Gothnet: Witchydiva: Mostly, yes. The continuous assessments are, while stressful, a joke. Some states are moving towards end-of-course exams, though there is significant opposition (partially due to the "it isn't fair to kids that don't test well," and "my precious snowflake doesn't handle stress very well" people).

Oh they're a force here too. A decade or so before I started taking GCSE's and A-levels (which is more than a decade ago itself) there was no such thing as a coursework component for many of them. Sure, stuff like English Literature would require essays and long careful study, but the "hard" subjects like Math, Sciences etc would all be one big bang at the end.

As someone that used to thrive on stress and examination back then, I was all for it.

Interesting. One of the conundrums here is that student performance is directly linked to federal funding. So testing has become early and often. Rather than teaching skills that are useful in life, many teachers find themselves "teaching the test" for the year - which kills a well-rounded curriculum if poorly done (ie with the sole goal of having kids that score high on a particular exam).

Then again, there is definitely a need for standardized tests, as states have individually set educational criteria, and colleges/universities have their own entrance criteria. Combine that with students from all socio-economic backgrounds, all cultures, and all kinds of schools (homeschools, charter, public, private, religious, etc - schools with grade inflation, schools where an AP course gets you up to 4.5 instead of the normal 4.0, etc). There is also a need for admissions staff at universities to be able to more easily understand situations like, "Student X got 2400 (a perfect score) on the SAT, but failed most of their high school courses" or "Student Y passed some courses with decent grades and was varsity through high school, but they also did well on the SAT, so it is less likely that Coach influenced their high school grade".

A bit simplistic, but...

DoBeDoBeDo: Home internet usage as of 2007:
/hot

That's a long Google search away from missing a joke....how did YOU score on the SAT? :)

I never took it. I started going to community college when I was 14, and was able to skip AP exams and standardized testing all the way up until I took the GMAT for grad school. :-P


bubbaprog: The SAT/ACT is necessary in an age of hyper-inflated high school grades.

Hell, here in Gainesville they just ELIMINATED MINUSES. You can no longer get an A- or a B-.

The reason? No Child Left Behind ties federal money to your students' GPAs.

That President Obama hasn't abolished that paean to Texas educational material publishers is a true stain on his legacy.

On a similar note, the University of Texas just left plus/minus grading in grad courses to the discretion of its professors. So you could score 98 in each of 4 classes, and have 1 A+ and 3 plain A grades. The reason? stupid politics and half-assery.

I despise textbook publishers. With all my heart.

WhyteRaven74: How do you think colleges handled admissions before the era of standardized tests? Fun thing back in this days you could petition a college to be admitted. In other words you could say to the school "This is why you should admit me..." and it could work.

Except "This is why you should admit me..." generally consisted of "This is the color of my skin, who my daddy is, how much money he has, and who his friends are."

Then again - if you look at entrance exams for universities back in the days before the SAT, you'd probably crap your pants. Latin, Greek, calculus, english literature, etc.

toilet engineer: Witchydiva: I think it is funny that you don't hear butthurt because of the ACT.

Well that makes sense. Grew up in KY and went to school in MO. Everyone always talked about their ACT score, not SAT. Interesting...any reason why regions/schools/colleges choose one over the other?

Politics, marketing, geography and history. The College Board is based out of Manhattan, NY. ACT is based out of Iowa City, IA. The SAT was originated at elite universities to identify academic elites, ACT was created to fill the gap. The College Board has been working to change their image for years now, but ACT has a leg up in most of the rural states, since College Board is seen as exclusionary and elite (basically everything that farmhands are not, to be overly simplistic).

Like I said - overly simplistic, but a Cliff Notes version.

mesmer242: I teach SAT prep courses so I'm getting a kick out of...

Seriously, I will be happy the day the SAT disappears and prep courses are no longer necessary. It causes a whole bunch of grief to already overloaded high school students and barely increases the statistical likelihood of first year college success over grades alone.

Read The Big Test by Nicholas Lemann if you want the true background of the SAT.

Do you fancy yourself a hypocrite for working for the system you claim to despise?

Lemann was a critic who offered no possible solutions to the myriad of problems. A 100% inheritance tax to promote a meritocracy? Riiiiight....

DoBeDoBeDo: wpmulligan: WindBreaker: Is there anyone who actually thinks the No Child Gets Ahead law is doing anything worthwhile for the nation?

George Bush.

87% of the Senate at the time Link (new window)

and 88% of the House Link (new window)

All marketing and politics to people who never actually read the bills they pass, or think about consequences (much less long-term consequences). That, and pandering to people who immediately go straight to "derpaderpathey'retakinourJERBS! Death Panels! If yer against NCLF, yer against ejikatin' our kids!"