We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
It’s time again for the yearly ritual: The College Board releases data on recent SAT scores, which show some large percentage of American students are not “college ready.” The alarm is sounded. Much hand-wringing follows. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The Atlantic has helped move things along this time with an article entitled “This Year’s SAT Scores Are Out, and They’re Grim.” The article warns, “For the fifth year in a row, fewer than half of SAT-takers received scores that qualified them as ‘college-ready.’”
Absent from the article is any discussion of what percentage of students should be college-ready. How can the results be “grim” without some a priori understanding of what constitutes success?
In reality, there is a substantial fraction of students for whom “college ready” is not an appropriate goal. The costly four-year-college track simply does not suit the interests and abilities of many young people who are pushed into it.
Rather than gnashing teeth about college readiness each year, a more productive activity would be to analyze the degree to which our school system is tailoring instruction to individual student needs. For example, is vocational training available to kids who want it? Are two-year technical degrees advertised properly? Are gifted students challenged enough? These are much more important topics than tabulating what percentage of students pass an arbitrary test-score threshold.
It would also be nice if more media outlets noted the College Board’s conflict of interest here. In releasing the data, the College Board issued a “call to action,” saying, “These scores can and must change — and the College Board feels a sense of responsibility to help make that happen.” And, coincidentally, ensuring these scores go up will require everyone to purchase College Board exams for years to come!
It gets worse. The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not. One is that more college-ready students took the PSAT. (Guess who sells the PSAT.) Another is that college-ready students took more AP tests. (Guess who sells AP tests.) Still another is that more college-ready students completed a “core curriculum.” (Guess who will be selling tests based on the Common Core national standards.)
Ginning up alarm may be lucrative business, but education policy requires a more mature discourse.
However, there's something to be said for feeling concerned about the fact that THOSE WHO TAKE THE SAT are not college-ready. If it was "those who graduate from high school," the bits about vo-tech, technical degrees, etc would be more relevant.
What percentage of students take the SAT but do not then attend college? Anyone know?
Somewhere along the way, going to college became the only acceptable outcome for a high school student. I believe this has led to many of the sad stories about high college debt/no job graduates, industries who cannot find skilled workers (i.e. technical/vocational skills), etc.
Well, I don't think there are huge numbers of jobs for HS graduates going begging out there for a lack of skilled workers. Some, perhaps, and better vo-tech and training is something to look at, but the larger issue as I understand it is that we have transitioned from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, and those jobs don't pay well.
The concern I see about vo-tech is that you can end up using your educational years to train for a specific job that may become obsolete. Algebra and writing skills do not become obsolete.
However, there's something to be said for feeling concerned about the fact that THOSE WHO TAKE THE SAT are not college-ready. If it was "those who graduate from high school," the bits about vo-tech, technical degrees, etc would be more relevant.
What percentage of students take the SAT but do not then attend college? Anyone know?
I addressed this very briefly yesterday with someone else, so I happen to have some info handy.
One of the most distressing things IN that report, imo, was that some 42% of the students who scored below that 1550 combined benchmark had taken "advanced" high school coursework... AP/honors.
H.S. graduates generally still need additional training and good math and literacy schools, but everything I read suggests that there are indeed jobs for those with skills. For example, construction companies are reporting a serious dearth of skilled works. Yes, some types of training may need to be refreshed if the job marketplace changes, but the investment of time and resources is also not normally the same as a four-year college education.
Uh, I'm just skimming the Board's report but it looks like Mr. Richwine (wasn't there a scandal about this guy?) is not being forthright. I don't see where "The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not." Actually, I don't see any direct claim that "college-ready students took more AP tests" or that "more college-ready students took the PSAT." Might have missed it. He's correct about "more college-ready students completed a “core curriculum," but of course, that's not the same as Common Core, which we all know is a new thing.
What the report does say is that students who scored higher on AP tests also scored higher on the SAT, and that students who scored higher on the PSAT score higher on the SAT. Duh. And it tries to sell us the value of the PSAT as an early indicator. But I don't see ANY claims that taking the PSAT or taking AP exams makes you get a higher score on the SAT.
Again, I'm just skimming, but from where I stand this look like like poor journalism from the National Review.
The concern I see about vo-tech is that you can end up using your educational years to train for a specific job that may become obsolete. Algebra and writing skills do not become obsolete.
No, but jobs requiring them --- like tech writing or software engineering or tech support --- can easily be outsourced. Skills for these jobs can become obsolete more quickly than skills used by plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, and the like. And their jobs can't be outsourced.
I agree with you completely about switching from manufacturing jobs to service jobs. It suits big businesses but has played a big role in damaging the middle class. IMO, part of the everyone-must-get-a-BA frenzy stems from this problem.
However, there's something to be said for feeling concerned about the fact that THOSE WHO TAKE THE SAT are not college-ready. If it was "those who graduate from high school," the bits about vo-tech, technical degrees, etc would be more relevant.
What percentage of students take the SAT but do not then attend college? Anyone know?
I addressed this very briefly yesterday with someone else, so I happen to have some info handy.
One of the most distressing things IN that report, imo, was that some 42% of the students who scored below that 1550 combined benchmark had taken "advanced" high school coursework... AP/honors.
Agreed!
As mentioned on another recent thread, the news media creates high school rankings which most currently are based on providing more students with access to advanced courses and exams. To gain top ratings high schools are providing advanced courses and exams to ever larger percentages of their populations without regard to student readiness or ability. Once set in motion, this Rube-Goldberg-esque educational machine calls for a structure which then improves the readiness and ability of those students. I believe the specific target groups of students are those eligible for free and reduced lunch, ethnic minorities, undocumented immigrants, those whose parents did not attend American college/university.
Some of the called-for improvement can be compatible with gifted ed... for example attitudinal approach of the growth mindset can be of benefit to all and need not be costly to implement. Parents can do this at home. Posted recently on another thread, a link to a youtube video of Carol Dweck.
The concept of fixed mindset vs growth mindset is nicely summarized in these youtube videos: Ashley Merryman & Po Bronson: The Myth of Praise (link- ) and Teaching a Growth Mindset (link- ) by Carol Dweck whose research was mentioned in the Bronson video clip. These links provide quick summaries, their books contain more info. One aspect or application of a fixed mindset is that gifted kids, in order to be seen as "right" or "smart", may stop taking appropriate risks, possibly shunning a challenge and preferring easy work which may represent a level of underachievement. A fixed mindset may work against them and be exhibited as a lack of resilience.
Uh, I'm just skimming the Board's report but it looks like Mr. Richwine (wasn't there a scandal about this guy?) is not being forthright. I don't see where "The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not." Actually, I don't see any direct claim that "college-ready students took more AP tests" or that "more college-ready students took the PSAT." Might have missed it. He's correct about "more college-ready students completed a “core curriculum," but of course, that's not the same as Common Core, which we all know is a new thing.
What the report does say is that students who scored higher on AP tests also scored higher on the SAT, and that students who scored higher on the PSAT score higher on the SAT. Duh. And it tries to sell us the value of the PSAT as an early indicator. But I don't see ANY claims that taking the PSAT or taking AP exams makes you get a higher score on the SAT.
Again, I'm just skimming, but from where I stand this look like like poor journalism from the National Review.
I do suspect that some of that conflation core/common core on the part of CB is not accidental.
After helping write English Language Arts standards that will be used in 46 Common Core states, David Coleman is going to head College Board, which controls SAT and AP exams.
Oh, and by the way, College Board helped to WRITE Common Core. A salient fact that they apparently aren't happy to have public at this point in time. LOL.
It's been taken down in the past week, but it used to be at
and is now viewable as a cached snapshot here instead.
Quote
The SAT and the Common Core State Standards
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been designed to provide a rigorous learning platform that prepares our nation’s students to perform in the classroom, to succeed in college and to prosper in their careers.
The College Board has been a consistent advocate and committed collaborator in the development of the Common Core State Standards. Our organization helped draft the original College and Career Readiness Standards, provided feedback on the K–12 standards and served on the advisory group that guided the initiative. The College Board is committed to helping states and districts understand how to implement these new common standards.
The SAT is aligned as well or better to the Common Core State Standards than any assessment that has been developed for college admission and/or placement. The College Board will continue to invest — and is committed to building deeper alignment — to ensure the SAT reflects the key components of the CCSS.
Completing core course work and participating in advanced courses plays a significant role in academic performance, affecting not only SAT performance but other measures such as GPA and graduation rates. In the long run, if we are going to achieve our college completion goal of 55 percent of Americans holding a college degree by 2025, we must ensure that all students — including traditionally underserved minority and low-income students — complete core course work and have access to the most rigorous courses possible. We are confident that the Common Core State Standards will help achieve that goal.
Lalalala... nothing's ever gone on the internet, folks.
I don't see where "The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not."
This may be like reading something in a thread here on the board and then mentioning it later without providing the reference because it seems to be common knowledge in the current audience? It is my understanding that the College Board has been making statements about SES as related to college readiness. Rather than being a strictly causal relationship in which higher more $ = higher achievement, there may be a variety of contributing factors, including whether parents picked up a bit of knowledge about what parents can do to support and encourage their children, by experiencing this support from their own parents... this may have been missing in some families. Carefully following the interrelated issues through the web of research and discussion over several years may reveal why first-generation-college-attendees may be a focus for post-secondary intervention.
A concern may be whether the benefactors of this investment will then internalize what they've learned (e.g. The support services which have been provided to me can serve as my role model of how I can take responsibility for my future family and provide educational support and encouragement to my children) or by contrast not become internalized but rather become a multi-generational-dependency upon the system (e.g. If I do not provide educational support and encouragement to my children, the system will step in and do it for me/them.) Providing the services without teaching the growth mindset may therefore lead to entrenched multi-generational legacy of a sense of dependence/entitlement.
It reviews the profits of the CB and how they are profiting from the trend to get everyone to take an AP course so they are exposed to college level work
I don't doubt it, and I don't think the College Board is blameless by any means. I'm sure they're in it to win it.
I just don't care for Richwine's piece. It's misleading. You don't actually need to be misleading to point out some issues here--HK has just done so.
And the thing about business is that they can make decisions in their own best interest, and if it all fails, they just jump to the next company. They don't take any oath of office or "do no harm".
Agreed! Looks like a possible lack of ethics and accountability. Yet without the government backing for Common Core, this may be without power or influence.
Originally Posted by master of none
I so wish that this whole system could be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch. As it is now, everyone depends on everyone else to maintain and improve profits. Makes it hard to trust anyone about common core, SATs or anything else. Just a paper chase now.
Fortunately taking the SAT is not compulsory. People do it because everyone else is doing it. Some children take it because they love a challenge, others take it so they do not fall behind, and some take it so they may get ahead. Yet when they get ahead, the system providing the test may cry foul, claiming they want equal results for all, and may even provide penalties for all members of a demographic whose representative students outperform others. What becomes the point of the test?
In a free market of capitalism, people can respond to a possible conflict of interest or burgeoning monopoly by withholding their dollars. Portfolio, anyone? As intelligence becomes passé and may be written off as so much book-learning, more individuals may wish to distinguish themselves by showcasing what they can DO with what they've learned... how they can apply their skills and self-knowledge in various arenas.
An enterprising capitalist may also wish to harness the current concerns surrounding the educational system, MOOCs, accreditation, etc and create competition, investing in entering the market with a new high-school completion testing and academic credentialing service. Acting independently may create a viable product/service. For example, greek yogurt took the yogurt world by storm.
I believe the specific target groups of students are those eligible for free and reduced lunch, ethnic minorities, undocumented immigrants, those whose parents did not attend American college/university.
Do you have a source for that? In the specific context of high school rankings?
NCLB tracks performance for several at risk categories (racial minorities, limited English proficiency, socio-economically disadvantaged, special needs) so that data is readily available.
The federal government defined socio-economically disadvantaged as eligible for free/reduced price lunch, but states seem to be free to extend that (California uses free/reduced price lunch or neither parent graduating high school).
But I doubt anybody is keeping hard data on undocumented immigrants right now, since it is such an extremely sensitive subject (Plyler v. Doe, the recent fight around laws in Alabama and Georgia that required public schools to ask about the immigration status of their students).
And I have no idea where anybody would get the data on whether parents attended an American University. When I signed up my kids for public school parental education levels were self-reported with no box to put in where those degrees came from. Nobody asked me for my transcripts.
Well, it actually sort of IS. In a de facto sense, I mean. Yes, you can, I suppose, opt OUT of college entirely... you can opt to only attend one of the institutions that doesn't require a standardized test...
or you can take the ACT, the only real non-CB competitor.
There was a noticeable change in tone at the College Board with the release of this year's SAT scores. Officials went beyond reporting scores to a passionate push to expand opportunity to all students, framing it as a social justice issue.
In the SAT score report out today, just 43 percent of students were deemed college-ready, the exact same percentage as last year, with the average test scores in each category flat.
The stagnant performance on the college-entrance exam and racial gaps (see the new Education Week story here) require a "call to action," said David Coleman, the president of the College Board, in a phone briefing this week with reporters.
What was missing from the explanation about the scores was the notion, emphasized in the past by the College Board, that a larger, more diverse testing pool was to blame. College Board officials said this week that the research does not support linking a change in demographics to the lack of improvement in scores.
"Let me say in a clear voice, there are those who tend to wave away these results because they say more diverse students are taking them," said Coleman, who took over leadership at the College Board in May of 2012. "Our conviction is clear: For this county to succeed, diversity and excellence must both expand. It is perhaps the most urgent work of this next century. We stand utterly committed to not wave away results in any way by saying different kids are taking the exam. We know through advanced coursework and hard work all kids can succeed at a very high level. It's our commitment to expand that circle of opportunity."
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell
"We know through advanced coursework and hard work all kids can succeed at a very high level. It's our commitment to expand that circle of opportunity."
"We know through advanced coursework and hard work all kids can succeed at a very high level. It's our commitment to expand that circle of opportunity."
How did Coleman wind up in the middle of the 21st century's curriculum wars?
His path started at his parents' dinner table and wended through selective New York public school Stuyvesant High, making an important pit stop at his bar mitzvah. After being asked to perform a deep exegesis of his Torah portion, Coleman extracted a lesson that would guide his career: "The idea that kids can do more than we think they can," he said. Asking 13-year-olds to give a speech is a bold charge, not unlike recommending AP courses to disadvantaged kids who don't see academic aptitude in themselves. "I wish kids could encounter more stretched opportunities like that in school -- all kids," Coleman said.
After graduating from Stuyvesant, Coleman attended Yale and was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford, where he studied English literature. He also met Jason Zimba, a Common Core co-writer and lifelong friend who later taught mathematics at Bennington College, where Coleman's mother, Elizabeth, served as president. Zimba remembers hanging out in pubs and playing Risk with Coleman, who spent the rest of his time studying for exams. Coleman had a competitive streak and often won at Risk. "He's an astute observer of characters, so if he thinks you can handle it, he might celebrate [his victory over you]," he said.
Upon returning to New York, Coleman applied for a high school teaching position and was turned down. Instead, he worked for consulting firm McKinsey & Company, where he advised public schools and became a fixture at New York City Department of Education meetings. That's where he met David Sherman, then a vice president at the United Federation of Teachers.
"We know through advanced coursework and hard work all kids can succeed at a very high level. It's our commitment to expand that circle of opportunity."
How did Coleman wind up in the middle of the 21st century's curriculum wars?
His path started at his parents' dinner table and wended through selective New York public school Stuyvesant High, making an important pit stop at his bar mitzvah. After being asked to perform a deep exegesis of his Torah portion, Coleman extracted a lesson that would guide his career: "The idea that kids can do more than we think they can," he said. Asking 13-year-olds to give a speech is a bold charge, not unlike recommending AP courses to disadvantaged kids who don't see academic aptitude in themselves. "I wish kids could encounter more stretched opportunities like that in school -- all kids," Coleman said.
After graduating from Stuyvesant, Coleman attended Yale and was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford, where he studied English literature. He also met Jason Zimba, a Common Core co-writer and lifelong friend who later taught mathematics at Bennington College, where Coleman's mother, Elizabeth, served as president. Zimba remembers hanging out in pubs and playing Risk with Coleman, who spent the rest of his time studying for exams. Coleman had a competitive streak and often won at Risk. "He's an astute observer of characters, so if he thinks you can handle it, he might celebrate [his victory over you]," he said.
Upon returning to New York, Coleman applied for a high school teaching position and was turned down. Instead, he worked for consulting firm McKinsey & Company, where he advised public schools and became a fixture at New York City Department of Education meetings. That's where he met David Sherman, then a vice president at the United Federation of Teachers.
Hmm. Seems rather like the notion that 10,000 hrs of practice at anything can turn anyone into a master of it.
I do believe that stretch is very important, especially for children. I just don't think that stretching automatically works to the same end result for each individual.
I believe the specific target groups of students are those eligible for free and reduced lunch, ethnic minorities, undocumented immigrants, those whose parents did not attend American college/university.
Do you have a source for that?
Not readily available, hence it is prefaced with "I believe..." as opposed to, "According to XYZ and ABC...".
Originally Posted by SiaSL
In the specific context of high school rankings?
This was actually presented in the context of "this Rube-Goldberg-esque educational machine", not specifically in the context of high school rankings. Several entities are present including news media, high schools, CB (implied as it is the subject of the thread), and the overall industry.
Originally Posted by SiaSL
NCLB tracks performance for several at risk categories (racial minorities, limited English proficiency, socio-economically disadvantaged, special needs) so that data is readily available. The federal government defined socio-economically disadvantaged as eligible for free/reduced price lunch, but states seem to be free to extend that (California uses free/reduced price lunch or neither parent graduating high school). But I doubt anybody is keeping hard data on undocumented immigrants right now, since it is such an extremely sensitive subject (Plyler v. Doe, the recent fight around laws in Alabama and Georgia that required public schools to ask about the immigration status of their students).
I am unsure where you are going with this, and not following your train of thought...?
Additionally, districts may keep a folder and/or electronic record for each pupil, including demographic characteristics. Once information is obtained a body of historical data may exist even if new data is no longer collected.
Originally Posted by SiaSL
And I have no idea where anybody would get the data on whether parents attended an American University. When I signed up my kids for public school parental education levels were self-reported with no box to put in where those degrees came from. Nobody asked me for my transcripts.
You may have answered your own question: Much data may be obtained by self-reporting.
In addition to schools/districts asking about this, the FAFSA also asks about this (see link above). The American Community Survey (ACS) of the Census Bureau does as well. The ACS materials state that they verify various data points with information held by other Agencies.
First generation programs have been mentioned on the websites of several educational organizations including ACT and AVID. Website content may change frequently.
Various college admissions may differ in their practice of whether first generation means parents had high school only, never admitted to college, attended some college but did not receive a degree, attended 2-year rather than 4-year college, attended college in another country therefore unfamiliar with American college matriculation.
Because you may know best what it is that you are looking for, no doubt your own focused research will best answer your questions/concerns.
With all the push toward academics, we send the message that blue collar jobs imply failure in our patriotic vision.
^truth.
And really, from personal experience/observation, instructional time DOES get diverted to helping kids in advanced coursework who are truly drowning in those courses.
I also firmly believe that this state of affairs has led to the horrific situation in which "advanced" has come to mean "the same exact work level as 'standard' just A Lot More of It. Because... Rigor!"
Relatively few of my DD's honors/AP courses have been untainted by this phenomenon. AP Physics was one such course. Of course that one is under fire and "being revised" because it covers too much material, evidently, and the problem is that so few high school students can learn that much in that short a period of time.
Now, maybe I'm wrong and my DD13 is actually smarter than 99.99% even of high-ability high school seniors, but I strongly suspect that the "real" problem with that class is that there were only 6 kids in it that COULD actually do the work successfully of the 22 who enrolled in the fall. At least, that is how many made it through Spring term. That represents two high school cohorts, totalling about 600 students.
Does that warrant the conclusion that this course is "in need of realignment" somehow?
I'm not so sure that it does. I think that what it DOES suggest is that most of the kids who are being groomed to THINK that they are "college-ready" aren't. Most of those kids have NO business in a truly rigorous AP course.
Further evidence-- the crushing workload of AP Literature meant that only 9 of THEM finished the year, too, of the 29 who enrolled in the fall. Same deal-- all juniors and seniors. Honestly, I didn't think that course was actually "college level." Neither did my DD. It was appreciably harder than the high school level English, true, but it wasn't rigorous on a critical thinking front, inherently. No focus on ripping apart literature, just kind of warm and fuzzy "appreciation" style exercises.
Funny... when I was in AP classes, outside of math, there wasn't all that much homework. Mostly by skipping the math, I probably averaged less than an hour per school night. Sure, there was the odd project where I needed to put in a good 3-4 hours in a night, but that was offset by enough nights where I had little or nothing that I needed to do (except math, and that wasn't going to happen).
It was the kids in the classes labeled "college prep" that had all the homework, because they needed practice, practice, practice.
"Coleman extracted a lesson that would guide his career: "The idea that kids can do more than we think they can," he said. Asking 13-year-olds to give a speech is a bold charge, not unlike recommending AP courses to disadvantaged kids who don't see academic aptitude in themselves."
... He had an epiphany
At age thirteen, many kids are in 8th grade; giving a speech of significant length may be a frequent occurrence. They may be graded by teachers and also peers, following a rubric. Groups like Destination Imagination may also require speeches, as do forensic competitions and the middle school play. 13-1/2 is the age when interested youth may register with the Congressional Award, documenting their voluntary public service hours, personal development goals, physical fitness projects, and expedition/exploration progress. I personally do not see the stretch in a 13-year old giving a speech.
At the same age, some of the disadvantaged kids may be driving without a license, they are stretching their learning in non-academic ways out of necessity and often unaided by knowledge of societal conventions, rules, or laws.
Meanwhile some of the gifted who have that inborn characteristic of a deep sense of justice many be volunteering at low SES schools in their free time, helping kids with vocabulary as they read, tutoring them in math, encouraging them in their work, answering questions on a dozen things which these kids might not otherwise get answered in daily conversation, and talking up the joy of effort that is part of the growth mindset... just generally reinforcing that these kids are WORTHWHILE, the time with them is well-spent. Gifted kids are found everywhere, including low SES circumstances! But do their own teachers, their own families know why these kids are different... or will this be drummed out of them before high school, APs, and other formal supports are in place?
I am somewhat curious as to how Mr. Coleman spends his uncompensated free time. Is he personally investing himself in making connections with the kids he claims to serve, listening to what they state their needs are, and encouraging them?
Yet, Jay Matthews insists it's good for everyone to take AP ...
To add to the list, in addition to Jay Mathews' High School Challenge Index, there are also the annual high school rankings of Newsweek, and those of U.S.News & World Report. Each methodology is slightly different, and may change from year to year.
Uh, I'm just skimming the Board's report but it looks like Mr. Richwine (wasn't there a scandal about this guy?) is not being forthright. I don't see where "The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not." Actually, I don't see any direct claim that "college-ready students took more AP tests" or that "more college-ready students took the PSAT." Might have missed it. He's correct about "more college-ready students completed a “core curriculum," but of course, that's not the same as Common Core, which we all know is a new thing.
What the report does say is that students who scored higher on AP tests also scored higher on the SAT, and that students who scored higher on the PSAT score higher on the SAT. Duh. And it tries to sell us the value of the PSAT as an early indicator. But I don't see ANY claims that taking the PSAT or taking AP exams makes you get a higher score on the SAT.
Again, I'm just skimming, but from where I stand this look like like poor journalism from the National Review.
See page 5 of the report. It sells the PSAT and AP pretty hard as key ways to improve college readiness.
Quote
Those students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark had a number of critically important academic characteristics that must be shared by all students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment.
Those characteristics happen to include (via the chart above and the text below) taking the PSAT and taking AP/Honors courses. Note that the correlation provided is just the taking of these tests/classes, not doing well in them.
Those students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark had a number of critically important academic characteristics that must be shared by all students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment.
Those characteristics happen to include (via the chart above and the text below) taking the PSAT and taking AP/Honors courses. Note that the correlation provided is just the taking of these tests/classes, not doing well in them.
The College Board's competitor, the ACT, published a report "The Advanced Placement Program Benefits Mainly Well-Prepared Students Who Pass AP Exams":
Quote
1. Taking AP Courses Alone Is Not Related to College Success. Simple comparisons of outcomes for AP and non-AP students can be extremely misleading. They might simply show that whatever personal characteristics cause students to choose to enroll in AP courses—such as motivation and family support—also help them succeed in college. After taking these and other types of pre-existing factors into consideration, there was no evidence in NCEA’s research that merely taking AP courses is related to college graduation rates. 2. Taking AP Courses and Passing AP Exams Is What Matters. On the other hand, we found that passing the corresponding AP exams is related to college graduation rates. That is, students who demonstrate that they are ready for college and that they can successfully complete an AP course and pass an AP exam in high school are also those who are most likely to graduate from college. In general, school systems that do a better job of preparing students for college and career produce more students who take and pass AP exams and also produce more students who later graduate from college.
Funny... when I was in AP classes, outside of math, there wasn't all that much homework. Mostly by skipping the math, I probably averaged less than an hour per school night. Sure, there was the odd project where I needed to put in a good 3-4 hours in a night, but that was offset by enough nights where I had little or nothing that I needed to do (except math, and that wasn't going to happen).
It was the kids in the classes labeled "college prep" that had all the homework, because they needed practice, practice, practice.
Well, AP is the new "college prep." Nobody who seriously wants to attend college skips taking AP credits.
While I get the WHY of the correlation between students who do well on AP exams being college-ready, versus those who simply take the AP course...
that does sort of produce weird black hole for highly capable 2e students and those who lack the means to pay for or get to an AP testing location.
The main reason that my DD doesn't take AP exams isn't that she wouldn't do well on them-- but that getting a seat with accommodations is nightmarish beyond belief, and may well force us to travel even overnight to find a willing test site. Does that mean that her A's in those classes are meaningless? Probably not. Her answer to "why didn't you take the AP test?" is that she didn't take an AP class to get college credits in the first place-- she took it because it was the most rigorous coursework offered, and therefore best met her educational needs.
Personally, I think that is a jolly good answer for a 14yo high school academic standout.
It gets worse. The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not. One is that more college-ready students took the PSAT. (Guess who sells the PSAT.) Another is that college-ready students took more AP tests. (Guess who sells AP tests.) Still another is that more college-ready students completed a “core curriculum.” (Guess who will be selling tests based on the Common Core national standards.)
is not the same was this:
Quote
Those students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark had a number of critically important academic characteristics that must be shared by all students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment. This year’s report highlights characteristics of these students to help demonstrate successful patterns that can be replicated in schools and districts throughout the country.
Students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark were more likely to have completed a core curriculum, which is defined as four or more years of English, three or more years of mathematics, three or more years of natural science, and three or more years of social science and history. However, of the students who completed a core curriculum (75 percent), only 49 percent met the SAT Benchmark, indicating a need for more rigorous core courses.
Students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark were more likely to have taken honors or AP courses, more likely to have taken higher-level mathematics courses (e.g., precalculus, calculus, and trigonometry), and more likely to be in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class than their peers who did not meet the SAT Benchmark.
Shoddy, crappy journalism. You can write about that, and express concerns about it, without doing what Richwine did. (I admit, I missed "must be shared by all students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment." Er.)
I'm amused to see I did not complete a "core curriculum." (I only took 2 years of high school science. Yeah, ask me how I got away with that. I don't know.)
Based on your quotes, I think Richwine's post (at a conservative journal of opinion, after all) is a reasonable summary of the report and does not merit your condemnation.
On a lighter note, one of the "critically important academic characteristics that must be shared by all students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment" is that students "be in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class". Is the College Board pulling our leg?
... Richwine's post (at a conservative journal of opinion, after all) is a reasonable summary of the report
Agreed! Provoking both thought and discussion, it serves a useful purpose.
Originally Posted by Bostonian
... On a lighter note, one of the "critically important academic characteristics that must be shared by all students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment" is that students "be in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class". Is the College Board pulling our leg?
Tugging at our leg, or at our purse strings? When there is but ONE definition of success or path to success that people buy in to, we run the risk of societal imbalance by throwing supply and demand out of whack.
Measuring success by this definition may be setting the tone for the equity movement in which selected students are enrolled in support classes to boost their high school accomplishment/achievement (in anticipated future Common Core curriculum), receive similar coaching throughout college, and in some scenarios are described as ultimately taking government jobs which allow any accumulated college loan debt to be forgiven?
Quote
... This year’s report highlights characteristics of these students to help demonstrate successful patterns that can be replicated in schools and districts throughout the country.
I have to say that if that's emblematic of CB's understanding of statistics and mathematics, then I have some serious misgivings about allowing them to define proficiency in this domain.
I totally agree that the "must be shared by all students" part is laughable. To me, as a writer, that reads SO much like something the Big Boss put in after the report was written. Someone lower down probably said, "But...but..." and got told to shut up.
... Richwine's post (at a conservative journal of opinion, after all) is a reasonable summary of the report
Agreed! Provoking both thought and discussion, it serves a useful purpose.
Strongly disagree. By attributing outrageous "facts" to the original source that the original source did not say, it is not provoking thought. It's doing just the opposite. It is provoking emotion... a handy trick to employ whenever you want people to stop thinking.
I share ultramarina's disdain of the article, but not because it's bad journalism. I hold it in contempt because it's good propaganda.
... By attributing outrageous "facts" to the original source that the original source did not say, it is not provoking thought. It's doing just the opposite. It is provoking emotion... a handy trick to employ whenever you want people to stop thinking.
Point well taken. However in that light, now I must regard the author's article as a failure... as it has achieved the opposite effect on this board as that which you ascribe. On this board, his article has not caused a cessation of thinking... but rather lively discussion, critical thinking and analysis, and focused research for and sharing of primary sources and related articles.
As with many circumstances in life, the degree to which ideas resonate with different people, and each individual's take-away may vary considerably based upon the uniquely accumulated previous experiences and resultant knowledge base. Meanwhile it is good to raise awareness of the business relationships between various organizations.
Point well taken. However in that light, now I must regard the author's article as a failure... as it has achieved the opposite effect on this board as that which you ascribe. On this board, his article has not caused a cessation of thinking... but rather lively discussion, critical thinking and analysis, and focused research for and sharing of primary sources and related articles.
Yes, but this is not your typical audience. The vast majority of readers will not verify the claims against the original source.
And yet, the furtive fallacy is still being expressed in this thread, so even in atypical audiences, it works.
Interestingly, the whole notion of Intelligence itself being primarily an inherited characteristic is seen by many of Richwine's opponents as a furtive fallacy LOL
Whatever one's views may be about this author, his publication, the CB, or testing issues in general, I don't see how he is being misleading about this CB report.
I'll quote again from the report
Quote
Those students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark had a number of critically important academic characteristics that must be shared by all students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment. This year’s report highlights characteristics of these students to help demonstrate successful patterns that can be replicated in schools and districts throughout the country.
How does one read that any way other than as suggesting that increasing these characterstics will improve outcomes? Where is that jump from correlation to causation (despite many obvious possible objections) justified in the report? The NR post is just an opinion journalism piece mocking the CB report, which, frankly, deserves it.
Suspecting that any organization might have ulterior motives in publishing a poorly supported argument as to why people should use more of their products "for the children" hardly seems to match the definition of the furtive fallacy.
Is there a name for a variation of the fallacist's fallacy where the suggested fallacy is being misapplied?
#1: Common Core is not at all the same thing as a core curriculum.
Core curriculum, as defined by the College Board:
"four or more years of English, three or more years of mathematics, three or more years of natural science, and three or more years of social science and history"
The Common Core is a lengthy set of educational standards--"what students should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade." Whatever its advantages or disadvantages--and it is a popular conservative *and liberal* whipping boy at the moment-- it is not at all the same as what the CB is referring to here, and Richwine knows this. Yet we get this from him:
Quote
Still another is that more college-ready students completed a “core curriculum.” (Guess who will be selling tests based on the Common Core national standards.)
That's probably the worst one, but he's deceptive with his wording elsewhere as well. Compare carefully.
Quote
Students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark were more likely to have taken honors or AP courses
does not equal
Quote
The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not...Another is that college-ready students took more AP tests
The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not...Another is that college-ready students took more AP tests
If someone wants to misinterpret something there is no way to stop them, but I don't see how this is genuinely misleading to a fair reader.
Do you think because he uses the word "tests" he is implying that the CB report says just take the tests without taking the classes? Do you think that the CB report isn't actually pushing AP tests because they are just pushing "AP or honors classes"? Neither of those strike me as plausible interpretations. I won't quote the same piece of the CB report a third time, but that section really makes "speculative reasons" something a of a soft-sell as to how hard the CB report is pushing its "characteristics". If those characteristics aren't supposed to be causally related to success, why is the report pushing them as the blueprint for our children?
I'm not holding the NR piece up for any special praise, but I'd like to know where you get your opinion journalism if this is an egregious example.
The College Board offers some speculative reasons about why some students are college-ready and others are not...Another is that college-ready students took more AP tests
If someone wants to misinterpret something there is no way to stop them, but I don't see how this is genuinely misleading to a fair reader.
It's genuinely misleading because it never happened. The claim that "college-ready students took more AP tests" is a Richwine fabrication. The SAT report says no such thing. It does say that more college-ready students took rigorous classwork, with AP and honors classes lumped together. Taking an AP class does not necessarily mean taking the AP test.
He's correct about the PSAT, though. And he's WAYYYYYY off base with the "core curriculum" comment, as ultramarina has already described.
Originally Posted by mark
I'm not holding the NR piece up for any special praise, but I'd like to know where you get your opinion journalism if this is an egregious example.
Opinion journalism? Sweet. I love oxymorons, and that's a new one to me.
To answer your question, though (although it wasn't addressed to me), I prefer actual journalism, and form my own opinions. I'm not really interested in pre-processed ideology... it loses a lot of its nutrients and flavor.
The claim that "college-ready students took more AP tests" is a Richwine fabrication. The SAT report says no such thing. It does say that more college-ready students took rigorous classwork, with AP and honors classes lumped together. Taking an AP class does not necessarily mean taking the AP test.
This.
I'm a journalist, and I do the kind of work Richwine claims to have done here all the time--that is, I condense lengthy reports into user-friendly soundbites. I would never do what he did in this piece (for one thing, it would be a fireable offense). Is it the worst journalistic misdeed of all time? No. But it's intentionally misleading.
#1: Common Core is not at all the same thing as a core curriculum.
Core curriculum, as defined by the College Board: "four or more years of English, three or more years of mathematics, three or more years of natural science, and three or more years of social science and history"
The Common Core is a lengthy set of educational standards--"what students should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade."
Emphasis added in quote above to highlight that you may have answered your own question/challenge.
Breaking it down, by simple substitution of the words "each subject" and "each grade" in the Common Core definition you provided, with the actual list of core curriculum you provided as being sourced from College Board, we have: Four or more years of English 1) what students should know and be able to do in English, grade 9. 2) what students should know and be able to do in English, grade 10. 3) what students should know and be able to do in English, grade 11. 4) what students should know and be able to do in English, grade 12. Three or more years of Mathematics 5) what students should know and be able to do in Math, grade 9-10band. 6) what students should know and be able to do in Math, grade 10-11band. 7) what students should know and be able to do in Math, grade 11-12band. Three or more years of Natural Science 8) what students should know and be able to do in Science, grade 9-10band. 9) what students should know and be able to do in Science, grade 10-11band. 10) what students should know and be able to do in Science, grade 11-12band. Three or more years of Social Science and History 11) what students should know and be able to do in SocSci/Hst, grade 9-10band. 12) what students should know and be able to do in SocSci/Hst, grade 10-11band. 13) what students should know and be able to do in SocSci/Hst, grade 11-12band.
These are not disparate items. These may be described as two interlocking puzzle pieces from the same puzzle. Viewed from a distance: one piece. Viewed closely: a union of adjoining pieces.
Opinion journalism? Sweet. I love oxymorons, and that's a new one to me.
To answer your question, though (although it wasn't addressed to me), I prefer actual journalism, and form my own opinions. I'm not really interested in pre-processed ideology... it loses a lot of its nutrients and flavor.
The claim that "college-ready students took more AP tests" is a Richwine fabrication. The SAT report says no such thing. It does say that more college-ready students took rigorous classwork, with AP and honors classes lumped together. Taking an AP class does not necessarily mean taking the AP test.
Agreed! Many people errantly presume the AP test is a requisite part of an AP class. Possibly this author has exposed a lack of familiarity with AP, other than what he has read and tried to analyze and synthesize from these reports. In which case some may believe that a simple pointing out of the error would suffice, without alleging malfeasance.
Growth mindset. We are all learning. We learn from each other. We all make misteaks.
Opinion journalism? Sweet. I love oxymorons, and that's a new one to me.
To answer your question, though (although it wasn't addressed to me), I prefer actual journalism, and form my own opinions. I'm not really interested in pre-processed ideology... it loses a lot of its nutrients and flavor.
Opinion journalism? Sweet. I love oxymorons, and that's a new one to me....
Dude, these statements made my day. I'm with you.
Me, too!
There is actually an Association of Opinion Journalists, and a Wikipedia page last updated Sept 19 2013 which describes opinion journalism in part as featuring
Quote
"... a subjective viewpoint, usually with some social or political purpose. Common examples include newspaper columns, editorials, editorial cartoons, and punditry. Unlike advocacy journalism, opinion journalism has a reduced focus on detailed facts or research, and its perspective is often of a more personalized variety. Its product may be only one component of a generally objective news outlet, rather than the dominant feature of an entire publication or broadcast network."
Opinion journalism? Sweet. I love oxymorons, and that's a new one to me.
To answer your question, though (although it wasn't addressed to me), I prefer actual journalism, and form my own opinions. I'm not really interested in pre-processed ideology... it loses a lot of its nutrients and flavor.
It beggar's belief that opinion journalism is new to any informed adult. Also, the notion that you get "actual journalism" from which you can form opinions uncorrupted by biases is naive in the extreme.
I'll just stop reading this thread so I can't be trolled back in again.
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.
Those students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark had a number of critically important academic characteristics that must be shared by all students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment.
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:
Quote
The College Board’s 2013 SAT Report on College & Career Readiness reveals that only 43 percent of SAT takers in the class of 2013 met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark.
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.
Quote
Last year alone, more than 300,000 students in the graduating class of 2012 who had been identified as having the potential to succeed in an AP course did not take one.
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.
The College Board’s 2013 SAT Report on College & Career Readiness reveals that only 43 percent of SAT takers in the class of 2013 met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark.
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?
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.
Originally Posted by Dude
Quote
Last year alone, more than 300,000 students in the graduating class of 2012 who had been identified as having the potential to succeed in an AP course did not take one.
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'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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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...
Quote
Students are college-ready when they have the knowledge, skills, and behaviors to complete a college course of study successfully, without remediation
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.
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.
Yes-- there is a full section on EVERY administered SAT in which the questions are "experimental" and are being normed. Honestly, this is probably the ONLY valid means of constructing a "good" multiple choice assessment tool.
No. They are NOT comingled that way-- it's a full section, a discrete section, so the student knows full well that the experimental section was "math" for example (because there should be two, but there were three on the test s/he took), but the questions are indistinguishable in every other respect.
So the student has every incentive to do his/her best on the entire section either way-- because they have no real way of knowing whether or not section 2 is the experimental one, or if it was section 6 instead, if you see what I mean.
In their College & Career Readiness report the College Board finds that students who took AP/Honors courses are more likely to get SAT scores that indicate they are ready for college, and it concludes that more students need to take such courses. But its own AP Potential tool https://appotential.collegeboard.org/app/welcome.do uses PSAT scores (which are highly correlated with SAT scores) to identify students who are AP material. They know that the PSAT and SAT measure the scholastic aptitude needed to study at the college level (and therefore do well in an Advanced Placement course), but their College & Career Readiness report suggests that the causality runs in the opposite direction -- that taking honors and AP classes creates such aptitude. The College Board is not being honest.
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell
In recent discussions about the marshmallow experiment, several of us noted that other factors may be at play: 1) How well the subject may like a marshmallow. In a similar experiment, might students choose their own treat? 2) The degree to which students have developed a sense of trust in the powers-that-be. Might a separate survey be conducted to learn, for example, whether some parents may make promises and not follow through, perhaps counting on the child to "forget"?
These factors may continue to play out through out the student's life. 1) Do they like the idea of college (marshmallow)? Or would they be more motivated if they could choose their own treat? 2) Have others followed through on commitments (learning about and writing stellar recommendation letters, for example)?
In addition to measuring willingness to delay gratification, some of this seems to be about the student's perceived place in society: ability to be self-determining, and receive support.
... the student has every incentive to do his/her best on the entire section either way-- because they have no real way of knowing whether or not section 2 is the experimental one, or if it was section 6 instead, if you see what I mean.
SAT consists of three major sections: Critical Reading, Mathematics, and Writing. Each section receives a score on the scale of 200–800. All scores are multiples of 10. Total scores are calculated by adding up scores of the three sections. Each major section is divided into three parts. There are 10 sub-sections, including an additional 25-minute experimental or "equating" section that may be in any of the three major sections. The experimental section is used to normalize questions for future administrations of the SAT and does not count toward the final score.
According to Figure 1.1, the median earnings of people by highest degree is
$91,000 PhD $70,000 MA $56,500 BA $35,400 high school diploma .
Everyone should go not only to college but graduate school! (My serious advice is that gifted students should take Advanced Placement courses in high school, see if they can earn a combined BA/MA in four years, and then look for work.)
College graduates are more intelligent and disciplined on average than non-college graduates, and they would earn more even if they had not attended college. The college graduate earnings premium thus depends on the credential value of a BA, on what students learn in college, and on the characteristics of high school graduates before starting college. Reporting on earnings gaps that ignore differences in intelligence and other personal attributes is misleading.
Reporting on earnings gaps that ignore differences in intelligence and other personal attributes is misleading.
Agreed!
Just skimming Trends in Education (Education Pays 2013) so far but a few things jump out... 1- chart on page 14 does not seem to take into account the discipline in which the degree is earned. Some may say this makes the report an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Other charts from the College Board Trends in Education report depict... 2- "40-year full-time working life" (p12) 40 years seems a short career length, a short time in the workforce. 3- age 25 to 64 (p12) 40 years seems to be a short career length, a short time in the workforce. 4- p16 shows only 25% of persons age 65+ participating in labor force, regardless of level of education. - - Does the under-representation of this demographic (age 65+) in the workforce reflect age discrimination? - - Do they have fair, equal, equitable, impartial access to employment opportunities for which they are qualified? - - Is there a forced early retirement? - - Are the 25% >= age 65 who are employed, self-employed persons? 5- loan repayment for approximately one fourth to one half of the described full-time working life (10 to 18 years). 6- "full-time year-round workers" (p13) Seems to exclude teachers, meanwhile education is large part of our economy 7- "2011... age 25 - 34... 1971-2011" (p16) Refers to historical data reflective of the educational system and economy of a bygone era
In skimming this report I have not found the type of disclaimer typically printed on prospectus and other financial reports, to the effect that "past results do not guarantee future performance." Yet this document seems to be written to persuade individuals to invest in higher education, by suggesting this will result in a personal financial increase.
This report focuses on full-time workers, meanwhile the economy is languishing - some have reported hours being cut from full-time to <29 in response to Affordable Healthcare Act.
Quote
My serious advice is that gifted students should take Advanced Placement courses in high school, see if they can earn a combined BA/MA in four years, and then look for work.
While every case is different, I've seen this work successfully.
According to Figure 1.1, the median earnings of people by highest degree is
$91,000 PhD $70,000 MA $56,500 BA $35,400 high school diploma .
Reporting on earnings gaps that ignore differences in intelligence and other personal attributes is misleading.
Added: the average salary for someone with a professional degree is $102,200.
Great! That's solidly upper middle class!
But...let's talk about the cost of paying off your student loans.
Average debt among med school graduates is $167,000. Paying it off over 30 years means at 7.5% means you'll pay ~$420,000 total to go to med school. Then there are all those lost earnings. They sure do add up (not counting a BA, which you probably also owe money on, there are 4 years of med school, a year as a serf (internship) and then 3 to 5 years as an underpaid resident (starting salary in the 40s). Then you get to pay for your malpractice insurance!
If you bring the debt up to $200,000 to include BA debt, you'll end up paying $500,000 for that education that was your ticket to the upper middle class.
But at least doctors can get jobs. The same is not necessarily true for law school grads.
It's nice to start life as a debt serf.
Last edited by Val; 10/07/1309:02 AM. Reason: Fix small error
...higher studies can lead to a good life of the mind...
This article provides a much needed counter-point in discussing alternative definitions of success and paths to those successes, exposing college myths and realities, and outlining the impacts of achievement/performance while in college and the chosen major upon future earnings. In a balanced presentation, this article places many issues on the table for further examination, including factors of job satisfaction which are not financial in nature.
This article was on point in many respects, however some may find the parallel to condom usage to be a tangent, sufficiently off-topic that the overall article may have benefitted by its omission, focusing solely on post-secondary educational pursuits and omitting the other PSA.
Unfortunately as these kids inherit the burgeoning national debt to be paid off with their income taxes, they and their children may remain debt serfs throughout the lifespan.
