SAT no longer standardized

[Apocalypse]

There will be a new SAT in 2005. Here are the new features:

The former SAT Verbal Exam will become the SAT Critical Reading Exam. This test will no longer include analogies. Instead, short reading sections will be added to existing long reading passages.

A new section called the SAT Writing Exam will be added. This section will contain multiple-choice grammar questions as well as a written essay.

The SAT Math Exam will be expanded to cover three years of high school math. Instead of just covering concepts from Geometry and Algebra I, the new SAT Math Exam will contain concepts from Geometry, Algebra I and Algebra II.

The new Critical reading is fine. I believe this will improve the test. The upgraded math section perpetuates the false idea that everyone needs to know advanced math. Basic algebra and geometry is good, but most people have no need for algebra II.

The new Writing section is what I really have a problem with. First, one reason it was added to give females an even larger advantage in getting into college. Second, it discriminates against people with bad handwriting. People with legible, but still below average handwriting will get penalized. This isn't that bad, except when combined with my third reason for disliking the new writing part. Different people will be reading these essays. This prevents there from being a real standard. It allows for the chance that people with great essays will get a lower score than those with just good essays. The same problems will arise that have plagued the AP tests. The people grading these essays are real humans with major flaws. They get lazy. Typically, ones graded later in the day get higher grades. In an attempt to prevent this, there will be other graders double checking essays randomly, but this still allows for large amounts of error.

Finally, this ending of standarization really hurts. The United States needs to be working toward complete standardization of education. This is the only way to really fight discrimination and give almost everyone a fair chance.

[MikeH]

UK doesn't even have standardised education and it's a lot smaller than the US.

[Arrian]

The new Writing section is what I really have a problem with. First, one reason it was added to give females an even larger advantage in getting into college.

Huh? Only girls can write?

-Arrian

[Urban Ranger]

No, but girls tend to write better than boys, at least at that age.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by MikeH
UK doesn't even have standardised education and it's a lot smaller than the US.

The US being larger works with the argument more standardization is needed. You cannot let people fall through the cracks.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Arrian
Huh? Only girls can write?

Girls typically have a better handle on the subject. A writting (basically grammer) section was added to the PSAT so more females would get the scholarship.

[Thucydides]

[quote]The upgraded math section perpetuates the false idea that everyone needs to know advanced math.[/qiote]

Since When is algebra II advanced math? Anyway, the SAT is a test designed to evaluate your ability to work at a college level of study. Yet a fairly large porportion of degrees, especially in the fields of science and engineering, require advanced math, usually some 2 years of Calculus at least. And your success in taking Calculus can be predicted based off of your knowledge of Algebra. Even if you decide to go liberal arts, your still probably going to be required to a math class or two, which you have to pass to graduate.

In other words, while the ability to do advanced math isn't as important as the ability to comprehend and write in english, it's still ranks up there as an important indicator of success in an university enviroment.

[Apocalypse]

Algebra II is the highest or second highest math many people take. That is why I called it advanced. If people want to show that they are good in math, they can take the Math SAT and AP Calculus.

[TCO]

The key thing is how well it correlates to academic success. Is an acheivement test better correlated than an aptitude test? SAT company has this info since they administer a wide variety of tests and do research on the correlations. You can bet that these new sections will use material moved over from their acheivement tests. On a more subtle level, towhat extent is predictive impact of an acheivement test cocorelated with grades. One of the good things about the current SAT is that by combining it with grades, one gets better predictive power than by suing grades alone. Will the SAT be a less useful "second" factor in the regression in its new form?

[Caesar the Great]

most colleges nowadays require the writing SAT II which is essentially what they're adding to the existing SAT... there is no way a person can be 100% objective... i wrote a very good essay for that test, but it was pretty strongly anti-US (this was several months after sept. 11) and i got a score lower than i should have gotten

i say, the more math you need to know for the SATs the better, so you can just get tutored out of the wazoo to raise your score, but instead you'd need to learn some math

[DanS]

The SAT math probably wasn't showing enough gradation among test takers. When I took it, it was easy. I knew the answer to every question. Knowing the answer to every question is a bad thing, because it is not sensitive to those who were better than me at math and who should therefore rightly receive higher scores.

The written portion will introduce bias, but the SAT is designed to show colleges how well a student will do in the first year of college. In many/most schools the first year of college is determined a lot by writing ability (and legibility--gotta love those bluebooks), so the test is at least valid, if not fair.

[Apocalypse]

Dan, did you get a perfect score on the math? Still, a large portion don't. Thus, there is no need to update the math.

[DanS]

"Dan, did you get a perfect score on the math?"

No, musta missed two, but I knew the answer to every question. Nowadays, this would give you a perfect score (rightly so), but it used to not.

As it turns out, it was a good predictor on how I would do on the first Calc test in college--97%. Based on this success, I went to three classes total, hit the pub, and collected my A-.

[Apocalypse]

See, it still worked out for you, someone who was good in math. Why should people who don't care about math be bothered with remembering Algebra II?

[DanS]

I get your point, but if there was a lack of sensitivity at the high end, there is probably lack of sensitivity in the middle ranges. This is probably meant to help correct that.