Cayden Sparks
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 24
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.
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
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!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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 think they do this, in part, because their qualifying score is relatively low.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).
Apologies to the young person who's thread I seem to have unintentionally hijacked. Keep working hard!
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 ***.