SAT/ACT Troubles

[Mountain]

So you think that it isn't standardized because some kids have more resources than others? In that case, nothing is standardized. The game of basketball is not standardized. Yes, everyone gets 1 point for a free throw and everyone has to dribble to ball while they move, but some kids go to basketball camps and use other resources to get better. Therefore, the game of basketball is biased towards those that have resources. Some kids have access to basketball courts any time they please. Is it dishonorable to take advantage of this resource and practice basketball? If that is the case, anyone that's good at anything is dishonorable.

Your daughter is dishonorable if she made any preparation for the ACT because she took advantage of a resource that not everyone has.

EVERYTHING is biased towards those that have more resources. That doesn't mean nothing is standardized.

You are correct, the game of basketball or playing therein is not standardized. You can go to camp all you want, but few become Lebron James. You can practice standardized test skills as much as possible, but the result won't assure academic excellence. You just did better on a test.

Then again, but for a small and select few, improved basketball skill will not get you into a SA.

Practicing endless your free throw shooting doesn't make you a basketball player any more that practicing endlessly the SAT will make you a good officer.

 

[AROTC-dad]

It's ok to disagree, my friend.

If you seek advantage over others, with a finger somehow on the scale, that's advantage and not standardization.

Never said it wasn't real or ok, just that it isn't standardized.

Mountain, I agree that it is okay to disagree.

What offends me is that you are essentially accusing all those who take pains to legally prepare for the SAT/ACT exam of "gaming" the system and being dishonorable.
If it were not allowed, then you cross into the realm of lacking honor.

His honor, Brovol has made a strong argument using the CFA and Law School/BAR exam analogy. Is getting tips on this website on how to breath properly while doing pull ups "gaming" the system? Is going to the library and borrowing a Kaplan SAT prep book "gaming" the system? I took a 10 week "prep" course to better prepare for the CFP exam. Was I "gaming" the system?

Again, we are dealing with a highly competitive goal and there exists a legal "arms race" to achieve the highest whole person score possible. Hard work, research, preparation are NOT gaming the system and certainly not dishonorable.

 

[frenzymando]

You are correct, the game of basketball or playing therein is not standardized. You can go to camp all you want, but few become Lebron James. You can practice standardized test skills as much as possible, but the result won't assure academic excellence. You just did better on a test.

Then again, but for a small and select few, improved basketball skill will not get you into a SA.

Practicing endless your free throw shooting doesn't make you a basketball player any more that practicing endlessly the SAT will make you a good officer.

Tell me one thing that is standardized by your definition.

I don't think you understand what standardized means. Basketball(in the same league, high school rules differ from college etc) has a standard set of rules, it is uniform and consistent. A free throw is one point, for everyone. Height is standardized. 5 feet tall is 5 feet tall. If you are 5 feet tall and someone else is the the same height as you, he or she is 5 feet tall. What do you think the word standardized means?

 

[Mountain]

Mountain, I agree that it is okay to disagree.

What offends me is that you are essentially accusing all those who take pains to legally prepare for the SAT/ACT exam of "gaming" the system and being dishonorable.
If it were not allowed, then you cross into the realm of lacking honor.

His honor, Brovol has made a strong argument using the CFA analogy. Is getting tips on this website on how to breath properly while doing pull ups "gaming" the system? Is going to the library and borrowing a Kaplan SAT prep book "gaming" the system?

Again, we are dealing with a highly competitive goal and there exists a legal "arms race" to achieve the highest whole person score possible. Hard work, research, preparation are NOT gaming the system and certainly not dishonorable.

Kings - I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just positing that making a standardized test unstandardized makes it no longer a standardized test, regardless the advantage, legal, admissable, or proper, or not. If a kid can get a few extra points on a standardized test by working harder, I'm 100% for it. If a kid can get a few extra points by a finger on the scale that others may not have, I am not. Taking it to the absurd, if you could cheat and gain a few points and it worked, would that be ok? The point of the tests are they should be standardized and an equal measure. Today, they are not.

It is perfectly ok to disagree but I believe all should take the test to see how they measure up on equal footing. That's the only point of a standardized test. How on earth is an admissions department supposed to weigh outcome if the test is not truly standardized?

 

[AROTC-dad]

People are gaming the system and that lacks honor. Without honor, what is the point?

Mountain, I interpret your quote above as being rather accusatory. Perhaps the word "gaming" is lacking clear definition and we are closer in alignment than it may appear.

I do feel that candidates who come from affluence are clearly at an advantage, but that applies to the Ivy's and many other top tier schools as well...not just the SA's. That is why I feel that organizations like Khan Academy are beginning to even the playing field by making solid resources available to anyone.

BTW, I think this thread has now been officially derailed.

 

[frenzymando]

Kings - I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just positing that making a standardized test unstandardized makes it no longer a standardized test, regardless the advantage, legal, admissable, or proper, or not. If a kid can get a few extra points on a standardized test by working harder, I'm 100% for it. If a kid can get a few extra points by a finger on the scale that others may not have, I am not. Taking it to the absurd, if you could cheat and gain a few points and it worked, would that be ok? The point of the tests are they should be standardized and an equal measure. Today, they are not.

It is perfectly ok to disagree but I believe all should take the test to see how they measure up on equal footing. That's the only point of a standardized test. How on earth is an admissions department supposed to weigh outcome if the test is not truly standardized?

How can one work hard to get a higher score with no resources? It is impossible to practice for the SAT/ACT without using a resource that isn't available to every single person.

 

[frenzymando]

Mountain, I interpret your quote above as being rather accusatory. Perhaps the word "gaming" is lacking clear definition and we are closer in alignment than it may appear.

I do feel that candidates who come from affluence are clearly at an advantage, but that applies to the Ivy's and many other top tier schools as well...not just the SA's. That is why I feel that organizations like Khan Academy are beginning to even the playing field by making solid resources available to anyone.

BTW, I think this thread has now been officially derailed.

Just because some people have more resources than other doesn't mean something isn't standardized. Height is standardized even though I have resources(like nutrients that will make me taller) that others do not. The fact that I have superior resources does does not change the fact that height is standardized.

 

[Mountain]

Tell me one thing that is standardized by your definition.

I don't think you understand what standardized means. Basketball has a standard set of rules, it is uniform and consistent. A free throw is one point, for everyone. Height is standardized. 5 feet tall is 5 feet tall. If you are 5 feet tall and someone else is the the same height as you, he or she is 5 feet tall. What do you think the word standardized means?

Umm, lets see...let's switch to baseball for a moment if you will indulge me....

A baseball player who took PED's to become a better baseball player (Barry Bonds et, al?) were outside the standardized. Barry Bonds had an advantage that others did not but, then again, he did do better...much better. Indeed, the rules and fields were the same for all but results were astonishly different. It's a perfect example of standardization compared to the finger on the scale. Mr. Bonds and others had the finger on the scale to drive results and Mr. Bonds probably would have had a great career without the "enhancements".

I wonder, if a SA Candidate used PED's to help ace the CFT - is that advantage acceptable? The CFT, in itself, is a standardized measure. Point is, we have to be careful with the competitive environment as one person's "advantage" may be anothers "disadvantage" when measuring all equally is the goal.

Hope it helps.

 

[frenzymando]

Umm, lets see...let's switch to baseball for a moment if you will indulge me....

A baseball player who took PED's to become a better baseball player (Barry Bonds et, al?) were outside the standardized. Barry Bonds had an advantage that others did not but, then again, he did do better...much better. Indeed, the rules and fields were the same for all but results were astonishly different. It's a perfect example of standardization compared to the finger on the scale. Mr. Bonds and others had the finger on the scale to drive results and Mr. Bonds probably would have had a great career without the "enhancements".

I wonder, if a SA Candidate used PED's to help ace the CFT - is that advantage acceptable? The CFT, in itself, is a standardized measure. Point is, we have to be careful with the competitive environment as one person's "advantage" may be anothers "disadvantage" when measuring all equally is the goal.

Hope it helps.

It would help if you told me one thing that is standardized in your book
PED's are banned. Tutors are not banned. Using PED's is cheating. Using a tutor is not cheating. Using PED's is dishonorable. Using a tutor is not dishonorable. There is a rule that states you cannot you PED's in the MLB. It is standardized that you cannot use PED's. There is not rule that states you cannot use tutors for the ACT/SAT. It is standardized that you can use tutors. What if you replaced the word "PED's" with "drinking water instead of coca cola"? Would it be dishonorable if Bonds did that? No it wouldn't, because there isn't a rule that says he can't drink water instead of coca cola.

 

[AROTC-dad]

+1 Frenzy. I agree that PED's are NOT analogous to taking a Kaplan SAT prep course, or joining a gym.

PED's are more like "insider trading" versus taking a course in personal finance.

 

[Mountain]

Just because some people have more resources than other doesn't mean something isn't standardized. Height is standardized even though I have resources(like nutrients that will make me taller) that others do not. The fact that I have superior resources does does not change the fact that height is standardized.

Exactly!

If you have the means to change what is otherwise your standardized height, with your resources you put a finger on the scale. Why stop at nutrients, why not PED's? Slippery slope, my friend but, yes, you are indeed taller. Once you change the inputs, it is no longer standardized...you are still taller but the results are not standardized. We don't enter combat with standardization, we definately have a finger on the scale to impact outcome. Just like me cutting off a leg to lose weight compared to otherwise lighter two legged people!

btw - are there really nutrients that make people taller?

 

[frenzymando]

Exactly!

If you have the means to change what is otherwise your standardized height, with your resources you put a finger on the scale. Why stop at nutrients, why not PED's? Slippery slope, my friend but, yes, you are indeed taller. Once you change the inputs, it is no longer standardized...you are still taller but the results are not standardized. We don't enter combat with standardization, we definately have a finger on the scale to impact outcome. Just like me cutting off a leg to lose weight compared to otherwise lighter two legged people!

btw - are there really nutrients that make people taller?

So let me get this straight, you think that height isn't standardized?

Malnutrition can stunt growth.

 

[Mountain]

It would help if you told me one thing that is standardized in your book
PED's are banned. Tutors are not banned. Using PED's is cheating. Using a tutor is not cheating. Using PED's is dishonorable. Using a tutor is not dishonorable. There is a rule that states you cannot you PED's in the MLB. It is standardized that you cannot use PED's. There is not rule that states you cannot use tutors for the ACT/SAT. It is standardized that you can use tutors. What if you replaced the word "PED's" with "drinking water instead of coca cola"? Would it be dishonorable if Bonds did that? No it wouldn't, because there isn't a rule that says he can't drink water instead of coca cola.

Frenzy

I don't disagree with you at all, my friend. Only point is a tutor, or a course, may alter the outcome of standardization. See: "finger on the scale", regardless permitted or not. By reading this thread, as long as you have the means to do so, it's all good.

I have no problem with those who take advantage of opportunity, my issue is with the fact that it is hard to thread the needle as standardized...it is artificial and should be judged accordingly. Bonds still hit all those home runs, he just did it with an advantage. Unless all kids have a tutor, the results can be skewed.

Apologies to the young person who's thread I seem to have unintentionally hijacked. Keep working hard!

 

[frenzymando]

Frenzy

I don't disagree with you at all, my friend. Only point is a tutor, or a course, may alter the outcome of standardization. See: "finger on the scale", regardless permitted or not. By reading this thread, as long as you have the means to do so, it's all good.

I have no problem with those who take advantage of opportunity, my issue is with the fact that it is hard to thread the needle as standardized...it is artificial and should be judged accordingly. Bonds still hit all those home runs, he just did it with an advantage. Unless all kids have a tutor, the results can be skewed.

Apologies to the young person who's thread I seem to have unintentionally hijacked. Keep working hard!

Bonds cheated, the kids that used tutors didn't. There's a difference.

 

[Mountain]

So let me get this straight, you think that height isn't standardized?

Malnutrition can stunt growth.

Of course it is. Do you not agree that enhancing height artificially games the standardized system? If it doesn't why are we all not tall?

 

[AROTC-dad]

Of course it is. Do you not agree that enhancing height artificially games the standardized system? If it doesn't why are we all not tall?

Mountain, I respectfully don't understand what you mean by gaming anymore. To me, gaming is using a tactic that is at least unethical if not overtly illegal. Preparation through hard work and efffort within the rules is not gaming.

 

[Mountain]

Bonds cheated, the kids that used tutors didn't. There's a difference.

Never said the kids cheated, but they may have taken advantag of something that others may not have, no? How is that simple input measured on a standardized test? Results? Will the tutor be there at Basic?

If Tiger Woods gave me enough strokes, I bet I'd beat him.

 

[Mountain]

Mountain, I respectfully don't understand what you mean by gaming anymore. To me, gaming is using a tactic that is at least unethical if not overtly illegal. Preparation through hard work and efffort within the rules is not gaming.

Kings

To me, "gaming" is using means (aside from the basics) that others may not have to ensure a better outcome...happens all the time. It can be perfectly legal (maybe even ethical) to artificially change an outcome that may otherwise occur. Liposuction, nutrients for height, tutors, and (simply) means seem to change results and outcome. It's all good if you have them, but I honestly don't see how they make better SA's.

The issue for me (the only one btw) is the term standardized test. If all inputs are equal, measure away. If inputs aren't, there is a result but standardization becomes in question.

 

[14mccpa]

Respectfully disagree with you Mountain.

If Jack Nicholas was your golf instructor for 3-4 months then you played Tiger in Match Play, he would still beat you by 30 strokes. No "strokes would be given".

Regarding the "finger on the scale" argument. That would only be a good analogy if the tutor was in the room helping during the test. And that would be cheating.

Your PED analogy is also flawed. A tutor for a standardized test is like hiring a trainer at the gym to get you in shape for a fitness test. If the tutor gave you a magic pill to increase your score on the SAT/ACT, that would be an issue, and comparible to PED.

Would you also believe that sending a child to a top college prep highschool gives that child an unfair advantage?? That too will absolutely increase standardized tests and often the likelihood of gaining entrance to a top university or a SA.

JMHO. Go Navy

 

[AROTC-dad]

Kings

To me, "gaming" is using means (aside from the basics) that others may not have to ensure a better outcome...happens all the time. It can be perfectly legal (maybe even ethical) to artificially change an outcome that may otherwise occur. Liposuction, nutrients for height, tutors, and (simply) means seem to change results and outcome. It's all good if you have them, but I honestly don't see how they make better SA's.

The issue for me (the only one btw) is the term standardized test. If all inputs are equal, measure away. If inputs aren't, there is a result but standardization becomes in question.

My problem is that everyone who takes the exam comes from unequal backgrounds and preparation. The exam is designed to standardize the measurement. To me gaming the system or putting a finger on the scale means you are tilting the standard of measurement, not changing the level of preparation.

I just don't buy into PED's and hiring a tutor as being anywhere like the same thing. I get where you are going with this. An affluent family can afford more SAT prep resources than a kid from a disadvantaged background. I would agree that there is some degree of unfairness to that issue, but I don't call it "gaming".