The predictive and outcome-based statistics is what I'm referring to-- CB is quite open (moreso than ACT) about the statistics of each sample population of test-takers, actually.
It's the deeper analysis that is sometimes problematic; the kinds of things like the study Bostonian helpfully provides above.
Because if such tests are valid
predictive tools, then such data ought to be robust enough that there would be good transparency. But there isn't. It's hard to find, and it is definitely not because nobody questions the value of standardized tests in terms of predictive value. A great many colleges themselves even acknowledge that their predictive value is distinctly limited-- and among individual subject tests, that is even more true, evidently.
There is
what CB has to say,and then
there is what
other research has to
say. Not to mention
opinion/observation from the academy itself.
Edna Johnson, a spokeswoman for the College Board, took strong exception to the idea that the subject tests are expendable or limit the diversity of applicants. She called the tests "a fair, unbiased measure" of knowledge of specific subjects. Both students and colleges gain by having this information, Johnson said.
Well-- THERE's a huge surprise... how many students in CA high schools? Hmmmm.. let's see... that value, times $50 per subject test fee... Oh, yes, I SEE the predictive value!
