Standardized tests

[aimeeandbeatles]

I've heard them criticized as being discrimiating to minorities (they ask 'white' question) and no measure of excellence

your thoughts?

 

[Firstlady]

What kind of standardized tests are you talking about? Like SAT/ACT? I don't ever remember seeing standardized tests discriminating against minorities. Am I missing something?

 

[Tomoyo]

They're as standard as you'll ever get. The complaints are about one question every twenty years or so, and generally don't figure into the scores at all. The difference between scores of different minorities has more to do with socioeconomic class than anything else.

If anything, they're discriminating against people who think properly. There are a few questions that could be construed legitimately several ways, but with only one answer. There, they're just testing how well you can read their minds (which is possible, by the way).

 

[ShannonCT]

The reading and English portions of the SAT and ACT favor people who grow up around people who speak standard English. Poor people of any race are going to be at a disadvantage because they are more likely to speak non-standard English. But the SAT/ACT certainly shouldn't change to accomodate non-standard English. Those tests are supposed to be tools for universities to predict the future potential of students. Students who don't speak and write in standard English and who have inferior vocabularies are less likely to succeed in universities. Having culturally diverse reading passages is fine. One doesn't need to study the Western canon to do well in university. One does need to be able to write a proper essay and comprehend difficult literature.

Something that I find really questionable about the way the SAT and ACT are administered is giving certain individuals extra time because of real or supposed cognitive disabilities, like ADD. As university admission becomes more and more competitive, I'm seeing an increasing number of parents who are seeking out mental health professionals to diagnose their child with a learning disability so that the child can receive 50% or 100% more time on these standardized tests. Putting aside the widespread chicanery that parents are engaging in to get their children ahead, I still have to wonder: even for teens who have a genuine learning disability, who is it serving to allow them extra time on an important test when they certainly aren't going to be receiving that benefit at the university they eventually attend? If the SAT/ACT is supposed to help university admitters predict the potential of a student to succeed in their institution, why inflate certain people's scores?

 

[Perfection]

I remember the ACT, the "do you like watermelon?" question kinda threw me for a loop.

 

[History_Buff]

I remember the ACT, the "do you like watermelon?" question kinda threw me for a loop.

The one about whether I saw myself stealing bikes was something of a shocker too.

 

[Tomoyo]

Something that I find really questionable about the way the SAT and ACT are administered is giving certain individuals extra time because of real or supposed cognitive disabilities, like ADD. As university admission becomes more and more competitive, I'm seeing an increasing number of parents who are seeking out mental health professionals to diagnose their child with a learning disability so that the child can receive 50% or 100% more time on these standardized tests. Putting aside the widespread chicanery that parents are engaging in to get their children ahead, I still have to wonder: even for teens who have a genuine learning disability, who is it serving to allow them extra time on an important test when they certainly aren't going to be receiving that benefit at the university they eventually attend? If the SAT/ACT is supposed to help university admitters predict the potential of a student to succeed in their institution, why inflate certain people's scores?

This is something that has been bothering me a lot. The entire difficulty of the SAT/ACT is the time limit. Adding an extra 10 minutes on each section would undoubtedly raise the average test taker's score by at least 100 points per section. If a student has a learning disability, isn't it supposed to be reflected in the score? Isn't the entire point of the standardized test to show that the taker isn't as proficient as everyone else?

 

[ShannonCT]

This is something that has been bothering me a lot. The entire difficulty of the SAT/ACT is the time limit. Adding an extra 10 minutes on each section would undoubtedly raise the average test taker's score by at least 100 points per section. If a student has a learning disability, isn't it supposed to be reflected in the score? Isn't the entire point of the standardized test to show that the taker isn't as proficient as everyone else?

Two recent stories that highlight the nonsense of this system:

A student I was tutoring for the SAT is diagnosed ADD. You wouldn't know it except for his tendency to rush through math and not always follow through to make sure he has the right answer (like much of the teenage population). Because of his disability, he received 100% extra time for each section. He got his results last week: he scored above 700 on every section.

Another student I am tutoring for the ACT does not have any diagnosed disorder. He took the ACT a few months ago and did very well on the math, English, and science questions he had time to get to, but he was too thorough on those questions and didn't get to the last 8-10 questions on each of those sections. Result: a decent ACT score. I talked to his mom at the end of our session and told her that he doesn't have any difficulty with the material, so we need to work on getting him to go faster. His mom agreed, and then told me that she had had him tested for learning disabilities and ADD and the psych found no problems. But she was going to have him tested again by another psych to try to get him extra time for the ACT.

This is my main complaint with these standardized tests.

 

[aneeshm]

I've heard them criticized as being discrimiating to minorities (they ask 'white' question) and no measure of excellence

your thoughts?

Complete nonsense.

 

[Metis]

Standardization is important in scientific research, even in the "soft" sciences of sociology and psychology. If specific tests were geared toward all possible groups that might take them it would be a logistical and evaluative nightmare.

Tests such as the ACT are merely a means of evaluating how well a prospective student might do in a program and a way of assessing what areas of education he might be lacking in or have more ability in than others.

In testing, as in teaching, you have to "work for the middle," for this is where most of your students lie (think "mode" here) and where you can do the most good for the most people in an alloted time frame.

 

[cubsfan6506]

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/04/blackwhiteeast.php

Perhaps some races on average are just smarter.

 

[Truronian]

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/04/blackwhiteeast.php

Perhaps some races on average are just smarter.

Or maybe some races are on average poorer.

 

[chinesefireball]

Something that I find really questionable about the way the SAT and ACT are administered is giving certain individuals extra time because of real or supposed cognitive disabilities, like ADD. As university admission becomes more and more competitive, I'm seeing an increasing number of parents who are seeking out mental health professionals to diagnose their child with a learning disability so that the child can receive 50% or 100% more time on these standardized tests. Putting aside the widespread chicanery that parents are engaging in to get their children ahead, I still have to wonder: even for teens who have a genuine learning disability, who is it serving to allow them extra time on an important test when they certainly aren't going to be receiving that benefit at the university they eventually attend? If the SAT/ACT is supposed to help university admitters predict the potential of a student to succeed in their institution, why inflate certain people's scores?

I actually had extra time for my HSC (NSW, Australia - final final school exams (one exam for each subject). Since I'm diabetic I need to eat every so often (roughly around 2 hours, bit more frequently if I'm doing some active or thinking). So I applied to be allowed to eat and drink during exams. And then they gave 5 minutes 'break time' for every half hour of exams. So in the middle of an exam I could say "i need a break to eat something", I would move away from my exam paper eat for a bit. Then go back to my exam and the time I took for my break was added on to the end of the exam.

What I found troublesome is the students who had a reader/writer, who would as the name suggests, read and/or write the exam for the student, for English exams. Isn't the main point of english is being able to read and write?

 

[Nylan]

The system itself is flawed in a number of ways. After all, the American school system is roughly based on that of 19th century Prussia, which was designed to make good citizens and soldiers.

I haven't seen any racial bias however. Odds are these claims are the product of counter-racism, people trying to get ahead in life as much as they can and willing to cry 'racist' to do it. Happens quite often.