SAT/ACT scores required for UM undergrad once again

[ssvir]

We can agree to disagree. Your opinion is I am wrong. No such thing as a standard opinion... See what I did there

Standardized Testing is Still Failing Students | NEA

Educators have long known that standardized tests are an inaccurate and unfair measure of student progress. There's a better way to assess students.

www.nea.org

New Study Suggests Standardized Reading Tests Miss A Lot Of Learning

A new study suggests that standardized reading tests often fail to reflect what students have actually learned—and mislead educators about what to teach.

cepr.harvard.edu

Harvard (and every Ivy and Ivy caliber school) reinstituted SAT requirements b/c having no testing resulted in lower admissions of "disadvantaged" students.

What you fail to realize is they have algos that tell them a 1300 in Overtown is equal to a 1500 in Coral Gables.

Every university adjusts grades/scores according to socioeconomic and individual school historical performance.

 

[canemachine]

You are wrong

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafag...for-undergraduate-admissions/?sh=17cf73e676b4

We can agree to disagree. Your opinion is I am wrong. No such thing as a standard opinion... See what I did there

Harvard (and every Ivy and Ivy caliber school) reinstituted SAT requirements b/c having no testing resulted in lower admissions of "disadvantaged" students.

What you fail to realize is they have algos that tell them a 1300 in Overton is equal to a 1500 in Coral Gables.

Every university adjusts grades/scores according to socioeconomic and individual school historical performance.

Without being rude I didnt fail to realize a thing but I can see how my initial response to you can be looked at as assholish. My point was any argument can be backed up by any asinine article which is why I selected Harvard specifically to show varying opinions bc as you mentioned they have reinstated standardized tests *not sure if 24 or 24 but I know they did as you mentioned*. A study conducted by a university with it's own biases especially one that benefits off of it's perceived prestige can't be a 100% relied on really. Standardized tests are inherently flawed. The words of your article said standardized testing brings diversity which in itself is a fallacy because standard and diverse are not the same. I say all this to say the obsession with standardized testing is an issue because of all the variables. There are C students that could and have scored exceptionally high but wouldn't get a school such as Dartmouth. There are kids with great ability but when pressured with a test that people say can determine your entire future fold and score poorly. Not because of ability but because of a bad day or two. Tests often determine memory and not ability, testing in many ways is a skill. Just because you test well doesn't mean you know how to apply Standardized testing can be and is useful when implemented correctly but it isn't used that way at this time because it's an imperfect science right now. Most importantly I do want to thank you for bringing real dialogue and articles. Not to be condescending but I like seeing others perspectives and their whys on their beliefs. So hopefully you don't take this as a rant but as differing views between Canes fans

 

[ssvir]

We can agree to disagree. Your opinion is I am wrong. No such thing as a standard opinion... See what I did there

Without being rude I didnt fail to realize a thing but I can see how my initial response to you can be looked at as assholish. My point was any argument can be backed up by any asinine article which is why I selected Harvard specifically to show varying opinions bc as you mentioned they have reinstated standardized tests *not sure if 24 or 24 but I know they did as you mentioned*. A study conducted by a university with it's own biases especially one that benefits off of it's perceived prestige can't be a 100% relied on really. Standardized tests are inherently flawed. The words of your article said standardized testing brings diversity which in itself is a fallacy because standard and diverse are not the same. I say all this to say the obsession with standardized testing is an issue because of all the variables. There are C students that could and have scored exceptionally high but wouldn't get a school such as Dartmouth. There are kids with great ability but when pressured with a test that people say can determine your entire future fold and score poorly. Not because of ability but because of a bad day or two. Tests often determine memory and not ability, testing in many ways is a skill. Just because you test well doesn't mean you know how to apply Standardized testing can be and is useful when implemented correctly but it isn't used that way at this time because it's an imperfect science right now. Most importantly I do want to thank you for bringing real dialogue and articles. Not to be condescending but I like seeing others perspectives and their whys on their beliefs. So hopefully you don't take this as a rant but as differing views between Canes fans

You used circular logic bringing up all the same points of your original post.

There are literally hundreds of articles that show that SAT scores (which virtually every school adjusts for socioeconomic conditions) in conjunction with grades are much better indicators of future scholastic success than just grades.

If you have anxiety then you get tested and get accommodations.

 

[caneingville]

You used circular logic bringing up all the same points of your original post.

There are literally hundreds of articles that show that SAT scores (which virtually every school adjusts for socioeconomic conditions) in conjunction with grades are much better indicators of future scholastic success than just grades.

If you have anxiety then you get tested and get accommodations.

Exactly. In addition, standardized testing allows you to take the test multiple times, does it not? That’s exactly why it’s used as one factor, and grades are another factor, and they are weighted accordingly.

But if someone has extenuating circumstances or comes from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, then it gets factored into those weights. With either category.

 

[canemachine]

You used circular logic bringing up all the same points of your original post.

There are literally hundreds of articles that show that SAT scores (which virtually every school adjusts for socioeconomic conditions) in conjunction with grades are much better indicators of future scholastic success than just grades.

If you have anxiety then you get tested and get accommodations.

I absolutely used circular logic. That was kind of the point . You missed it and thinking adjusting scores down is adjusting to socio... Nvm... Zip your P up buddy wuddy.

 

[canemachine]

Exactly. In addition, standardized testing allows you to take the test multiple times, does it not? That’s exactly why it’s used as one factor, and grades are another factor, and they are weighted accordingly.

But if someone has extenuating circumstances or comes from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, then it gets factored into those weights. With either category.

There are limits on your attempts. I also spoke on weight

 

[FrancisSawyer]

You ever attend the DG Anchor Splash pool event? O M F G
Tiffany Arrington (sideline reporter who went by Jill) was a member at the time.

 

[BoxingRobes]

We can agree to disagree. Your opinion is I am wrong. No such thing as a standard opinion... See what I did there

Standardized Testing is Still Failing Students | NEA

Educators have long known that standardized tests are an inaccurate and unfair measure of student progress. There's a better way to assess students.

www.nea.org

New Study Suggests Standardized Reading Tests Miss A Lot Of Learning

A new study suggests that standardized reading tests often fail to reflect what students have actually learned—and mislead educators about what to teach.

cepr.harvard.edu

Not argument...just wanted to pull out (pause) a quote from the NEA article.

“PBA allows students more choice in how they can show what hey’ve learned, and it allows differentiated instruction for different learning styles,” says Molly Malinowski, a first-grade teacher at Lynch Elementary School, in the Winchester school district, in Massachusetts. “Standardized tests don’t allow choice because it’s one-size-fits-all. Students may have the knowledge, but may not be able to show what they know and understand on the test. They can demonstrate that in PBA.”

This is current education vernacular and ideology that allows a student to go through their entire time in our education system at the public, charter, or private school and learn absolutely nothing.

Students shouldn't have a choice in what they learn (yes with electives, but not in core, fundamental classes) or how they show what they've learned. They are students. self-assessment lol. Education is always up for these dumb dumb ideas. Differentiated instruction is another. And, you're right in the retorts that follow...how many articles are out there that support Differentiated Instruction in the classroom? How many articles out there supported DEI initiatives in the classroom. In practice, they don't. Perhaps in some rare occurrences they do.

"may not be able to show what they know and understand"...its because they don't know anything and don't understand it. Perhaps you'd say this is the archaic way of doing things...but if contemporary students don't have that archaic knowledge...how are they supposed to build upon it?

This will end up in the Town Hall. Sorry mods.

 

[Brains]

The way the college board folks explained this to me when I was in HS admin (pre-COVID) was that anyone below a 1000 shouldn't go directly into a 4-year school (unless they can catch 10 TD's of course).

Anyone above a 1400 is a lock to graduate in 5 years and 75% grad rate in 4y.

1000-1400 they dunno chit about their success rate and it's a crapshoot.

1400 is an excellent SAT score. 1500 and over is truly exceptional.

1000 is not a good score at all.

 

[Ironmanfootball]

1400 is an excellent SAT score. 1500 and over is truly exceptional.

1000 is not a good score at all.

That's the point.