3 ms·

I think subject tests (like AP exams, or SAT II subject tests ) are much better indicators of college preparedness and success. It tests mastery in a particular

I think subject tests (like AP exams, or SAT II subject tests ) are much better indicators of college preparedness and success. It tests mastery in a particular subject (Spanish, chemistry, biology, calculus, ...). It shows that students can learn relevant material, and the content is useful to study anyway. The SATs try to broadly test psychometric abilities. You have to do silly tasks like pick the best analogy. So you spend time practicing tasks that measure no particular mastery of anything. Solving crossword puzzles might be a better psychometric measure (it would also test vocabulary and it's more fun, but it would make the exam look stupid). The math portion only tests up to Algebra 2. Many students have taken math beyond Algebra 2, so it doesn't even show colleges what their actual math ability is. I think grades are more relevant because they show how students performed across multiple subjects over a longer period of time. Grades are more subjective and possibly gameable. But I don't think ability to answer psychometric questions is a better metric than grades.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> I think subject tests (like AP exams, or SAT II subject tests ) are much better indicators of college preparedness and success. It tests mastery in a particular subject (Spanish, chemistry, biology, calculus, ...). It shows that students can learn relevant material, and the content is useful to study anyway. But subject tests are not actually required right? (I honestly don't know. I just looked it up and it appeared they were not.) Should they be required going forward? > The SATs try to broadly test psychometric abilities. You have to do silly tasks like pick the best analogy. So you spend time practicing tasks that measure no particular mastery of anything. Solving crossword puzzles might be a better psychometric measure (it would also test vocabulary and it's more fun, but it would make the exam look stupid). Do you know that the tests don't really correlate to future success or are you speculating here? I don't take issue with your claim that e.g. analogies are silly, but you seem to be saying that they don't really pick up any useful signal. Do you know that to be true? > The math portion only tests up to Algebra 2. Many students have taken math beyond Algebra 2, so it doesn't even show colleges what their actual math ability is. This is more of an argument for the SAT's math section to be made more difficult. > I think grades are more relevant because they show how students performed across multiple subjects over a longer period of time. Grades are more subjective and possibly gameable. But I don't think ability to answer psychometric questions is a better metric than grades. I see grades and the SATs as simply being _different_. Neither is strictly better than the other because they aren't really showing the same thing. In that case I see no reason they can't coexist.
- MyHypatia 5y ago
  > But subject tests are not required right. You're correct, they are not required. I think that rather than a requirement, students should be able to submit these AP/SAT II scores to add value to their application. Some schools don't offer AP courses, so it can't really be a requirement. SAT II could be made a requirement. My opinion is that if we're going to use standardized tests at all, let's use standardized tests that measure actual knowledge, not "psychometric abilities" (i.e. SAT II and/or AP tests). >> Do you know that the tests don't really correlate to future success or are you speculating here? There is a lot of research on SAT/ACT scores and college success. It's a mixed bag. Standardized test scores basically only correlate with grades in the first year of college, and don't correlate at all with graduation rates. GPA, however, does correlate strongly with college success. There are a lot of research studies correlating SAT/ACT scores with different metrics. And it turns out, that a "psychometric abilities" test just isn't a great metric for how people do in college. Why are we investing billions of dollars and hours in a really ineffective metric? >> This is more of an argument for the SAT's math section to be made more difficult. I think we should just have math subject tests instead. That way kids who only took up to Algebra II take one test appropriate for their level. And kids who took Calculus take another test appropriate for their level. A history major probably doesn't need calculus. A physics major does. > I see grades and the SATs as simply being _different_. Neither is strictly better than the other because they aren't really showing the same thing. In that case I see no reason they can't coexist. Well, research has shown that grades predict college success and ACT/SAT doesn't really. So I would say that one is strictly better than the other. I'm not saying that standardized testing shouldn't exist. I do think students should be able to take standardized subject specific tests like AP and SAT II and submit those scores with their application. Grades and standardized tests can co-exist. Let's just not waste time and money on a standardized test that doesn't provide a meaningful metric.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    > Well, research has shown that grades predict college success and ACT/SAT doesn't really. So I would say that one is strictly better than the other. I'm not saying that standardized testing shouldn't exist. I do think students should be able to take standardized subject specific tests like AP and SAT II and submit those scores with their application. Grades and standardized tests can co-exist. Let's just not waste time and money on a standardized test that doesn't provide a meaningful metric. I don't really take issue with the rest of what you say, but you simply can't claim that grades are strictly better that SATs. They are _different_ measurements. There are people with bad grades that will do well at SATs. Now if by "strictly better", you mean that grades individually are a better predictor than SATs, then that I could believe (though obviously it's a claim that requires actual study), but that isn't really a good definition of strictly better. It could very well be the case that grades provide 50% of the predictive signal of success while SATs provide 35%, but taken together they provide 60%. In that case, neither is really strictly better than the other. However, both together really are strictly than either separately. That said, if by "research has shown that grades predict college success and ACT/SAT doesn't really" you mean SATs provide 0 predictive power, then they should of course be removed. I've never heard anyone make that claim, but it could be true I guess. I'd have to defer to your knowledge of such research. But assuming that SATs aren't providing 0 predictive power, I'm not convinced these tests should be replaced with nothing at all. If they replaced them by required SAT subject tests, then that's one thing, but they aren't doing that. They are simply removing a signal. Before they did have a single test to compare across and now they have none. Anyway I don't really feel like going back and forth forever with this. My original question in this thread about whether the SATs provide information has been answered well enough. Thanks for the responses.

CogitoCogito 5y ago

> I think subject tests (like AP exams, or SAT II subject tests ) are much better indicators of college preparedness and success. It tests mastery in a particular subject (Spanish, chemistry, biology, calculus, ...). It shows that students can learn relevant material, and the content is useful to study anyway. But subject tests are not actually required right? (I honestly don't know. I just looked it up and it appeared they were not.) Should they be required going forward? > The SATs try to broadly test psychometric abilities. You have to do silly tasks like pick the best analogy. So you spend time practicing tasks that measure no particular mastery of anything. Solving crossword puzzles might be a better psychometric measure (it would also test vocabulary and it's more fun, but it would make the exam look stupid). Do you know that the tests don't really correlate to future success or are you speculating here? I don't take issue with your claim that e.g. analogies are silly, but you seem to be saying that they don't really pick up any useful signal. Do you know that to be true? > The math portion only tests up to Algebra 2. Many students have taken math beyond Algebra 2, so it doesn't even show colleges what their actual math ability is. This is more of an argument for the SAT's math section to be made more difficult. > I think grades are more relevant because they show how students performed across multiple subjects over a longer period of time. Grades are more subjective and possibly gameable. But I don't think ability to answer psychometric questions is a better metric than grades. I see grades and the SATs as simply being _different_. Neither is strictly better than the other because they aren't really showing the same thing. In that case I see no reason they can't coexist.

MyHypatia 5y ago
> But subject tests are not required right. You're correct, they are not required. I think that rather than a requirement, students should be able to submit these AP/SAT II scores to add value to their application. Some schools don't offer AP courses, so it can't really be a requirement. SAT II could be made a requirement. My opinion is that if we're going to use standardized tests at all, let's use standardized tests that measure actual knowledge, not "psychometric abilities" (i.e. SAT II and/or AP tests). >> Do you know that the tests don't really correlate to future success or are you speculating here? There is a lot of research on SAT/ACT scores and college success. It's a mixed bag. Standardized test scores basically only correlate with grades in the first year of college, and don't correlate at all with graduation rates. GPA, however, does correlate strongly with college success. There are a lot of research studies correlating SAT/ACT scores with different metrics. And it turns out, that a "psychometric abilities" test just isn't a great metric for how people do in college. Why are we investing billions of dollars and hours in a really ineffective metric? >> This is more of an argument for the SAT's math section to be made more difficult. I think we should just have math subject tests instead. That way kids who only took up to Algebra II take one test appropriate for their level. And kids who took Calculus take another test appropriate for their level. A history major probably doesn't need calculus. A physics major does. > I see grades and the SATs as simply being _different_. Neither is strictly better than the other because they aren't really showing the same thing. In that case I see no reason they can't coexist. Well, research has shown that grades predict college success and ACT/SAT doesn't really. So I would say that one is strictly better than the other. I'm not saying that standardized testing shouldn't exist. I do think students should be able to take standardized subject specific tests like AP and SAT II and submit those scores with their application. Grades and standardized tests can co-exist. Let's just not waste time and money on a standardized test that doesn't provide a meaningful metric.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > Well, research has shown that grades predict college success and ACT/SAT doesn't really. So I would say that one is strictly better than the other. I'm not saying that standardized testing shouldn't exist. I do think students should be able to take standardized subject specific tests like AP and SAT II and submit those scores with their application. Grades and standardized tests can co-exist. Let's just not waste time and money on a standardized test that doesn't provide a meaningful metric. I don't really take issue with the rest of what you say, but you simply can't claim that grades are strictly better that SATs. They are _different_ measurements. There are people with bad grades that will do well at SATs. Now if by "strictly better", you mean that grades individually are a better predictor than SATs, then that I could believe (though obviously it's a claim that requires actual study), but that isn't really a good definition of strictly better. It could very well be the case that grades provide 50% of the predictive signal of success while SATs provide 35%, but taken together they provide 60%. In that case, neither is really strictly better than the other. However, both together really are strictly than either separately. That said, if by "research has shown that grades predict college success and ACT/SAT doesn't really" you mean SATs provide 0 predictive power, then they should of course be removed. I've never heard anyone make that claim, but it could be true I guess. I'd have to defer to your knowledge of such research. But assuming that SATs aren't providing 0 predictive power, I'm not convinced these tests should be replaced with nothing at all. If they replaced them by required SAT subject tests, then that's one thing, but they aren't doing that. They are simply removing a signal. Before they did have a single test to compare across and now they have none. Anyway I don't really feel like going back and forth forever with this. My original question in this thread about whether the SATs provide information has been answered well enough. Thanks for the responses.