 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The paradox of the Berkeley-esque college |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                 Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| So the question is... should it be? If the uni system is state-run, and the public education system is state-run, shouldn't the entrance exams be administered by the state, or at least by a body beholden to the state? You could even get all the teachers to do the marking, thus allowing "free response" and making the exams not a joke any more. (edited by Arwon on 01-29-07 03:36 AM) |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter   Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by SamuraiXHigher difficulty? When a great many people I know couldn't even hit 1100, and virtually none did any better than 1350? From the perspective of the common student, it's hard enough as it is. But there's already the problem of an overflow of applicants. If there must be a standard test that is necessary for admission, at least let it be competitive. Besides, 1350 is average at best, even considering the absurdity of the English part of the test. I thought that a university should be admitting the above-average students, not the common ones. Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by SamuraiXSo that you have to pay more to take the test because, instead of having the majority of the test as computer-graded, it would be hand-graded? Wouldn't that favor the wealthy (who can afford to take the test more often in order to maximize their grades), which is what you're trying to correct for? Usually, grades won't get better by just repeating the tests. Free response is generally a better reflection of one's knowledge, because there's no guesswork, and the student is allowed the chance to explain in their own words. Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by SamuraiXWhy? So that the kids who are good at math but not too smart otherwise have their grades artificially inflated, while the kids who are smart but not very good at math have theirs artificially deflated? It's not artificially deflated, and I forgot to say multiple tests. I'd say that simply the AP tests with a ranked score would be a change for the better. Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by SamuraiXTrust me, if you're talented enough, you'll go somewhere. There are a bunch of kids that I know who are not as smart as I am, but who are going to schools that are as good as, or nearly as good as, the one I'm at. And you can bet that anyone at a level higher than mine isn't exactly going to be struggling for an acceptance, either. As I said, the current establishment doesn't accurately measure the level intellect, so there is in fact a problem. And Arwon, I wouldn't happen to know about Stanford, since I never bothered looking at it, it's far too expensive. The bar is twisted, not high or low; it doesn't indicate anything. Ideally, there should be the opportunity for each student to advance themselves in what they are most passionate about, allowing for the maximization of each individual's utility. But pragmatically, only the "best" can receive the "best" education. And sorry about some of my earlier statements, looking back, some of them were a bit rant-like. |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiXI feel like I may be digging myself a hole here, because the SAT has been changed since I graduated. It actually has a free response section now, whereas there was no such section when I took it (and, of course, the grading scale has been changed to reflect that). But I remember 1350 hardly being average (and wikipedia agrees - 1350 is the 93rd percentile, while ~1000 is around average). In any case, nowadays most everyone is going to go to college, and so it's unrealistic to think that only people who have truly "proven themselves" on a standardized test will get into a school. Even the "dumb" kids are going to go somewhere, even if it's just a community school or a lower-tier private school. Originally posted by SamuraiXNot sure if it still works like this, but I know that when I was in high school, you could take the SAT as many times as you wanted and they would ultimately count the highest math and the highest verbal sections independently. So, your final combined score when applying to a college could be the result of tests taken on two different occasions. You could take the test multiple times, and only improve your scores: doing worse wouldn't hurt you, because the highest numbers would remain, and you have the chance to pull off a higher grade that would be retained. Then, of course, there's the sorry state of writing and English curricula in our country. I'm sorry to say that I know more than one person here at college who struggles to write a complete sentence. Originally posted by SamuraiXAP tests are a whole 'nother beast. People take them selectively, generally only being admitted to an AP course that they have shown prior aptitude in. (Case in point, I was in History and English AP courses in high school, but not Math or Science.) On the other hand, everyone takes the SAT, regardless of their specialty. Originally posted by SamuraiXNot to possibly touch on a sore topic, but I've found that the SAT is a better measure of intellect than purely a student's grades are. From what I've seen, a kid who can get wonderful grades by studying day and night will not necessarily do well on the SAT, while the opposite is true from someone who has generally poor grades. Of course, it's all anecdotal, but I know that I saw the trend confirmed widely when I witnessed who did well and who did poorly on that test in high school. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| That's because grades are really manipulatable as well. When you have grades consisting of the cumulative marks from dozens of bits of pointless busywork, you're not grading anything other than a student's capacity for pointless busywork.
Yeah, I really hated high school in the US... |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
It doesn't actually cost that much to take the base SAT tests, and you can take it free if you cannot afford it.
Originally posted by Silvershield First of all, being in the 93 percentile doesn't mean anything. Even I tested higher than that. And I take offense to your remark about "dumb" kids going to community colleges, it's people like me who take the route that is least expensive for both me and the taxpayer. And a university wants the person who studies night and day for their grades, not someone who gets a good grade in a sub-average test. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiXThat's true, I do remember such an option. So it's not like the College Board would be wringing the last penny out of your family just to take the test. Originally posted by SamuraiXBeing in the 93rd percentile means a lot. It means that you did better than nine out of every ten people who took the test. That doesn't "not mean anything." Originally posted by SamuraiXIf you took offense then you misread it. A "dumb" kid is more likely to go to a community school than to a respectable private school, and I think that's a fair remark to make. But that's not to say that the people at a community school are invariably idiots. The two statements are not equivalent. Anyway, my school not only accepted me, but is paying for three-quarters of my tuition, even though my high school grades make it quite clear that I was an underachiever. It's my SAT that got me in, and my SAT that got me into every other school I applied to, also. Schools like to say that they barely even look at SAT scores because that's what parents and student applicants like to hear, but it's not true (whether for better or worse). |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter  Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| But that's the thing, the SAT is junior high school level, it shouldn't be the standard for college admissions. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiXBy whose standard is the SAT "junior high school level?" As I pointed out before, it maybe be easy for you, but plenty of people struggle with it. You overestimate the capabilities of the average incoming college freshman these days. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by SamuraiXBy whose standard is the SAT "junior high school level?" As I pointed out before, it maybe be easy for you, but plenty of people struggle with it. You overestimate the capabilities of the average incoming college freshman these days. I'm a below average, not math/English majoring, person who has missed a great deal of high school, so I can say with a good deal of certainty that the SAT is too easy. My friend who "doesn't do math" got a math score that would indicate that he's in the 95 percentile of students, but if that's true, then how on earth are these people who get less that that majoring in math-based areas? By leaps and bounds, the SAT tests are too easy. I think the most difficult word on the test was "duplicity," and even that word's meaning is pretty obvious. (edited by SamuraiX on 01-29-07 04:38 AM) |
|||
MathOnNapkins 1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Then la di da I guess you're too smart for the SAT. My chief problem with the test was its time limit. I know I could have answered all the math questions fully if I had had more time, and would have gotten a better score, but I'm not the fastest worker (just very thorough). So the SAT is not just a measure of your basic intellect, but also how fast you work. *whine, complain* | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiXYou can take your anecdotal evidence that this test is too easy, but there are hard numbers that indicate otherwise. If it were as easy as you suggest, the average score wouldn't be 1000. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| But that's the thing. The SAT doesn't mean anything. A person not excelling in English and math can ace it, with a TI-89 and a SAT class or two. A person good at English and math can fail it, because of the awkward format of the test.
This shouldn't be the case, there shouldn't be any need for SAT classes. The test shouldn't be the norm. School curriculum shouldn't revolve around getting a good grade on the SAT or AP; the test should adjust to what people learn in school. To bring up the example of my friend, the fact that he did well on the SAT didn't reflect upon his level of English mastery or math mastery, because the SAT isn't a valid indicator of intellect. The SAT doesn't consider the fact that not everyone is a English or math majoring student. But regardless of this, the university system propagates this system, and if they didn't support it, it would filter out of the system. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiXI feel like you're suggesting hypotheticals without any sort of evidence to defend them. A person who is generally poor at math "can" ace the math section, a person who is generally poor at English "can" ace the verbal section, but you seem to be of the mindset that such outcomes are the norm rather than an anomaly. Originally posted by SamuraiXThere really is no need for classes. A person can get a respectable score without going to a single class, just as a person can do terribly after months of classes. But I do agree, when a curriculum begins to revolve around SAT preparation, there's something wrong. In a perfect world, you wouldn't be preparing for the test, but instead have the normal material apply to the test in an incidental way. But this isn't a perfect world, and I can't imagine how we could work toward that outcome when school districts are pressured to produce strong standardized test results at the expense of other, more practical goals. Originally posted by SamuraiXYou don't give much detail in this example. How did his score on the test not reflect his aptitude with the subject matter? Isn't that a bit counterintuitive? Originally posted by SamuraiXWhy should it? People I know who are majoring in neither of those disciplines have done quite well, just as people who are majoring in one or the other have done poorly. I graduated with someone who did better on the verbal section than on the math, even though she went on to a science-related field in college. Originally posted by SamuraiXWhat alternative do you suggest? The need for a standardized method of comparing students on a national scale is unavoidable, and the current method is hardly ideal but is a necessary evil. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| "By thinking of things you could understand them," James Joyce once wrote. The SAT tests on what one knows, but does not test mastery, it does not test the extent that a student understands a mathematical concept, nor does it demonstrate if a student can analyze a work of literature. The test should be just that, thinking and understanding.
Frankly, the test shouldn't need a calculator, nor should it need special practice. I was under the impression that math is usually not a heterogeneous substance, nor are the sciences, and even if literature may be subjective in nature, that essay questions are the simplest way to remedy this. Instead of having a test filled with misleading questions, the test could be clear, but demonstrate different levels of mastery. The math part could have problems from geometry to calculus, and the English test could keep the diction and other positive data in multiple choice, and just have an essay for demonstrating mastery of the English language. (edited by SamuraiX on 02-01-07 09:10 AM) |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - The paradox of the Berkeley-esque college |
| |
