SAT/ACT Troubles

This is ridiculous......It's sad that we have to have a literally pointless argument when someone is simply asking for advice on the SAT.
 
14mccpa said:
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
Click to expand...

14

I don't classify advantage as fair, or unfair, but certainly believe advantage obviously skews outcome. Parents affect outcome too. It's the reason I dislike standardized tests as they don't account for advantages and may actually have little bearing on leadership and future military success. I'm happy that some kids had a tutor, but let's agree that it was probably an advantage. The kid who started the thread may just be a bad standardized test taker, but he could well be a cracker pilot. I'd hope he will be looked at as a "whole" candidate. Maybe the kid couldn't afford a tutor or none was in the area.

I'm pretty sure if Tiger gave me 30 shots, I'd beat him. Head to head, I agree it would be a massacre. Then again, that's why there are handicaps.
 
Mountain said:
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.
Click to expand...
All due respect, your baseball example is not analogous. Using performance enhancing substances is against the rules. If we were talking about someone using cheat sheets on the ACT then you would have a point. We are debating whether someone preparing for an exam constitutes gaming the system. The system encourages and promotes practice and preparation. Thus, doing that AIN'T gaming!

I appreciate a good discussion, and you seem thoughtful enough. I'm relatively new here so I will say this with as much diplomacy as I am capable of. Reevaluate your conclusions. Colleges and academies are looking for as close to an equal assessment on which they can distinguish between those who will do well at their institution and those who may struggle. The ACT and SAT, while imperfect as measuring sticks, give those who take the teat, once or multiple times, an equal opportunity to get a high score. Schools know that some who got a 25, 30, or 35 accomplished that score after working harder than others, and for some it may have been with just dumb luck. It's all relative.

One last comment. If I hired someone for a job, and every applicant knew I was administering an exam, be it clerical or otherwise, and multiple people tied for the highest score, but I knew that two were able to do it without any preparation, and one went to the library and spent many hours preparing and practicing, I would hire the guy or gal who went to the library ten times out of ten. Tells me a lot about that person's character and heart. I love people like that.
 
Last edited:
I very much appreciate the discussion and agree with Mr. Sparks. The discussion has been enriching but probably not the right thread. One of the challenges is responding to multiple posts which extends the mission unnecessarily.

Many thanks to all who have shared their opinions today on a very interesting topic. Thanks to all.
 
First, I am stunned by the sizable thread that apparently developed in less than 8 hours. I suppose a hearty congratulations is in order to all who spent so much of their vacation time today determinedly pounding out words and outlining arguments.

A lot has been said about the subject already. IMHO, frenzymando had a lot of good stuff.

Mountain said:
An left field question...

If there are ways to "aid in improving", doesn't it either defeat the purpose of the test or give some a way to game the system. In my opinion, this makes both the ACT and SAT terrible measures of a student's ability to succeed. If you can spend time "learning" how to do better on a standardized test, is it standardized at all? If I pay for a program, or a tutor, is my kid actually more qualified?

I'm not taking exception to your suggestion, but have a problem with the term standardization when, in reality, it is no such thing. Maybe that's why a ton of schools are moving away from placing much emphasis on ACT/SAT. People are gaming the system and that lacks honor. Without honor, what is the point?

Take the test. Do your best. That's the point.
Click to expand...

I will attempt a left field answer to the left field question.

Could it be that the reason SA's care so much about SAT/ACT scores is not, in fact, because the content of the test represents a large portion of what a good student ought to know? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that these top schools are more concerned with the work ethic needed to seek out "advantages" and earn a good score, rather than the sheer brain power required to pull a high score out of thin air? Speaking from the perspective of a cadet, raw genius will help at an SA...not going to lie...but work ethic is what will ultimately determine whether or not you stay.

With all due respect, I think it's silly to suggest that seeking after extra allowable resources "lacks honor". What about an open-book test? Is it cheating to use the permissible resource of a textbook to improve your score? How about scheduling practice MOC interviews or strategically picking unique leadership opportunities that other candidates might not have? I personally think it's pretty obvious this is heading down a nonsensical path.

Mountain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mountain, I noticed you later changed your argument to say instead that the SAT/ACT lacks standardization, instead of what you had said earlier ("People are gaming the system and that lacks honor."). I suppose you are right about this. In my opinion, as far as tests go, the SAT/ACT are standardized about as much as is possible. Having said that, it's pretty hard to standardize anything, given that life itself isn't standardized. When I was in high school, I may have had certain academic/extracurricular opportunities that other candidates didn't. I'm sure pretty much every other applicant could have said the same to me. Whether these "advantages" occur because of geographic location, socioeconomic situation, hard work, etc., the fact is that each candidate will have different types and numbers of opportunities.

I think this is a bigger issue than just a test. In the final analysis, nothing is truly standardized among candidates. I think it's pointless to try to nitpick about a "standardized" exam when there is really no such thing as perfect standardization. We can either be bitter about this fact (not saying you were, Mountain) or accept it and do our best with what we have. The latter option represents good officer material AND what ALL the SA's are looking for. Just my $0.19.
 
Mountain said:
The kid who started the thread may just be a bad standardized test taker, but he could well be a cracker pilot. I'd hope he will be looked at as a "whole" candidate. Maybe the kid couldn't afford a tutor or none was in the area.
Click to expand...


SAs look at "whole" candidate. We often talk about great candidates that might be "bad test takers," most candidates that earn appointments are also great candidates that are not "bad test takers." A good SAT/ACT alone will not result in an appointment.

What is the admissions office supposed to do when there are two similar candidates, but the major difference being the ACT/SAT scores? Can the admissions office somehow figure out that the candidate with a higher ACT/SAT scores had an "advantage"? If a candidate had an "advantage," should his or her SAT/ACT scores count less? If so by how much?
 
Thunderbird33,

Do not fret just yet. These exams are looking at the foundations. You are a junior, and only half way through the year. There will be many questions that you will not know the answer because you have not covered the subject in school. By March or April you will have and that will be reflected in your scores.

As others have stated look into prep programs too.

Tying this to how the thread went off topic, but personally I think that they now superscore exams you are seeing kids taking them earlier and earlier. It is not impo gaming the system, however, in a way it hurts many kids that due to socio-economic reasons can't afford to take it 8+ times.

Parents my age probably recall that back in our day, there was no superscore. There was a 3 strike rule and it was also best sitting. The system was simple. You got 2 tries and whatever was the best sitting was your score, no combining the best of each. If you took it a 3rd try they than took all 3 scores and AVG the scores.

Today it is common to read scores of high 700 or even perfect scores, but 30 years ago I recall the day the scores were released there was probably only 1 kid in my graduating class of 850 students that got an 800. It was insanely rare.

To me that was the correct system if we are talking about taking standardized testing. It is also kind of comical if you think about it because what do most parents complain about regarding our educational system? Teaching the test. Yet, that is what they do everytime they pay for their Johnny or Janie to take the ACT/SAT...they are in a way teaching them the test, and unfortunately, kids from families that can't afford to lay out money to learn how to take the test, be it over and over again or attending a prep school are at a disadvantage.

Did the kid that took it 6 times or paid for prep game the system? No. However, I would say that because of their financial abilities they are given an edge. Just food for thought.
 
MemberLG said:
What is the admissions office supposed to do when there are two similar candidates, but the major difference being the ACT/SAT scores? Can the admissions office somehow figure out that the candidate with a higher ACT/SAT scores had an "advantage"? If a candidate had an "advantage," should his or her SAT/ACT scores count less? If so by how much?
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with you at all. Your point is why I believe that superscoring should not exist. I know AFROTC is the only ROTC program that when selecting candidates for the scholarship they do not superscore, but only best sitting. If they are going to look at the SAT/ACT as part of the score than would you disagree with me by saying, best sitting is the best route because now it does level the playing field a little more.
~ IE candidate smith takes the SAT scores a 730 M, but 620 V. They spend the next month studying for the V and ignoring the M. They now get a 690 M and 670 V. Their score is now 1390 for USAFA, 1360 for AFROTC.

Maybe it is just me, but I think once you start the superscoring aspect, the scores are worth nothing more than the paper it is written on, it no longer is a yardstick to see the academic foundation the candidate has under their belt.

I am also a parent that believes every kid should take the PSAT and that is a better yardstick because only that 1x exam as a junior will count for National Merit Finalists.

With that said, I am going to take the leap and assume (we all know what the word assume means...make and A$$ out of U and Me) That the SAs and colleges can read between the lines regarding the exams if the student took the PSAT because if they scored in the top 5% within their state on the PSAT than they would become an NMSF.
~ If I am correct Member, you are the equivalent of an ALO, but for USMA. If so, your rec. of the candidate is part of the WCS. If you had 2 candidates, and both took the PSAT, 1 being an NMSF and the other not, but the other had a higher superscore by a few points, would you not take into your decision that one may have taken it more often than the NMSF? Would you place any weight into that decision when ranking/scoring them? If not, why not?
~~ If you say because the other kid kept taking it to raise their score, isn't that assuming both kid afford to take the exam over and over again? You can't assume because it is was they wanted it more and thus, took the test more.
 
Last edited:
Pima said:
Maybe it is just me, but I think once you start the superscoring aspect, the scores are worth nothing more than the paper it is written on, it no longer is a yardstick to see the academic foundation the candidate has under their belt.
Click to expand...

We are seeking perfection in an imperfect world.

I guess I will defend SAs and colleges for using SAT/ACT scores. First, SAs also consider class rank/transcript for academic evaluation. The challenge is there is no cost effective or feasible system to determine applicants academic foundation/potential. Any test has some built in bias and there are always bad test takers. There is no standardization in high school classes - what's Advanced vs Honors. I think using AP classes are worse than SAT/ACT, only certain schools offer AP classes and AP exams are $92. Let us not forget that graduation is more important that getting in. I tell candidates when it comes to academics at West Point, it's not about dedication or commitment, rather a simple Physics - time is constant. If a candidate does not have the academic foundation, he or she cannot create more time to study.

It is in our nature and easy to point out flaws we see, but we should keep in mind that in certain situations there is no way or easy way to fix the flaw we see.
 
@Pima - Just FYI... Marine Option (NOT big Navy) also requires SAT/ACT scores be from the same and most recent sitting.
The SAT math and critical reading scores must be from the same and most recent test. Applicants cannot combine their best math and critical reading scores from the SAT to achieve the qualifying score for application. (Marine Corps Option only).
Click to expand...
I think they do this, in part, because their qualifying score is relatively low.
 
Don't disagree at all, especially when we also look at HSs.

My kids attended 3 different HSs in 2 different states. They all took APs and part of being in that class come the 1st week of school we had to pay the AP exam cost up front. However, the school would rebate you that money if they scored 3 or above at the end of the semester.

Same can be said about Jump Start. Not every HS offers the option of attending HS 1/2 of the day and the CC the other 1/2. My DD was in the Cambridge aka AICE program in HS, Jump Start was not an option for her. Her older brother attended HS in another state and they did not have AICE, thus for him as a SR, he had already taken all of the APs he could and did Jump Start.

It really does become looking at everything and trying to use an algorithm to make it even. Should my DD get penalized for not doing Jump Start because she was in AICE? Should my DS get penalized for not being in AICE if the school did not offer it?
~ That is where I think the ALOs come into the equation. They know the programs and the schools when it comes to racking and stacking their candidates.

I still will not move off from the fact that I think superscoring is not a good idea if we use it as a barometer. College, be it an SA or traditional will not allow kids to take the exam 3, 4, 5, ...8 times. It is just not realistic to say...Well applicant Jones has a superscore of 1600 out of 1600 is a better pick over applicant Williams if they do not look at how many times they took the exam. Best sitting does equalize that aspect. Applicant Jones can take it 10 times, and William only 2x, but Williams still has a higher score, hence from that aspect a stronger foundation.
~ AFROTC type 1. Has @ the same ACT/SAT median scores as USAFA. The difference is theirs is best sitting, not superscore.

I believe in the SAs, but because I spent 8 years in the educational field, and now my DD is also an educator, I feel that a lot more has to do with socio-economic aspects than anything else.
~ If you as an ALO came to my house, you would assume something about us..I am fortunate. We live in a nice home, in an upscale neighborhood. What you didn't see was...for 8 years we had at least 2 in college and scrimped every penny so they would not have debt. We owned a 2nd home in another state because the market crashed. Paying for my kids to take the SAT/ACT over and over again, or sending them to a prep test center was going to be an issue for us, because at the same time in the fall of their senior year we were paying application costs. Add on the AP tests...it was a never ending flow of money just to make them competitive for admissions..
~~ That was on top of the younger ones in braces, or Prom or car insurance, etc. etc. etc.

We all have the wah wah wah stories like me. I was lucky...what did it mean for us? It meant that we ate out less and delayed buying a new car. However, there are many families that it means...sorry honey, we just can't afford you to take the SAT/ACT again. Superscoring gives an advantage to those that can afford it.
 
Mountain said:
Apologies to the young person who's thread I seem to have unintentionally hijacked. Keep working hard!
Click to expand...

And don't get discouraged by the fact that you're at a disadvantage if you can't afford a high priced tutor. Oh! And Merry Christmas!

I'm teasing of course.

To the OP,

The resources listed above are excellent. Also, for vocab, there are all manner of phone apps. I even saw a vocabulary building shower curtain.

Both my DS's smoked the Math sections of the SAT and struggled mightily with the Verbal. They never did a "test prep" course, but rather used a private tutor, but only for a few hours. We didn't pay the tutor to watch them take practice tests. Those were done on their own time. The laser focus was to find the specific weaknesses and work on them.

At the end of the day, what they learned from the tutor then is now available on the internet.

Most important for them was learning how to read a question and how to immediately eliminate incorrect answers. Just those two skills automatically gave them X# of minutes extra to complete the section and double check answers. This alone put them in a more relaxed frame of mind...always a good thing.

Whatever you do, do not grind through endless practice tests. Practice with a purpose, like all great musicians and athletes, and you will be more relaxed and ready, psychologically when it's showtime.
 
I am a USAFA grad. My parents were not college educated. My parents knew that education was critical for their children's success and they worked to the bone to ensure their kids were well educated.

As with anything knowing the rules and how the game is played legally is a tremendous advantage in sports and life.

I coach and officiate sports (basketball, baseball, and softball). 'Fair' means inside the rules. It is also how I pay for the tutoring and extras my kids get.

My daughter will be in the 2020 USNA class. I coached her up to prepare for the interviews, I paid for her tutoring for the ACT prep (she did the work). I paid to send her to a private catholic school known for college prep in general and their math program specifically.

If someone thinks that is unfair, I could care less. I work 60 hours per week, have earned 2 graduate degrees and if that allows me to put my kids in a better position than yours because I took the time to learn the rules of the game - so be it.

Life isn't 'fair' don't teach your kids that because someone out worked them or outperformed them, they should do anything but shake their hand and wish them well.

USAFA is a path to becoming a commissioned officer in the US military. There are many paths to that same goal.

Sorry for the rant. Just a little tired of apologizing for busting my ass.
 
Well said Cerberi.


As a wise man once told me: "If you're going to spoil your kids with anything, spoil them with education".

A Jesuit HS prepared my plebe son very well for USNA and it was worth every penny I paid and the sacrifices I made to make that happen.
 
My sons ACT prep was limited to the ACT prep books. He attends school in a rural area, and frankly the quality of education here is questionable at best. We do get our share of kids who excell at ivy schools, and have had a few academy grads too, but not exactly a top shelf HS.

I'm sure there are a lot of things that could have helped him with the ACT and with his grades, but the bottom line is that a kid has to have self initiative. He got what he deserved, based on his effort and ability. Hope it is good enough. I suspect it will be, but who knows. It is what it is.
 
Cerberi said:
I am a USAFA grad. My parents were not college educated. My parents knew that education was critical for their children's success and they worked to the bone to ensure their kids were well educated.

As with anything knowing the rules and how the game is played legally is a tremendous advantage in sports and life.

I coach and officiate sports (basketball, baseball, and softball). 'Fair' means inside the rules. It is also how I pay for the tutoring and extras my kids get.

My daughter will be in the 2020 USNA class. I coached her up to prepare for the interviews, I paid for her tutoring for the ACT prep (she did the work). I paid to send her to a private catholic school known for college prep in general and their math program specifically.

If someone thinks that is unfair, I could care less. I work 60 hours per week, have earned 2 graduate degrees and if that allows me to put my kids in a better position than yours because I took the time to learn the rules of the game - so be it.

Life isn't 'fair' don't teach your kids that because someone out worked them or outperformed them, they should do anything but shake their hand and wish them well.

USAFA is a path to becoming a commissioned officer in the US military. There are many paths to that same goal.

Sorry for the rant. Just a little tired of apologizing for busting my ***.
Click to expand...

Baseball question

Is a runner in fair territory that is struck by a batted ball automatically out?

Answer: it depends. If the batted ball has passed the first defensive player (not the pitcher) before striking the runner, the ball remains live.

If the batted ball strikes the runner before passing the first defensive player (not the pitcher) the runner is out (not the batter), the ball is dead and no runner can advance from their last base achieved.

Obscure rules that I have used (argued successfully as a coach and made rulings as an umpire). Knowing the rules is a good thing in life.

Superscoring is part of the established rules of the game.

I would argue that if you want to spend your life complaining about the 'fairness' of the rules of the game, the US military may not be the best career choice as you don't get to make or change the rules and the military has lots of them.

Softball, basketball, and baseball have 10 rules per the rule book. Each rule has many subsections. When a coach comes to argue with me about a rule, my first instinct is to refer them to Rule 14-C. If the coach says there is no such rule, then we can discuss the correct rule. If they say they don't know what Rule 14-C is, I tell them to look it up and get back to me.

I don't feel disadvantaged because I know the rules or when/they are properly applied.

Your LO or BGO is a great source for explaining the process/rules, but he/she can't change them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top