On Track for USAFA 2017?

[Christcorp]

Not to say that individualized or special training can't improve ACT/SAT scores. Simply stating that the majority of those who take the ACT/SAT didn't take any specialized training. If they studied, it was with a $10-$15 book or free online practice tests. And the average ACT/SAT scores are quite good. 30+/670+.

You said that the ACT test doesn't accurately measure the kid academically. Well; believe it or not, the same can be said for their GPA. There's a lot of cadets who had 3.8-4.0 unweighted GPA's in high school that are struggling to maintain the 2.0 gpa minimum. Some even fail out.

So what is your suggestion? If you don't think ACT and SAT tests should matter that much; and 28000+ high schools are too different in the way they teach and grade; and therefore their gpa and ACT/SAT scores aren't accurate methods of determining their academic knowledge and/or ability to succeed at the academies; then what is the solution?

This is why the academies look at the whole person. When they see a student with a 4.0gpa getting barely to the 25-26ACT that is the minimum, they wonder if this individual's school is really worth a crap. When you see the 34-36ACT and the person has a 3.2gpa, they wonder again about the school. This is why they look at WHAT classes are available. WHAT classes you took. How well you did in them. Are you a class officer. Are you in charge of clubs. Do you do sports. Do you volunteer. etc... I've seen a lot of proud students/parents of their 3.9gpa, but then you look and realize that their school and their curriculum is really weak.

Many people know that I'm a big proponent of the IB program. Granted, there are only 783 high schools that offer the IB Degree program; but if it's available to any of you 13-14 year old thinking about the academies, definitely think about getting into the program. Some schools offer IB classes and some are even online. Same with AP; you can take classes. While AP and IB "Classes" are good for learning advanced subjects and look good on your college applications; the IB program in my opinion in the best. Why? Because it's a "PROGRAM". It's also standardized. The kid in Tokyo taking IB world history, is taking the exact same course as the kid in the IB program in London, Paris, Madrid, Mexico City, New York City, or Cheyenne Wyoming. Also; the "Program" isn't just classes. It's volunteer time; community service (CAS Hours); TOK (Theory of Knowledge) which is a report that takes a year and a half. But the GREATEST thing about the IB "Program", is that it teaches you HOW to study; HOW to manage time; HOW to develop a higher Work Discipline. Both my kids in college; (State University and Air Force Academy) told me that not even counting the classes in college that they already took in IB, the best part was that they were done with their homework in 1-2 hours each night and projects/papers/reports/essays/research/etc... in half the time of all their classmates. Both graduated in the top of their class.

I understand that the IB program isn't available to everyone and therefor it's a moot point for many here. But if it IS available in your school and you're coming up on 9th grade..... ENROLL. If this only helps 1 person, then I have succeeded. For those who don't have the IB Program to help you be a better student, you have to learn on your own. You can pay a thousand dollars to take a course on improving your ACT/SAT, but you don't have to. Also; like I said; there are plenty of 3.8-4.0gpa students at the academy each year who are struggling to maintain a "C". Some fail out. So the best thing to learn, isn't how to game the ACT and get a higher score; it's learning HOW to study, manage your time, and develop a stronger work/study ethic and discipline.

But don't feel that you need to spend thousands of dollars on taking ACT/SAT prep classes. You don't. The ACT scores among entering cadets was 27-33 with an average of 30. And the overwhelming majority of those cadets did not take any expensive prep courses. Now; I'm not saying you should be satisfied with getting the average or the 27. You should strive for the perfect 36 score and continue to improve. But if you want to spend hundreds or thousands on a prep course, go for it. I'll never recommend one. I believe that you can self study with study guides and practice tests; and actually know the material that you've been taught in school. If you can't, or are having difficulties, then you probably have some other issues. Or, your grades don't truly reflect what your school has been teaching you.

But the bottom line is; with the 28,000+ high schools in the country, and ALL of them basically having different standards and methods, and every one of them having different opportunities for their students, the ACT and SAT is the only academic standard for all students in the country. And just like ALL other colleges and universities, the academies realize that it is a valuable tool in determining as best as possible, your level of academic success.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

CC. The solution is to nullify the costs associated with the standardized tests and limit the amount of re-tests. It should be "free" so that everyone is on a more equal footing. Heck, mandate two or three tests for every college bound student. They should also give more time so that some students don't have to learn systems to game the test. If their goal was to test for efficiency, then the guy with the check book can game the system especially using multiple choice techniques.

We disagree that a lot of students don't pay money to take standardized tests. It's common place for Ivy league students to be groomed for tests, hire professional essay writers etc. If you can afford a $200K education, you have the money to pay for the best handlers. It's not doing their DD or DS any service but that is the reality. I think that the USAFA applicants come from a different culture than an Ivy league student. Hence, I predict that less students take prep ACT courses in state colleges.

While you don't advocate spending the dollars for an ACT prep class, I wholeheartedly disagree for many students. If a person is a fast test taker, it may not help much. But it was paramount for my DS. If my DS was able to take the test with 10-20% more time, then the classes would be worthless for him.

See http://rethinkingadmissions.blogs.wfu.edu/tag/act/
It's common knowledge that ACT scores do not predict the results as well as someones GPA. Many colleges say it is downright inaccurate. I do think that the USAFA's model is setup pretty fair in comparison to other university. It would be nice if ACT and SAT were not so revenue focused. It's a BIG business.

You are right. It's tough to judge the whole package and predict how well someone will do in college. But the ACT testing system is partially flawed. With some tweaks, it could be a much better indicator.

 

[Christcorp]

No matter how you change the testing, you can always find a way to increase your odds on taking these tests. I don't believe cost is an issue. I also don't think retaking the tests is an issue. You mention how the person who can afford the $200,000 college education has no problem taking the tests multiple times or paying for what boils down to "Private Tutoring" to do better on the tests. Well first of all; rarely anybody pays "Full Price" to go to a university. Even to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, etc... And if you are wealthy enough to pay full price to go to harvard, princeton, yale, etc.... Then guess what??? It doesn't matter WHAT you SAT/ACT scores are. If you pay FULL PRICE, they WILL let you in.

I know you believe that with the right amount of money, you can get private preparation to improve your ACT and SAT scores. And that this isn't fair to the rest of those who can't afford to do that. Well; you are talking about an extremely small number of people who are paying for this tutelage. But for the 90+% of SAT/ACT test takers, the test are only around $50 for the SAT and $35 for the ACT. And if you can't afford it, there are Fee waivers. I've rarely met anyone who's taken either or both tests more than 4 times. So that's roughly between $140-$200 to take the test. Sorry; but that is not an unacceptable amount of money. And that gets your scores to up to 4 universities. And when it comes to the academies, they SUPERSCORE, so you don't even have to worry about taking the test over until you get ALL your scores up at the same time.

No; the only thing we seem to be discussing with a difference of opinion, is the notion that a lot of people are paying big bucks for ACT/SAT prep courses/training. Are some academy applicants paying for this? Yes. Is it a significant amount? No. And being this is a forum for the academies, I'm not worried at all about the small minority class that can afford the $200,000 education and pay for their son/daughter to take prep courses and individualized prepping. Why? Because they aren't the ones who are applying to the academies.

I've seen the academy from many facets. I've seen first hand a girl who applied and had a 4.0gpa unweighted; taking ALL AP classes; and got ALL 35-36 on her SAT and average 750 on each of her SAT scores. And guess what? She DIDN'T RECEIVE an appointment. Why? Because that's all she had. Academics.

So we will have to agree to disagree. You believe that the ACT/SAT isn't an accurate means of measuring a student's academic success or their potential for success in higher education. I believe that it is, just as much as their gpa. You believe that there's a lot of individuals because of finances, are able to better prepare for the ACT/SAT, and thus get higher scores that don't accurately reflect their academics. While I agree this is definitely possible, it's not very prominent in the academy applicants and the majority of those who have that kind of money; and went to the prep schools, aren't applying to the academies. FWIW: Only about 0.01% of traditional American High Schools wind up at the Ivy League, MIT, Stanford, etc... schools. Yet; 40% of Trinity Prep will go to these ivy, MIT, Stanford type schools. I grew up in the New York City / New Jersey area until I joined the Air Force. I knew kids who went to Trinity. It's probably the BEST of the prep schools. I don't think ANY of them ever went into the military.

So if we were discussing this on College-Confidentials, and we were talking about university admittance in general, I'd probably agree with you. Especially when many schools take your most recent SAT/ACT scores. Where the majority of the students who attend the elite universities also attended the elite prep/private schools like Trinity, Horace, Brearley, etc... But this is the air force academy. They superscore your SAT/ACT. They take the best from each test time you take it. If you do great on math and sucked on science when you get you score back; take it again and don't study math at all. Even if you got a "5" the 2nd time in math, it doesn't matter. (It does for the other schools you're applying to). But again, this is the academy. Not only do they superscore, but they care about a lot more than just the ACT/SAT and your academics. That's only 60% of your application. You can ace that and it's still not enough to get you into the academy. No; I think that the ACT/SAT is a good tool for measuring academics among applicants. It's the one only constant among the 28000+ high schools and it's the best that's currently available. And $140-$200 to take the test (MAX- and waiverable if you can't afford it); plus a few dollars for study guides or going online and getting free practice tests in not too much to ask. Then again; if an applicant believes they can simply memorize study questions and they don't have to actually know the subject, then they deserve to fail. But overall; for the academies, the ACT/SAT is perfectly satisfactory.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

CC. I suspect we agree that the Academies have a much fairer / well rounded process for gaining admission that 90% of the colleges. But we disagree that if you pay retail for an Ivy, you can get it. Remember that student loans will cover the gap for many upper middle class families. Hence, thousands can "afford" to pay the $200K but are turned down. Now if your last name is Bush for instance, a relationship will get you in. Admittance can be based off of relationships even in the Academies.

Re: your perfect GPA and ACT example. Same thing apply to the top tier privates. Various website show scatter plots of who is accepted and turned down. As you say, they are not well rounded.

Re: ACT as a predictor. I pointed to a link that illustrates college admissions point of view that the ACT is far LESS of a predictor that GPA. I could find many admissions people with that same opinion. Several prominent colleges stop looking at these scores as closely. It's the right approach (a standardized test) and it could easily be fairer. Nothing will ever be perfect. But it would be so easy to make the process better.

I 'm with you that the Academies super score technique is overall a better approach but it has its drawbacks. My daughter is a fast test taker. Her test taking issue was that her material expertise faded. If she studies hard on math she would get a 33. But as she studies hard only for English, math would then fade to a 28 a year later while she bumped up her English to a 32. That too would fade. Many people are great test takers and later flush a percentage of that information. My DD's problem was testing speed. Once it enters his brain, it sticks for years. But his testing speed isn't nearly as fast as our DD's. Hence, 10 weeks on how to test == a 5 point bump.

That 10 week class is about getting good and counter intuitive procedures. For example, don't solve the math problem. Plug the middle answer into the question and see if it is higher or lower. That's because the answers always have enough gap to know that your next educated guess will be correct. A student could be smarter but bogged down on actually solving the match problem. Now his ACT looks perfect up to the point where he guesses the remaining of the test. All the focused studying on taking math for instance will yield the same results for that type of student. The bottom line is that kid HAS to test faster. He knows the material. That isn't the problem. He needs to learn the technique and to learn it as best as possible. Reading about the testing technique or trying it on one test isn't good enough. In a situation like this one, the parents need to take the check book out. Even using that approach, my son could have used some more time especially on the science sections. He got about a 29 on science. Was it a good predictor on how he was going to do in college? Well, in engineering college chemistry 1 and 2 (taken when he was 16 and 17) every college student across the country takes the identical final. He tested in the top 1/2 percent nationally and he was later a chemistry college tutor while in high school. My point is the ACT approach isn't a good indicator and there are better ways to test. But years of tradition and money making businesses will prevent a change.

In my last example which is the situation of my DS, he is equally smart with a 27 or 33. If he worked on testing faster and another 10 week course he said he could gotten even a higher score. The difference is the testing technique which he mentally flushed after his last ACT. There are several better standardized tests that students take that are more representative of their subject material intelligence.

For that matter, I'd love to see how USAFA ACT scores correlate to the academic testing that they just took (testing out of classes). I think we agree that a 34-36 certainly should mean that a person is smart. There are some students that could take every course possible and study 24-7 and not obtain a 34-36 on their ACT. So I'm not implying that a high ACT is a bad indicator. I just think that there are better ways to test and that the flaws make it a less than ideal "standardized" test. If they don't change (and I don't see it happening) then I think they should be devalued and that is exactly what is happening (per my link).

You are right. I predict a small portion of students that are going to the Academy pay for expensive private tutoring on the ACT's. ACT's are meaningful to a certain degree. I just think they could be much better predictors than it is currently structured and people getting lesser of a score are being passed up when they might be better students.

So in summary, I'd highly recommend those smart students who test slow to take an in-depth 10 week course. You won't be smarter when you finish but the school of choice may think so!