Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

The main point of the article was that the alarm over low SAT scores may not be necessary and that a four-year-degree isn't the best choice for everyone.

Regardless of anything else about the author or his motives, his point in this regard is correct. Community colleges and vocational programs/centers don't require the SAT, yet students can learn marketable skills at both. The same is also true for adult education centers. Students who graduate from these places are also far less likely to end up yoked to student loan debt for 10, 20, or even 30 years.

I agree, Val. In fact, I think a very decent article could have been written about the CB's weird report pointing all this out. Too bad Richwine's piece wasn't it.

Agreed. This statement in particular:


All students? REALLY??

And yes, as I said before, they're clearly pushing the PSAT, and they're also pushing AP participation, which would increase the pool of AP test takers, so there's definitely a profit motive here.

However...

It's also worth considering that, as the providers of these products, they're uniquely positioned to analyze data related to them, and some of the results are quite interesting, and yes, even worthy of alarm, as the Atlantic article suggested.

For instance:


If we generalize the population of SAT test takers as those students with college aspirations, it's a question worth asking... why are the majority of students who are interested in attending college not fully prepared?

I'd be interested to see the data, though, because a lot of students take it early in their junior year, just to get a baseline. I think they'd need to filter out early takers (unless they pass) and re-testers in order for the data to be useful.


It's easy to see the dollar signs from The College Board's perspective here, because that's a lot of potential customers that never walked in the door.

But it does seem to be a problem, too. If all of these students were identified as capable of AP work, and assuming the classes were available, why didn't they take them? I'd like to see a follow-up survey for a randomly-selected few thousand of them, to see what that data tells us.

Excellent question! I was wondering about this myself. Several factors may be at play:
1) Some students may not have been internally motivated/driven to press for college... but others may have wanted them to sit for the SAT. For example: their high school which previously was ranked based on achieving high standardized test scores, therefore encouraged only its best and brightest to sit for the exams... is now being rated on increasing accessibility to standardized tests, therefore encouraging all students to sit for exams.
2) If I recall, the organization's definition of college-ready is: anticipated B and above in all college-level courses. Therefore someone who may achieve a C in a college-level course, and someone who may take a prep-level math or English course as a college freshman... would each be considered not-college-ready.

I've previously seen this ascribed to the fixed mindset: students and their families deciding to forego rigor for the probable higher GPA of an easier course. To offset this and provide incentive to take rigorous courses, some high schools may have weighted grades for selected Honors and/or AP courses.

Well, someone who has to take the equivalent of geometry or algebra I in college?

They aren't "College-Ready."

Donning my taxpayer hat for a moment, here--

WTH?? Why are my tax dollars being funneled into remedial coursework?? I'd like to see the data on how many of those kids who NEED remedial college courses are even graduating at all. Because if they don't, that's inherently a poor use of those funds, and I'd like it to stop.

Send those people to a local JC or CC until they ARE "college ready" instead.

Point well taken. There is one case I am familiar with... a parent had died while a child was in high school... kid had AP credits, good standardized test scores, also earned CLEP credits... and took a prep-level English as a freshman to get the grade which could not be earned in HS due to other things being dealt with.

In this case, IMHO, the student was more than college-ready. Having faced adversity and triumphed was perhaps more important to the person's overall ability to stay in college and graduate (advanced degrees as well), than having performed well on every course in high school.

When looking at cut-scores and statistics, we must remember there are human stories behind each of them, and be willing to walk a mile in our brother's moccasins. There is so much more to a person than academic measures... consider grit, determination, potential... not just their past achievement which is largely defined by the opportunities which had been available.

Regarding remedial math... in colleges, there are majors in subjects like art, theatre performance, etc... these kids may be stellar in their craft... gifted, even... but may not be mathematically inclined. Why define them by their weakness, rather than their strength (why deny them college entrance)?

Keeping in mind that there are many definitions of success and many paths to those successes may create a kinder, gentler world (with perhaps less drug abuse to deal with a sense of potential failure relative to the competition, as being discussed in another thread).

They define "college-ready" as an SAT score of 1550 or higher, which, according to their statistics, predicts at least a 65% chance of a B- GPA or better in the first full year of college.

Thanks for clarifying the anticipated college grade info, as it pertains to "college-ready". While the CB/SAT/ACT/AVID websites and the information presented on them have changed, here is one reference to a college-ready definition, sourced from CB (link- http://professionals.collegeboard.com/k-12/readiness-system/culture) There are undoubtedly other definitions of college-ready on various webpages and print materials of the interrelated organizations. This definition speaks to the 2nd aspect I mentioned...

For the purpose of this discussion, though, the SAT report constantly refers back to a thing called "SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark", which is a windy way of saying 1550.

Thank you for sharing that descriptor. When organizations refer to a cut-score or other piece of data by its descriptor (in this case "SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark") it is often an indicator that the data value or cut-score may change over time. By referring to the descriptor, the organization minimizes the number of places an update would be needed on its website and in print materials if/when the data value changes. Optimal use of this technique occurs when the data only needs to be changed in one place, and other references by descriptor point to this one location where the data value is disclosed.

As I understand it, standardized test takers encounter a number of test questions whose answers are not factored into their scoring. These are new questions being normed for future versions of the exam.