3 ms·

> I’m not sure what exactly we are trying to finesse with your suggested changes. Maybe you should ask then instead of going on some dumb rant? Maybe that was

by gxs 3y ago

> I’m not sure what exactly we are trying to finesse with your suggested changes. Maybe you should ask then instead of going on some dumb rant? Maybe that was an attempt at a rhetorical question, but given how much you missed the mark, I took it more literally. Big bang btw just refers to doing it all at the end all at once vs in smaller steps over time, it’s not to be taken literally. It doesn’t imply grandeur or anything like that. Also, you missed the entire point of OPs message, as an educator, they were suggesting that perhaps the SAT doesn’t do all you suggested. I don’t know what we’re trying to finesse either, can you explain what you mean by finesse?

csa 3y ago
> Also, you missed the entire point of OPs message, as an educator, they were suggesting that perhaps the SAT doesn’t do all you suggested. Except that it does, and there is data to back it. As an example, some elite schools have stated that they really like using the SAT since it predicts success at their respective schools. One simple Google search (there are many more): https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-predictor-college-success/ https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-predictor-college-succes... “On average, SAT scores added 15% more predictive power above high school grades alone when attempting to understand how students will perform in college. Within narrow high school GPAs, SAT scores further helped predict a student's future success in college.” > I don’t know what we’re trying to finesse either, can you explain what you mean by finesse? What do “granular tests” tell us that the SAT, SAT IIs, and AP tests do not already tell us? The short answer is “not very much”. The results of these tests are accurate enough to make meaningful predictions and decisions. Note that there is some interesting work in learning portfolios (probably an optimal variation of “granular test”) that can be useful for structuring individual learning plans, but that sort of misses the point of broad-based standardized tests, which is normalizing widely varied experiences. Note that standardized tests fail two types of people at the margins, but these are largely addressable, and the benefits outweigh the costs imho: 1. Folks who have test anxiety. Familiarization with the test reduces this substantially for most people affected by this. 2. High-performing folks (think top 5% or better) who don’t have high attention to detail on computer adaptive tests. Also addressed by test familiarity. I’ve seen folks who should be maxing a test get lower than the max because they were careless in some early questions.

by gxs 3y ago

csa 3y ago

> Also, you missed the entire point of OPs message, as an educator, they were suggesting that perhaps the SAT doesn’t do all you suggested. Except that it does, and there is data to back it. As an example, some elite schools have stated that they really like using the SAT since it predicts success at their respective schools. One simple Google search (there are many more): https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-predictor-college-success/ https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-predictor-college-succes... “On average, SAT scores added 15% more predictive power above high school grades alone when attempting to understand how students will perform in college. Within narrow high school GPAs, SAT scores further helped predict a student's future success in college.” > I don’t know what we’re trying to finesse either, can you explain what you mean by finesse? What do “granular tests” tell us that the SAT, SAT IIs, and AP tests do not already tell us? The short answer is “not very much”. The results of these tests are accurate enough to make meaningful predictions and decisions. Note that there is some interesting work in learning portfolios (probably an optimal variation of “granular test”) that can be useful for structuring individual learning plans, but that sort of misses the point of broad-based standardized tests, which is normalizing widely varied experiences. Note that standardized tests fail two types of people at the margins, but these are largely addressable, and the benefits outweigh the costs imho: 1. Folks who have test anxiety. Familiarization with the test reduces this substantially for most people affected by this. 2. High-performing folks (think top 5% or better) who don’t have high attention to detail on computer adaptive tests. Also addressed by test familiarity. I’ve seen folks who should be maxing a test get lower than the max because they were careless in some early questions.