SAT exam to give students "adversity score"

[RFayette]

Supposedly "standardized" tests are never going to be standardized when there is a massive volume of resources (requiring money, time, and in most cases some form of long-distance transit) that are effectively only available to the upper-middle class. Of course some students are at a disadvantage when they take it. The SAT is the worst offender for a number of reasons but the amount of time it takes to prepare* for the LSAT, MCAT, GRE, etc. are similar.

Your critique is probably more fair for the graduate school exams, but there are a plethora of free resources online for taking the SAT.  Not to mention the availability of SAT prep books at school or local libraries.  Having taken a prep course, they aren't much more useful than prep books, so it isn't very expensive to prepare for the test.  

While there are obviously still disparities in terms of quality of education, colleges still need to know what the ability of students are on an objective scale.  Someone who has an 800 on the SAT Math is plainly better capable of finishing an engineering degree than someone who got a 500, irrespective of the hardships one endured growing up.  

[cinyc]

Just wondering about the SHSAT in NYC. If you people had complete control over the SHSAT system in NYC how would you change it?

I wouldn't. It's fine as it is, and better than adding some "diversity" or "privilege" SJW nonsense. Are the sons and daughters of Asian immigrants, who tend to do well on the SHSAT really all that "privileged"? No. Many of their parents don't even speak English.

Of course, the racist NYC schools commissioner, who is being sued for demoting people because of their skin color, disagrees.

[Xing]

It's a terrible idea that should be scrapped.

Thanks for summing up my feelings about the SAT.

I could write a multi-paragraph post about how the SAT was never even created to be a fair assessment, takes away from instructional time and forces teachers to forego more creative activities to prepare students instead, puts an unhealthy amount of stress on students, and exists in part so that companies like Pearson can profit enormously. Instead, I'll just say that a multiple choice test that only covers a few themes within two subjects and punishes students for making educated guesses is a ridiculous form of assessment, and the fact is that students from wealthy families/areas have more resources at their disposal.

As for this idea, I think other posters put it pretty well when they described it as putting a band-aid on a broken limb. Rather than addressing the reasons why low-income students and many students of color come to the SAT at a disadvantage, it's essentially trying to compensate for this, which does not help any of these students in their educational journey in general. We need systematic changes to our education system and our district administrations to better serve lower income communities, not a measure that merely recognizes that a problem exists and tries to "adjust" for said problem.

[pbrower2a]

College attendance, especially at a first-rate co0llege, is not an expectation for any but the 'best and brightest' of most K-12 public schools. Most kids with less than stellar educational records who attend post-secondary schools end up attending community colleges and getting vocational education (not a bad idea) or attending private training schools that at a low cost and in a short time teach someone a vocation such as hairdressing or clerical work.

So do combined SAT scores of 710 V and M suggest more promise in some kid from Broken Hope Indian Reservation in West Dakota or do combined  SAT scores of 740 V and M by a kids whose parents are an investment banker and an attorney? That is where some of the question lies.

Maybe the kid from "Broken Hope" will attend "Ivy Prime" and assimilate well enough  to become just another investment banker. But the kid with all the advantages has far less likelihood of taking his learning to a place like Broken Hope and shaking things up.     

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Your critique is probably more fair for the graduate school exams, but there are a plethora of free resources online for taking the SAT.  Not to mention the availability of SAT prep books at school or local libraries.

Having content curated and delivered to you in the form of a designed class is definitely different than having to curate the content of that course yourself. Also there are plenty of people (myself included) who find learning/training from books less effective than learning/training from an in person interaction.

Having taken a prep course, they aren't much more useful than prep books, so it isn't very expensive to prepare for the test.  

Could easily be attributed to the quality of the class rather than the general usefulness of courses (I would not know as I never took a prep course for the SAT).

While there are obviously still disparities in terms of quality of education, colleges still need to know what the ability of students are on an objective scale.  Someone who has an 800 on the SAT Math is plainly better capable of finishing an engineering degree than someone who got a 500, irrespective of the hardships one endured growing up.  

Maybe. Depends on your idea of what the purpose of the institution is. If it's solely to churn out some number of highly qualified, elite graduates, then yes you are correct. If it is to train a more skilled workforce (esp. at a more regional scale) then probably not - there the concern is in addressing the needs of anybody who walks in the door and could reasonably be equipped to be an engineer, which could easily include people with ~600 math scores (I haven't taken the test in long enough time to know what a reasonable math score is but the point stands whether 500 or 600 is the baseline reasonable score).

[lfromnj]

It's a terrible idea that should be scrapped.

Thanks for summing up my feelings about the SAT.

I could write a multi-paragraph post about how the SAT was never even created to be a fair assessment, takes away from instructional time and forces teachers to forego more creative activities to prepare students instead, puts an unhealthy amount of stress on students, and exists in part so that companies like Pearson can profit enormously. Instead, I'll just say that a multiple choice test that only covers a few themes within two subjects and punishes students for making educated guesses is a ridiculous form of assessment, and the fact is that students from wealthy families/areas have more resources at their disposal.

As for this idea, I think other posters put it pretty well when they described it as putting a band-aid on a broken limb. Rather than addressing the reasons why low-income students and many students of color come to the SAT at a disadvantage, it's essentially trying to compensate for this, which does not help any of these students in their educational journey in general. We need systematic changes to our education system and our district administrations to better serve lower income communities, not a measure that merely recognizes that a problem exists and tries to "adjust" for said problem.

The SAT doesn't punish guessing anymore. 
I found my cheap prep class <$250  to be relatively sh**t as I just memed around with friends and I just Khan Academied everything at home. Most resources are easily available for free. Sure did I get a slight advantage with the Prep class? Maybe but it really wasn't more than doing a few extra forced practice problems. I could have done it all at home. I didn't really have much stress with my SAT and found more stress doing regular school work. I do agree in general the US should rather focus on a standardized test that focuses more on major rather than 2 subjects.

[lfromnj]

Supposedly "standardized" tests are never going to be standardized when there is a massive volume of resources (requiring money, time, and in most cases some form of long-distance transit) that are effectively only available to the upper-middle class. Of course some students are at a disadvantage when they take it. The SAT is the worst offender for a number of reasons but the amount of time it takes to prepare* for the LSAT, MCAT, GRE, etc. are similar.

Of course there needs to be some corrective to address this. I really doubt that this score will be implemented correctly and it's rather ham-handed but I applaud the effort.

To those completely against standardized testing how would colleges tell the difference between a very good high school with harsh grading and a sh**t one?

This is probably solvable if schools submit information about average grade, enrollment, extracurriculars and advanced classes offered, nearby property values, teacher turnover, etc. If the concern is that grades are uneven from school to school there are ways to create profiles for schools to tell whcih are more likely to be "very good" or "sh**t".

At least there's still the ACT. (I was under the impression that it was customary for graduating students to take both, because you never know on which one you might score better.)

I graduated from high school in the early 2010s and only took the SAT.

The end problem is that 90% of problems and successful schools don't depend on teaching or anything like funding. The most successful school in NYC has less funding than the average NYC Public HS. The main factor is the caliber and the type of students along with the home culture.

[junior chįmp]

Standardized testing should be gotten rid of completely. Admission to colleges should be decided upon "donations" to the college's endowment.