Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Major Changes in SAT Announced by College Board

OK your right.. I'm wrong. I should have know that since I have family friends who used to work for the company. I'm just reacting to the implication that it's some sort of government test.

On some level, though it may as well be a mandatory thing. This is particularly the case for kids like ours, who probably aren't on the side of things that is considering "minimum standards" for admission to second and third tier institutions as college students.

For the group that is elite college material, this move makes it HARDER to gain acceptance if you're lower SES, not easier.

Because it removes the g-loading to such a degree that now other things are going to be used as proxies since this will not longer have the same discriminating power. The only question is-- what KINDS of "other things" will this mean?

My suspicion is that this is going to mean an increased frenzy (already substantial in many areas) on EC's and competitions. Which of course leaves out kids who are disadvantaged geographically, economically, or by disability/temperment are not well-suited to those activities. My daughter would likely be among them, fwiw.

N'est pas?

I understand and I am not pleased about the changes. This could directly affect DS15 who might have a harder time gaining acceptance with the changes in this test. I had been counting on SAT testing as being a huge help for him. But my older daughter is one of those kids who has been on the "minimum standards" line and have seen the other side of this coin.

Does anyone know how this will affect the PSAT?

My understanding is that the Class of 2017 will take the PSAT based on the new format, as this class will be the first to take the new SAT.

This provides great food for thought. "They value Knowledge more than material bounties!" especially resonated with me.

Do other readers here take the opportunity to read the Davidson Institute Tweets (in the right-hand column, underneath Recent Posts)? Have others read the blog article at the recently tweeted link: http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-perfect-score-or-not.html? A comment there discusses coaching for SAT and ends with "There are documented racial differences in scores not because of aptitude but because of the cultural differences in examples used. If you've never seen a gazebo, it is going to throw you for a loop when it's used as an example in a question." While this would not apply to the math section of the exam, some may question what cultural difference, advantage, or bias exists related to "gazebo" as a vocabulary word?

Previous posters have mentioned the benefits of becoming familiar with rarified words by being well-read; books are available to all through our country's free public library system. Is it possible that more test-takers become familiar with gazebos through reading the word and looking it up, than through seeing a gazebo?

Wikipedia describes gazebos as being in public parks. Is it possible that test-takers have seen gazebos but not learned the word for them?

Ultimately our task may not be to oppose something so much as it may be to encourage conversation and sharing of many ideas with all who wish to learn... boosting a sense of confidence, a sense of internal locus of control, and a sense of dignity in saying, "I do not know. Will you tell me?." Or better yet, when seeing a child doodling, upon asking what they are drawing, and hearing "nothing...", maybe take the time to name the things you see in their sketches as they just may be drawing "nothing..." for a reason. Some children may enjoy drawing something that they've seen and would like to know the word for.

The same principles hold true for other vocabulary words.

Just for fun, in wordcount gazebo is the word ranked 42,689; rarified is not loaded into the wordcount database.

To repeat: college is the new high school. It's a certification process resulting from huge changes in our society in recent decades, most notably the loss of skilled and semi-skilled jobs that paid good wages. Young people are told in no uncertain terms that they need to go to college if they want to get decent jobs. Making matters worse, these days, "college" includes training that used to be available for free in high schools (e.g voc-ed) or at very low cost through local organizations (e.g paramedic certification; around here, you have to go to a community college now for that, and it's expensive. It used to be a Red Cross-run thing). Plus a lot of jobs requiring a BA these days didn't used to.

This means that a lot of kids MUST go to college. As a group, college freshmen today probably aren't as smart or well-prepared as college freshmen were in 1964. But kids in 1964 could mostly go get jobs on the strength of what they'd learned in high school. That's changed. Kids today don't have the luxury of debating ideas like the relative height of the bar or whether or not SAT words are too arcane. They need to get jobs and they need to pay bills, soon. The SAT blocks some of them because they score too low for admittance to some programs or their scores say that they aren't "college ready." This means that from many perspectives, they're being denied the ability to earn a living wage.

Yes, I know that this entire situation is insane. But it exists. IMO, this problem has very little to do with actual education as classically defined. For most students, college is about certification now. Even at elite schools (the certification is just different).

Agreed. And yet, in the midst of this economy of seemingly too few jobs, reminiscent of a game of musical chairs, while some may see the country's burgeoning debt crushing the middle class, others may say the "haves" are pulling up the ladder behind them, leaving the "have nots" without a way up.

We may have a chicken-or-egg situation: While some people call giftedness "elitist" and many suffer wrongly for that... some gifted people, when slighted, defensively refer to those who do not understand as "ignorant" and many suffer wrongly for that, as well.

Enmity creeps in.

Organizations cash in.

Not sure if this was posted yet; http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2014/03/06/what-new-sat-reforms-mean-for-the-future-of-education/

This lady is more than a bit, er, 'bold'...un-schooler and so forth. But she does a good job of turning things upside down to examine them, and occasionally hits a nail on the head, too.

I don't agree with anything that she says except for the goat barn barn being a great place for college prep (the cow barn would probably be even better).

Here's an interesting one -- I don't think it's gotten in here yet.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/03/the_sat_upgrade_is_a_big_mista.html