The Dumbest Generation?

[bluefrog]

http://www.usnews.com/education/blo...s-college-benchmark?google_editors_picks=true

The College Board, creators of the SAT, say they've discovered what score students need to succeed in college: 1550. It's a score 43 percent of SAT takers met in 2011, the nonprofit organization announced today.

Students with a combined score of 1550 across the critical reading, math, and writing portions of the popular college-entrance exam have a 65 percent chance of earning a 2.67 GPA or higher during their first year of college, according to College Board research. The organization says that students who meet that benchmark have a much higher chance of graduating college than students who score below the benchmark.

My first reaction was "Holy Shit, I only got a 12-something on my SATs!", then I remembered a perfect score is 2400 now.

Parents are letting their kids fail in school and the test-and-punish strategy of the DOE isn't helping either.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Some of us would be happy with a 2.67 GPA in college.

I was talking to Mrs. FromWA about this last night...it seems that for years people focused on PoliSci, English Lit, Languages, History, etc for their degrees, so that they would have one. Now, companies are screaming for workers in the engineering and trades fields, and people with non-technical degrees are either un- or under-employed.

But engineering is harder than PoliSci, so what are you going to do? Make kids take it?

And based on the passing rates of the WASL graduation tests, not enough kids are being "punished" by staying behind a grade. If you don't meet the requirements to continue on to the next grade (which I admit may not be adequately shown in a standardized test), you shouldn't continue.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I was watching the news on this and they reported that more students are taking the test and that's what probably is pushing the scores down.

Another thought is that rather than really focusing in the the 3 R's, kids today get a lot of social crap in primary and middle grades... They lack the foundation of 'education' in the traditional sense and maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[TripTango]

Aside from the test-taking demographic change, the SAT is anything but standardized on a year-to-year basis. Scoring styles, normalization, and the difficulty of the questions themselves are different over time, making comparison between years very problematic.

And remind me what the SAT measures, again? Oh yeah -- it primarily assesses one's ability to take standardized tests.

 

[bluefrog]

Aside from the test-taking demographic change, the SAT is anything but standardized on a year-to-year basis. Scoring styles, normalization, and the difficulty of the questions themselves are different over time, making comparison between years very problematic.

And remind me what the SAT measures, again? Oh yeah -- it primarily assesses one's ability to take standardized tests.

Absolutely the SAT has problems but it is a relatively cheap way of assessing a students ability to handle college level coursework. It's also one of the few things most universities can agree on. The addition of the writing portion makes it better test, too.

If there is a better alternative I think we should give it a shot. There are many different kinds of intelligence, some of which are nearly impossible to observe, and a myriad of ways to measure them. It would be very expensive and time consuming to develop a new test that most people could agree is more "fair" and accurate than the SAT

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i blame auto-tune

 

[TripTango]

Absolutely the SAT has problems but it is a relatively cheap way of assessing a students ability to handle college level coursework. It's also one of the few things most universities can agree on. The addition of the writing portion makes it better test, too.

If there is a better alternative I think we should give it a shot. There are many different kinds of intelligence, some of which are nearly impossible to observe, and a myriad of ways to measure them. It would be very expensive and time consuming to develop a new test that most people could agree is more "fair" and accurate than the SAT

The SAT measures a student's ability to handle coursework? Got any evidence?

Bates College has made the reporting of SAT scores optional for incoming students since 1984, and has done some fairly extensive research into measuring the possible correlation between SAT score submission and college success. Their conclusions? "In a word, in a college generally regarded as a highly demanding academic environment, non-submitters earn exactly the same grades, and graduate at exactly the same rates, as do submitters." Check out "20 Years of Optional SATs at Bates" and the accompanying PowerPoint slides for more detail.

The SAT is a test-taking test. I say this as someone who has spent a great deal of time and earned a fair amount of money helping students improve their scores on the SAT and other standardized tests. Obviously there is some correlation with intelligence going on in the SAT results, but the fact is that a typical student can improve their score by hundreds of points simply by learning SAT-specific test-taking strategies and memorizing the definitions of obscure vocabulary words -- neither of which are skills necessarily connected to college (or post-graduation) success.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Absolutely the SAT has problems but it is a relatively cheap way of assessing a students ability to handle college level coursework. It's also one of the few things most universities can agree on. The addition of the writing portion makes it better test, too.

If there is a better alternative I think we should give it a shot. There are many different kinds of intelligence, some of which are nearly impossible to observe, and a myriad of ways to measure them. It would be very expensive and time consuming to develop a new test that most people could agree is more "fair" and accurate than the SAT

I'm OK with the SAT system but do not think they should be given as much weight as they are given by colleges. There is so much more to graduates of high scholl than their SAT scores. If colleges are primarily using SAT scores as a way to determine who will be good college students, they are way off the mark . . . unless they define good college students as those who perform well on standardized tests.

 

[bluefrog]

The SAT measures a student's ability to handle coursework? Got any evidence?

Bates College has made the reporting of SAT scores optional for incoming students since 1984, and has done some fairly extensive research into measuring the possible correlation between SAT score submission and college success. Their conclusions? "In a word, in a college generally regarded as a highly demanding academic environment, non-submitters earn exactly the same grades, and graduate at exactly the same rates, as do submitters." Check out "20 Years of Optional SATs at Bates" and the accompanying PowerPoint slides for more detail.

The SAT is a test-taking test. I say this as someone who has spent a great deal of time and earned a fair amount of money helping students improve their scores on the SAT and other standardized tests. Obviously there is some correlation with intelligence going on in the SAT results, but the fact is that a typical student can improve their score by hundreds of points simply by learning SAT-specific test-taking strategies and memorizing the definitions of obscure vocabulary words -- neither of which are skills necessarily connected to college (or post-graduation) success.

So the decline in SAT scores means students are getting worse at taking standardized tests? I'm not sure I'm getting your point.

 

[TripTango]

So the decline in SAT scores means students are getting worse at taking standardized tests? I'm not sure I'm getting your point.

It means that this year's group of SAT test-takers had lower adjusted scores on this year's test than some other students who took a different test. In other words, it doesn't mean much.

 

[bluefrog]

It means that this year's group of SAT test-takers had lower adjusted scores on this year's test than some other students who took a different test. In other words, it doesn't mean much.

Do you think this is unrelated to the U.S.'s falling rank in math and science compared to other nations?

 

[TripTango]

Do you think this is unrelated to the U.S.'s falling rank in math and science compared to other nations?

I do.

In fact, although the math scores on the SAT have dipped a bit in the last five years, they remain higher than average scores in the 70's, 80's and 90's. The biggest decline has been in the critical reading section.

 

[BrianFromWA]

iirc, though, when I took the SAT there was nothing more advanced than geometry in the test. Hard to test ability to do calculus or calc-based science and engineering

 

[barfo]

iirc, though, when I took the SAT there was nothing more advanced than geometry in the test. Hard to test ability to do calculus or calc-based science and engineering

Isn't that by design? It's not supposed to be a subject matter test, it is supposed to be an aptitude test.

barfo

 

[illmatic99]

Fuck the SAT. I did pretty well on them, but still did shitty in college. One's performance on the SAT doesn't necessarily indicate a person's intelligence.

 

[TripTango]

Isn't that by design? It's not supposed to be a subject matter test, it is supposed to be an aptitude test.

barfo

That's my favorite part about the history of the SAT, actually. It originally stood for "Scholastic Aptitude Test", but switched to "Scholastic Assessment Test" after some people criticized the lack of proven correlation to college success. Then in the late 90's the College Board realized that the phrase "assessment test" is just silly, and announced that the acronym "SAT" no longer stands for anything at all. It is just the "SAT".

 

[bluefrog]

That's my favorite part about the history of the SAT, actually. It originally stood for "Scholastic Aptitude Test", but switched to "Scholastic Assessment Test" after some people criticized the lack of proven correlation to college success. Then in the late 90's the College Board realized that the phrase "assessment test" is just silly, and announced that the acronym "SAT" no longer stands for anything at all. It is just the "SAT".

What do you think colleges should use to measure how prepared a high school student is for college?

 

[TripTango]

What do you think colleges should use to measure how prepared a high school student is for college?

Realistically, the standardized testing infrastructure is far too engrained in our educational system to go away any time soon, but I think the whole thing has been built up to a ridiculous degree. I mean seriously -- look at those score averages up there. They show clearly that current students score 20-25 more points on the math section than students in the 80's did. What does that mean? Have kids gotten better at math over the last 30 years? What is 1 "point" worth, exactly? It's a unitless metric that measures an invented dimension.

High school GPA and class ranking have been shown to be no worse -- and in some cases, better -- than SAT scores as predictors of grades in college. Even those are imperfect metrics, of course, since humans are complex creatures, but they do have the built-in bonus of being both cheap and readily available. So here's the real question: why do we need a multi-billion dollar industry built around a product that is proven to be no better than the free alternative?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

its the illegals.

 

[blazerboy30]

It means that this year's group of SAT test-takers had lower adjusted scores on this year's test than some other students who took a different test. In other words, it doesn't mean much.

Let's see if I follow your logic here:

- The SAT is just a test-taking test that is just a reflection of who studied for it and took classes to prepare for it.
- More students today prepare and take classes for the SAT compared to years ago.
- The SAT scores are lower now than they were compared to years ago.
- But that doesn't mean anything with respect to knowledge

Doesn't compute.

 

[julius]

I blame the liberals.





Oh hey, that's almost as fun as blaming Bush. I should start doing that more.

 

[ABM]

Another thought is that rather than really focusing in the the 3 R's, kids today get a lot of social crap in primary and middle grades... They lack the foundation of 'education' in the traditional sense and maybe that has something to do with it.

Yeah, you and I just spent the majority of our time bowling and chasing young women.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Yeah, you and I just spent the majority of our time bowling and chasing young women.

That was a fiiiiiiiiiiiine education.

 

[barfo]

That was a fiiiiiiiiiiiine education.

And then it was on to 2nd grade...

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

And then it was on to 2nd grade...

barfo

Hey, never hurts to start young.

 

[ABM]

And then it was on to 2nd grade...

barfo

You're a grown man and still may very well not have experienced the educational delights BP and I were fortunate enough to partake in.......by the 1st grade, no less.

 

[jlprk]

The problem is that the SAT only tests a narrow range of intelligence. It should be expanded to include woodwork, cooking, sewing, auto tech, and most of all, video gaming. Modern teenagers are smarter than before but tests have not kept up. I blame old people. Old people don't like teenagers and refuse to change the SAT. The SAT only takes up a Saturday morning. Why not make it a weeklong affair and test everything. I'd have made Harvard if they'd tested my anklebreaking crossover.

 

[julius]

You're a grown man and still may very well not have experienced the educational delights BP and I were fortunate enough to partake in.......by the 1st grade, no less.

repeating 3rd grade 4 times is not exactly something one is fortunate to "partake" in.

 

[ABM]

repeating 3rd grade 4 times is not exactly something one is fortunate to "partake" in.

To be honest (and something I'm so not proud of), I have all of a 10th grade education. Sucked to be me.

 

[julius]

To be honest (and something I'm so not proud of), I have all of a 10th grade education. Sucked to be me.

I don't think that's nearly as bad as some people do. Education is a subjective term (at least, imho it is). Some of the "smartest" people I know are some of the least "educated" people I know.

and vice versa. Some of the stupidest people I know are far more educated than you or I am.