Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next message | Previous More Hitsmessage
Next in topic | Previous More Hitsin topic
Next by same author | Previous More Hitsby same author
Previous page (March 2006) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

from the LA Times

From:

Norman Stahl <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:43:25 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (128 lines)

It doesn't test for success

  By Joanne V. Creighton, JOANNE V. CREIGHTON is president of Mount Holyoke
College.
 March 13, 2006


 BY NOW, MOST OF the country has heard of the College Board's gaffe in
reporting erroneous SAT scores for about 4,000 college-bound students. A
single case in which a college does not accept a qualified student because
his or her SAT scores are erroneously reported is clearly an injustice. The
potential for 4,000 such cases is a disaster that should prompt all
colleges, universities, students and their families to ask serious
questions about a college placement system that, through a single
computational error, can irrevocably alter a student's educational
trajectory.

 High-stakes standardized tests such as the SAT have assumed a central role
in the admissions process disproportionate to their value. This test falls
far short of predicting academic or career potential or a host of important
aptitudes, such as curiosity, motivation, persistence, leadership,
creativity, civic engagement and social conscience.



 ADVERTISEMENT
  <script> document.write('<a
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GSP/go/lsngsgen0020000025gsp/direct/01/seRIcN,bcbpfbq
bfugjt/" target="_blank"><img
src="http://view.atdmt.com/GSP/view/lsngsgen0020000025gsp/direct/01/seRIcN,bcbpf
bqbfugjt/"/></a>'); </script><noscript><a
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GSP/go/lsngsgen0020000025gsp/direct/01/seRIcN,bcbpfbq
bfugjt/" target="_blank"><img border="0"
src="http://view.atdmt.com/GSP/view/lsngsgen0020000025gsp/direct/01/seRIcN,bcbpf
bqbfugjt/" /></a></noscript>
  Think of all the high school students you've ever known, and then think
of all the colleges and universities you've heard of. Now try to come up
with a set of questions that would tell you how each person would do in his
or her postsecondary education.

 The SAT might have made sense when it was developed in the 1920s, when
higher education was an elitist proposition and the college admission
pipeline led a relatively homogeneous population of young adults into a
similarly uni-dimensional set of colleges and universities. But U.S.
secondary education today is a multilingual, multiethnic, socioeconomically
diverse enterprise, and so too are the 3,000-odd colleges and universities
to which high school students aspire.

 It seems self-evident that a one-size-fits-all test could not adequately
assess the diverse populations of students and schools that make up the
U.S. educational landscape. In fact, one need only visit many of our
nation's most prestigious institutions to see the cumulative effect of
reliance on the SAT: campuses that are populated predominately by whites,
Asians and the rich. Even the wealthiest universities, many of which waive
tuition for poorer students, end up educating an embarrassingly small
number of students from the lower fifth, economically, of the U.S.
population. This is not the meritocracy the SAT's early proponents had in
mind.

 Nicholas Lemann wrote in "The Big Test" about how the SAT's creator, Carl
Brigham, who had only egalitarian instincts, eventually came to reject his
own theories and what he called "one of the most glorious fallacies in the
history of science, namely that the tests measured native intelligence
purely and simply without regard to training or school. The test scores
very definitely are a composite including schooling, family background,
familiarity with English and everything else, relevant and irrelevant."

 Many colleges and universities  including mine, Mount Holyoke  have
deep-sixed the SAT for precisely these reasons. We found that reliance on
the SAT would lead us to reject students who deserved to be admitted based
on their previous accomplishments and who would succeed at our schools.

 To be sure, such a policy change flies in the face of another pernicious
numbers game, that of the annual college rankings manufactured by U.S. News
& World Report, which relies heavily on SAT scores and other "input"
measures (acceptance rate, money spent per student, alumni giving) to
supposedly rank institutions for educational quality. Like the SAT, this
rankings game is educationally and morally suspect.

 In 2001, Mount Holyoke made the SAT optional for admission. We have been
studying the effects of that policy  with a grant from the Mellon
Foundation  and the results are striking. So far, we have found no
meaningful difference in academic performance between students who did not
submit scores and those who did. The study shows a one-tenth of a point
difference between the aggregate grade point averages of submitters and
non-submitters, and this difference is mitigated the further along the
student is in her college career.

 Translation: We don't need the SAT in order to predict academic
performance in college. A student's high school curriculum and performance,
personal essays, interviews, teachers' recommendations and other measures
give a more holistic view of achievement, potential and fit for a
particular institution.

 Another early result from the study confirms what has been widely assumed:
As families' income levels rise, so too does the likelihood that the
student has had the advantage of SAT training classes or special tutoring.
More than two-thirds of prospective Mount Holyoke students from
higher-income families took an SAT preparation course, and one in three had
private tutoring. If high test scores are for sale, how fair an instrument
is the SAT?

 Findings like those from our Mellon study are a blow to the test's
credibility. But perhaps it will take a second stake in the SAT's heart
before students and educators everywhere question the role of this American
institution. Grading errors are bound to happen over the course of anyone's
education. It's when a single grading error could potentially keep 4,000
high school students from their choice of college that the SAT's harmful
effects become all too clear.


Norman A. Stahl
Professor and Chair
Literacy Education
GA 147
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115

Phone: (815) 753-9032
FAX:   (815) 753-8563
[log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager