By Mary

October 3, 2008 10:04 PM | Link to this

Lou, where did I make a statement about all gifted students doing well on standardized tests? That would depend on the test and the area of giftedness. Actually, by Ohio Administrative Code or ODE documents, specific standardized tests are used to identify most of the various areas of giftedness. Creativity and performing arts are probably identified differently. There are quite a few gifted students who max out SAT and ACT scores when they are in sixth grade. My son consistently scored at the level or higher of graduating high school seniors when he was in middle school. Personally, I thought he had lousy test taking discipline and could have scored much higher. He was never coached and refused to look at the prep handbooks I gave him. He was pokey, never tried to practice to speed up and never answered a lot of the questions. Quite frankly, he did not seem to care, but consistently scored high anyway.

By lou

October 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Mary you are wrong about gifted students do well on these tests. Actually many truely gifted students do not do well on standardized tests. You have said before that you gave your children the test many times. That is called test taking skills and not intelligence. You should be able to get 66% correct without knowing the test material if you understand how to take a standardized test.

By Mary

October 3, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

Another “education news source” pointed out a Milwaukee Sentinnel article on September 28 where apparently some Wisconsin schools are doing away with class rank thereby creating more reliance on standardized tests such as SAT and ACT for college admissions.

By Worried DPS Parent

September 27, 2008 11:09 PM | Link to this

I know I’m biased, but I liked the old British way that I went through. In a nutshell we had four years (equivalent of 9th through 12th Grade) of specialization and testing in those subjects we chose to study, which lead us into Higher Education. The first two years (“O” Level, when I was in school, now GCSE) were broader as Math, English Language & English Literature were compulsory and our six (iirc) choices had to include a Science and a Humanity. As long as you passed the “O” Level of a subject, you could then go on to do an “A” Level; here we were, generally, limited to three subjects.

By Mary

September 25, 2008 8:22 PM | Link to this

oldprof, why do you suppose class rank in an overinflated grading system is a better indicator for “college success” than filling in bubbles on a standardized test? Could it be our education (and career) system rewards students who smile, cheat and kiss up to teachers and professors (and bosses) rather than students who actually stuff? What is so magic about class grades and class rank when the system is so dumbed down and subjective to begin with?

By joe mamma

September 24, 2008 9:05 PM | Link to this

I would hardly call accountants, finance or economics loosey goosey on analytics. As is her tendency sometimes Mary takes what could be a very good and valid point and strays into a stream of thought that is just utterly stupid.

By Terri

September 24, 2008 8:54 PM | Link to this

How many of you who are posting have seen an actual SAT or PSAT in the last year? Not a prep book but the real thing?

By Mary

September 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

J, you remind me of a point I also meant to mention - that these types of tests are invaluable in the scientific and engineering communities. The book “Ivory Tower Blues” mentions the technical,science and engineering departments generally are better at not dumbing down their curriculum and inflating college grades. Engineers and scientists tend to be more analytical and try to identify and control their failures. Their failures are manifested many times real time in aircraft crashes, building and bridge collapses, etc. Failures in liberal arts and music can be more immediately forgiving or at least less obviously fatal. However, the problem I see is we tend to put liberal arts people with loosey goosey analytical skills in charge of businesses and politics. I think we see where it gets us today in our country. SAT and PSAT are pretty straightforward math and verbal. I think high IQ or superior cognitive people will tend to do well in both. My main objection to these tests today is that they seem to emphasize speed and drill more than intellect and challenge.

By Oldprof

September 24, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Rick: wrong. SAT/ACT have been criticized for decades, not just since that University of Michigan case. And: dead wrong; the SAT and other standardized tests are NOT “excellent” predictors; some are better than others, but the SAT in particular is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. The most important factors in a student’s success in higher ed. do not include prior knowledge, rather, drive and persistence to the point of stubborn refusal to fail. Those factors are better measured by class rank, which shows how a student performs in a particular environment—not by filling in a bubble-sheet with a #2 pencil.

By Rick

September 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this

All this, as you know, Scott, is an effort to get around various Supreme Court decisions that outlaw reverse discrimination in admissions to colleges and graduate programs. The various SATs, MCATs, LSATs, were an excellent way to determine which students were most likely to succeed and also to compare students. When the “preferential admissions” programs were examined it was found there was a gross disparity between those admitted under them and those admitted under the regular procedure. After the last ruling, which I believe involved the University of Michigan, came the cries to get rid of the SAT.

By Mary

September 23, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

oldprof, I do not recall scoffing at “dumb students”. I do recall scoffing at ignorant college administrators who fear or ignore more intelligent students.

By J

September 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

For me personally, the SAT’s didn’t prove a thing. I didn’t have, and still don’t have, an above level intelligence in math, science, etc which, of course, is what the SAT questions are all geared toward. My intelligence was in music and the arts. Why should kids in a situation like mine be lumped in with kids who are wanting to become engineers who have strong math backgrounds? There has to be a better way…

By Oldprof

September 23, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

Educational Testing Service (the company that makes SAT and other higher-ed tests) itself admits that the SAT only predicts success during the first year of college—and then only weakly. Class rank in high school is a better predictor. As for not wanting to take intelligent applicants, there are plenty of open-admissions colleges (both community colleges and university colleges) where the SAT/ACT is not required. We do entrance testing for placement, and the Ohio Board of Regents has done a fine job of setting consistent, rigorous standards for English and math scores on those tests. And those “dumb” students that Mary scoffs at prove more than worthy; those that transfer to a four-year university program generally earn a GPA equal to—or slightly higher than—the students who started at that university. So it’s not a question of who to admit, it’s a question of what’s done for them once they’re in.

By Mskiles314

September 22, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this

Wow, I would think the standardized test, administered the same to ever college entrant, is a good measure of future college success. If not, I’d like to see a list of the best correlated indicators to success. If that is true, should medical schools drop the MCAT or Law schools the LSAT? Link us to the research. I didn’t find much using google.

By Mary

September 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

This is a further systemic dumbing down by these colleges of an American culture they have already helped dumb down. They fear teaching more intelligent students and therefore standardized scores are “bad”. College admissions people probably do not score very high on standardized tests which were originally developed to help avoid preferential treatment for the upper class. These colleges do not want pesky standardized tests which might interfere with their legacy admissions. See today’s USA Today debate about the remedial classes taught at Ivy League colleges. These elite education institutions have launched upon our country and the world greedy “well rounded” nincompoots who have lead our business, financial, and environmental interests into the ground.