Grade inflation

brewmeist said:
Theoretically, taking the test more than once can be considered gaming the system. It is well-known that scores generally improve with subsequent tests, because the test-taker gets more familiar with how to take the test more efficiently. But many people simply can't afford to take the test more than once.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this.

If you are competing for a competitive slot, you have to put your best application forward. Test jitters, sickness, and other factors could lead to a poorer performance on one specific day that isn’t necessarily a true representation of ability.

Showing grit and improving your score can.
 
brewmeist said:
Theoretically, taking the test more than once can be considered gaming the system. It is well-known that scores generally improve with subsequent tests, because the test-taker gets more familiar with how to take the test more efficiently. But many people simply can't afford to take the test more than once.
Click to expand...
How is that gaming the system? Isn't practice and repetition one of the main factors in success? Whether you are a competitive athlete, debate champion - practice is usually an important part of one's success - at least in the world I live in. Academic success is not as easy as just showing up and taking a test.
 
Last edited:
EEBTTF said:
How is that gaming the system? Isn't practice and repetition one of the main factors in success? Whether you are a competitive athlete, debate champion - practice is usually an important part of one's success - at least in the world I live in. Academic success is not as easy as just showing up and taking a test.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I am referrring to an earlier post implying that prep classes and tutors can be considered gaming the system, which I do not agree with.
 
A1Janitor said:
I don’t understand this.

If you are competing for a competitive slot, you have to put your best application forward. Test jitters, sickness, and other factors could lead to a poorer performance on one specific day that isn’t necessarily a true representation of ability.

Showing grit and improving your score can.
Click to expand...
I probably should have quoted the post above yours to put my comment in context. I do not think taking the test multiple times is gaming the system at all. Nor do I think taking prep classes or using a tutor.
 
Gaming the system?

At least in the case of the Army, wait until they make their Branch and Duty Station wish lists...and then commission. If one isn't gaming the system, all while coloring within the lines, all those brains, brawn and best intentions can go to waste.
 
brewmeist said:
Theoretically, taking the test more than once can be considered gaming the system. It is well-known that scores generally improve with subsequent tests, because the test-taker gets more familiar with how to take the test more efficiently. But many people simply can't afford to take the test more than once.
Click to expand...

Taking the test more than once is “not gaming the system” in any way.

A test runs historically in the $50-$65 range depending on whether you have an essay or not. Additionally, fee waivers are widely available for the ACT and SAT for those that can’t afford the fee.

Saying that not being able to afford a test is a barrier to taking it more than once is silly.
 
TheRightStuff said:
Taking the test more than once is “not gaming the system” in any way.

A test runs historically in the $50-$65 range depending on whether you have an essay or not. Additionally, fee waivers are widely available for the ACT and SAT for those that can’t afford the fee.

Saying that not being able to afford a test is a barrier to taking it more than once is silly.
Click to expand...
Whether you call it gaming the system or skewing the results, it destroys the validity of the test. The purpose of the test is to allow institutions to make an apples to apples comparison of kids no matter where they come from. The results lose there reliability when some kids take it multiple times. Let’s say Student A takes it once, scores a 1500, and never takes it again. Then you have Student B, who takes it six times, and improves their score from an 1100 to a 1350. Then you have Student C who scores a 1350 on their first and only test. Are student B and C the same? Not at all. Student B inflated their score by taking it multiple times and benefitting from guessing right across multiple exams. If Student C takes the exam multiple times and increases their score to a 1500, are they the same as Student A? Again, no. Even if Student A wanted to put in the effort and spend the money to maintain his or her separation from other students, they can’t as the exam maxes out at 1600. So taking the exam multiple times results in a consolidation of scores near the top with an inability for the true top performers to maintain that separation. The supposed purpose of the test (besides making a ton of money for the college boards) is defeated by the practice we are discussing.

I have argued before that subsequent test score should be discounted by an increasing percentage the more times you take it.

Super scores are a complete joke and perversion of the testing process.
 
Last edited:
I recently spoke to a German college student who was shocked when I described that our college admissions testing consisted of a single 3 - 4 hour test that you can take multiple times. Compared to German Abitur: 4 to 5 tests over several weeks covering multiple subjects with each test 3 - 4.5 hours long in addition to an oral exam.

But as kinnem said, it is the system, like it or not. As long as everyone is playing by the same rules, there is really no advantage/disadvantage. It's a less than optimal measure of academic potential, but the best we have for comparison given the lack of uniformity in grading at schools.
 
TheRightStuff said:
Taking the test more than once is “not gaming the system” in any way.

A test runs historically in the $50-$65 range depending on whether you have an essay or not. Additionally, fee waivers are widely available for the ACT and SAT for those that can’t afford the fee.

Saying that not being able to afford a test is a barrier to taking it more than once is silly.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that taking the test more than once is really gaming the system. More power to you if you have the time and resources to do it. 100% test affordability is a barrier to taking it more than once though that I’m going to chime in on here. I come from a household where taking it more than once would have been a huge stretch, and I knew that going in. It isn’t just the upfront cost of the test itself, because while $50 might not seem like a lot to most, it definitely can be…especially when you’re talking about taking it two, three, four…more times. That starts getting into the 100s of dollars. Not money my family had to justify taking it especially when there wasn’t any guarantee I’d improve my score….wasn’t like we were going to afford any outside prep. What I did for self prep was going to be it.

There are also unwritten costs such as transportation and time costs that these tests take not factored into that $50. Single parent household, didn’t have a license yet (let alone a second car), and my mom worked weekends to make the most out of her shifts to support the home. Our school wasn’t a test site. Taking it more than once would have been a logistical hurdle to sort out and required my mom to take a shift off, also cost in money to us.

I’m not saying this as a woe is me tale. It obviously worked out fine for me to take the test once and get to where I wanted to be, but I can very much empathize and understand where this would be a barrier to folks that fee waivers, which I would be very surprised to see if they would cover multiple times as most I would imagine would only cover a student’s first attempt to save these programs money to make sure it goes around. I’d just argue that this is a barrier that people shouldn’t dismiss and just be thankful if they’re coming from a position that it wouldn’t seem to be.
 
I knew a person with a 5.1 GPA that recently graduated from our school. It was mainly due to him taking a total of 15 AP courses throughout his high school years and earning well grades on them. I think it might be the school that people attend dictates whether there is or isn't an inflation of grades.
 
Korab said:
Whether you call it gaming the system or skewing the results, it destroys the validity of the test. The purpose of the test is to allow institutions to make an apples to apples comparison of kids no matter where they come from. The results lose there reliability when some kids take it multiple times. Let’s say Student A takes it once, scores a 1500, and never takes it again. Then you have Student B, who takes it six times, and improves their score from an 1100 to a 1350. Then you have Student C who scores a 1350 on their first and only test. Are student B and C the same? Not at all. Student B inflated their score by taking it multiple times and benefitting from guessing right across multiple exams. If Student C takes the exam multiple times and increases their score to a 1500, are they the same as Student A? Again, no. Even if Student A wanted to put in the effort and spend the money to maintain his or her separation from other students, they can’t as the exam maxes out at 1600. So taking the exam multiple times results in a consolidation of scores near the top with an inability for the true top performers to maintain that separation. The supposed purpose of the test (besides making a ton of money for the college boards) is defeated by the practice we are discussing.

I have argued before that subsequent test score should be discounted by an increasing percentage the more times you take it.

Super scores are a complete joke and perversion of the testing process.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your analysis of taking the test multiple times. Logic says that repetition of any action should result in improvement. So, I don't fault the candidate that takes the test multiple times to achieve a better score. I don't view it as gaming the system, more like taking advantage of the opportunity to improve. With all of the flaws of standardized testing, I still think it is the most objective measuring stick that schools have. My sense is that there is more emphasis on standardized tests due to the difficulty in comparing candidate's GPAs. Not a perfect system, but my guess is that it is more objective than GPA.

Not arguing, just offering a different perspective.
 
My post #60 where I said taking the test multiple times can be considered gaming the system was in reference to an earlier post in which the poster said that using tutors and taking prep classes is gaming the system. I failed to quote the post. I do not think taking the exam multiple times is gaming the system at all. All my kids took the exam three times each. I tried to correct myself in posts #63 and #64, but obviously that didn't work out so well...

I see that SAT has increased the fee waiver to four test attempts from two just this past year. I was not aware of that. Sorry for my 'silly' comment that poor students are affected by the expensive fee.
 
EEBTTF said:
I don't disagree with your analysis of taking the test multiple times. Logic says that repetition of any action should result in improvement. So, I don't fault the candidate that takes the test multiple times to achieve a better score. I don't view it as gaming the system, more like taking advantage of the opportunity to improve. With all of the flaws of standardized testing, I still think it is the most objective measuring stick that schools have. My sense is that there is more emphasis on standardized tests due to the difficulty in comparing candidate's GPAs. Not a perfect system, but my guess is that it is more objective than GPA.

Not arguing, just offering a different perspective.
Click to expand...
I suspect they use the GPA in conjunction with the SATs.
 
EEBTTF said:
I don't disagree with your analysis of taking the test multiple times. Logic says that repetition of any action should result in improvement. So, I don't fault the candidate that takes the test multiple times to achieve a better score. I don't view it as gaming the system, more like taking advantage of the opportunity to improve. With all of the flaws of standardized testing, I still think it is the most objective measuring stick that schools have. My sense is that there is more emphasis on standardized tests due to the difficulty in comparing candidate's GPAs. Not a perfect system, but my guess is that it is more objective than GPA.

Not arguing, just offering a different perspective.
Click to expand...
I've posted this a few times in the past... Learning how to take the test is almost just as important as having the subject knowledge. It is a unique test, and the only real way to learn it is to actually take it a few times. It's sort of like driving... You can read all the manuals you want, but you won't be a proficient driver until you actually get behind the wheel and learn from your mistakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top