much as the boys who work hard, and we wouldn't begrudge them anything.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that girls work harder than boys, but in my opinion, as expressed even by teachers, that the educational system in Britain favours girls due to the high emphasis placed on coursework and so on. Boys are proven crammers, they have the ability to do well in last minute revision of anything, but girls, who generally are united in their ability to work universally hard, are favoured with the high percentage scores placed on courses. I like the way girls, work, I mean, I would love to be organised as much as some of them are, but it is a natural, almost gender based thing for girls to have that advantage.

I am not a sexist in any means of the word, but I don't like the emphasis placed on coursework these days...

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:04 pm

ahhh...cheers for clearing that up....ummm, I dunno anything about Male/Female working behaviour, but I could see how a big inherent difference would have to be accepted by the education system. I thought it was just me, but yes, I am a crammer, and I do do well in tests just from revising at the last minute..well wadda ya know, I'm a gender stereotype!

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:11 pm

Originally posted by frogus
ahhh...cheers for clearing that up....ummm, I dunno anything about Male/Female working behaviour, but I could see how a big inherent difference would have to be accepted by the education system. I thought it was just me, but yes, I am a crammer, and I do do well in tests just from revising at the last minute..well wadda ya know, I'm a gender stereotype!

LOL, me too. I have a tendancy to steal a comprehensive text book, lock the door blast some music and cram like a dog!

There are definite trends in the different sex, there has been whole years of research on the way each sex prepares for GCSE's/A-Levels, apparently, the AS-Levels could go either way. Boys being better at exams should be able to pull themselves up, but a girls tendancy to have more organisation and preparedness will give her an advantage.

My first AS modules were OK, a B,C,D (History, Eng Lit, IT) but I want to resit them to get higher grades, I also want to revise this time...

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:21 pm

LOL

I've seen a lot of things, but cramming like a dog? that's a new one on me. I'd love to see how it's done.

****, I won't bore you with my many GCSE modualr grades, but they're alright, however, I am finding it hard to live up to my sister's example: A*, A*, A*, A*, A, A*, A*, A*, A*, A, A*, A.

Not a single grade below an A. ****. I don't know how she did it, but maybe there is something in the gender. (I mean, blatantly it's only cos I'm a boy that I'm getting **** grades!)

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:26 pm

Originally posted by frogus
LOL I've seen a lot of things, but cramming like a dog? that's a new one on me. I'd love to see how it's done.

****, I won't bore you with my many GCSE modualr grades, but they're alright, however, I am finding it hard to live up to my sister's example: A*, A*, A*, A*, A, A*, A*, A*, A*, A, A*, A.

Not a single grade below an A. ****. I don't know how she did it, but maybe there is something in the gender. (I mean, blatantly it's only cos I'm a boy that I'm getting **** grades!)

Your telling me, I go to an all boys 6th form and the all girls one nearby gets grades similar to ours, but in GCSE when they beat us we got such a rollocking!

"How can you let them beat you! You are intelligent young men! How many of you revised hard enough?"

About three people put their hands up and they got umm... whacked later on...

Cramming like a dog? You've got to literally work your nuts off!

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:28 pm

LOL...

yeah..that is an interesting point, how teachers always try and appeal to your masculinity to try and motivate you to work harder. This is like appealing to a cow's bovinity to try and make it into a viscious killer.

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:29 pm

i think the extra exams won't particularly help anyone - more tests mean more:

stress
revision
time off on exam leave instead of learning

so the curriculum has to be sandwiched inbetween exams, especially at AS

also, SATs for 7 year olds are meaningless for anything other than making school league tables, since, unlike the 14 year olds, the primary school kids cannot go into different groups targeted specifically at them. instead they are just one more event sandwiched into the timetables.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 3:07 pm

stress interferes with my education a great deal. I do not suffer from stress myself, but this is only because of my own efforts not to be dragged down. I am sure that if I tried to do everything that they wanted me to, I would go insane and end up not doing anything. So it's a do or die and die anyway even if you do situation.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 9:50 pm

I don't know a great deal about American SATs... but it does seem bizarre to reject college students on the basis of subjects they don't even want to study. I also think students should be tested on the basis of what they have been taught, not have to do extra study for separate exams. Why is it, if all American students have to take SATs, that schools don't do the necessary work to prepare them for it?

Posted by humanflyz:
SAT-prep classes basically just teach you patterns in the SAT, that to me doesn't help you actually learn anything, that to me just teaches some established steps and applying them on a given problem.

By my experience, most exams work like this. If you know how to apply your knowledge, you can pass. In History, it's usually quite easy to work out (with the help of a couple of past papers) what the questions are going to be (the general area, rather than the exact wording). If you follow a set structure in your essay (with suitable supporting evidence), you'll get the marks.

Posted by Nippy:
they are incredibly biased towards females, who have a tendancy to work harder at that age,

As frogus pointed out, that's not exactly bias, Nips

And wait... you reckon exams are biased towards females, and coursework is biased towards females... What exactly do you think is fair assessment? Besides, I don't know of many courses where coursework is weighted more heavily than exams. If boys do better in exams, and girls in coursework, don't you think it would be fair to assess by 50% coursework and 50% exam?

I don't think gender stereotypes are particularly helpful either. Boys are just as capable of doing well in coursework as girls, and vice versa. They just have to put effort in. And how much difference is there between last minute cramming for exams and last minute writing of a coursework essay? Very little, IMO - and I should know.

@Frogus In my year, 3 people at my school got 7 A*s and 2 As for GCSE (yeah, it's only a comprehensive and in those days we didn't have to do so many of the things!), two boys and one girl. So go figure

I agree with the government criticisms though. They're far too preoccupied with assessment and targets and such. 7-year-olds sitting exams is just ridiculous. I can understand the desire for pre-secondary school exams in order to stream children in the core subjects, but not just for league tables. I think exams at age 14 are beneficial in order to help decide on GCSE options, as well as practice in taking exams - it helps get kids more used to the exam environment. And these exams shouldn't be much extra work for students if they've worked hard in classes.

Your telling me, I go to an all boys 6th form and the all girls one nearby gets grades similar to ours, but in GCSE when they beat us we got such a rollocking!

Hehehe. You probably deserved it

I bet you were way ahead of Edgbarrow in the league table though

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:49 am

Originally posted by Georgi
I don't know a great deal about American SATs... but it does seem bizarre to reject college students on the basis of subjects they don't even want to study. I also think students should be tested on the basis of what they have been taught, not have to do extra study for separate exams. Why is it, if all American students have to take SATs, that schools don't do the necessary work to prepare them for it?

Hehehe. You probably deserved it I bet you were way ahead of Edgbarrow in the league table though

I agree about your points on bias, but also understand that the majority of girls have a tendancy to work harder than boys (fair play, they deserve it

) But some boys good at cramming get better grades because they know how to blag. (I should know, I didn't revise for my GCSE's!

).

Edgbarrow, can't remember their scores, so I have no idea...

@ All, notice how this thread started with criticisms for the US SAT?

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 12:23 pm

@Georgi:
That's a good question. If the US students are required to take the SATs, then how come there aren't school-endorsed prep classes for it? Actually there are. As far as I know, only the school in East Coast America have such classes. That's another thing that I hate about the SATs. Only the rich schools can afford special teachers to teach the kids how to take the SAT. What is the end result, some sort of government funding for that school just because of the statistics. What about the poor schools, well, they are left in the dust.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:11 pm

I don't know enough about the SAT test to comment in detail on the test as a selection for higher education, but a few general comments:

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

2. Even as an apitude test, SAT seems unsuitable. I took a quick glance at the test contents at a website, and clearly, the test only measures a limited range of abilities. A general problem with all school aptitude tests, are that they generally measure a students aptitude to study. Fine, but aptitude to study is not at all correlated to aptitude for lots of different professions. So the qeustion is, should for instance medical students be selected with school aptitude tests, when it is known that this has no meaning whatsoever on how good doctor you are going to be? Of course the student must be able to pass the education too, but shouldn't aptitude for the profession be of any importance at all?
And as Georgi points out, there is no meaning to test students in areas that they don't plan to study anyway.

3. An extremely important factor in how well a student will do both in education and profession, is motivation. How is this measured? Is it taken into account at all?

A question to you Americans, since I don't fully understand your education system, please explain: Let's say I want to become a doc, I want to study medicine at Harvard. What do I have to do?

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:22 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

A question to you Americans, since I don't fully understand your education system, please explain: Let's say I want to become a doc, I want to study medicine at Harvard. What do I have to do?

Although I'm not American, I think I know how to answer this, you have to have potloads of money, straight A student and be extremely talented. (Is Harvard a Law school?)

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:25 pm

@Nippy: Let's say I want to study medicine or law at Oxford university, what would I have to do then?

And in both situation, what do I do if I have straight A's and I'm very talented, but I don't have any money?