bacongood: You know the scores are scaled... right?

Sure, although they do have an absolute max (all questions correct). Yes, they're scaled, so it's tautological arguments all around, but the fact that there are 36s, 35s, and 34s... and not very many of any of them... indicates that there's *something* being measured, and there's something wrong with the "it's only measuring preparation" line that I see on Fark every time standardized tests come up.

At least 100,000 kids have access to the best prep in the nation. Only 14,000 got 34 or above. Now, it could be that the differences between 33 and 36 are irreproducible random variation ("fully 'prepped' kids usually miss one or two, but usually they don't"). But, the stats on repeated exams don't show that.

second 'usually' -> 'occasionally they don't'

LincolnLogolas: Mark Ratner: Something doesn't add up here...sounds fishy to me.

Nah, they were just all Asian. It's Irvine.

Asian cheating is not unknown, and in some places is the rule, not the exception.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: LincolnLogolas: Mark Ratner: Something doesn't add up here...sounds fishy to me.

Nah, they were just all Asian. It's Irvine.

Asian cheating is not unknown, and in some places is the rule, not the exception.

Way to ruin a perfectly comedic waissis comment.

Lawnchair: bacongood: You know the scores are scaled... right?

Sure, although they do have an absolute max (all questions correct). Yes, they're scaled, so it's tautological arguments all around, but the fact that there are 36s, 35s, and 34s... and not very many of any of them... indicates that there's *something* being measured, and there's something wrong with the "it's only measuring preparation" line that I see on Fark every time standardized tests come up.

At least 100,000 kids have access to the best prep in the nation. Only 14,000 got 34 or above. Now, it could be that the differences between 33 and 36 are irreproducible random variation ("fully 'prepped' kids usually miss one or two, but usually they don't"). But, the stats on repeated exams don't show that.

I more or less agree with you, prep is an advantage but natural test takers (who tend to do well academically anyway) will still do well.

Specifically to the ACT, I think the reading test is the biggest time crunch test section that a typical student will ever see. Prep can help, but still probably 80% of the test takers are going to feel a pinch to finish.

bacongood: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7155631/77412322#c77412322" target="_blank">Gough</a>:</b> <i>b
Back when I was applying to college, none of the highly-selective schools in the Midwest required the ACT, they all used the SAT.
</i>

For the past 20 years or so they have been taking either/or (and I just spot checked NW and U of C, that is still their policy). Not sure if we just talking past each other and reading implied "only takes" into it. Generally, midwest studetns take both and then send whichever one is "higher".

It should be noted that IL requires all high school students to take the ACT, so no school around there will get rid of the ACT option until that is undone.

<i>
Here's a partial list of the schools that have done away with test scores for admissions. Not surprisingly, there are a number of non-selective schools on the list, but there are also a number of top-ranked ones, primarily high-quality privates.

http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional</i>

Some interesting schools on that list, but probably only a handful would qualify as "selective". Very few that would have any large amounts of applicants - which is what the tests should be used for.

I went to high school in IL (actually, it was so long ago that it was ILL), so I had to take the ACT. IIRC, it was used to determine winners of Illinois State Scholarships. At that time ('68), the competitive privates in the Midwest required the SAT and only the SAT, so I took that as well. Many of those schools that still require standardized tests, like Carleton, will now accept either SAT or ACT scores.

Gough: I went to high school in IL (actually, it was so long ago that it was ILL), so I had to take the ACT. IIRC, it was used to determine winners of Illinois State Scholarships. At that time ('68), the competitive privates in the Midwest required the SAT and only the SAT, so I took that as well. Many of those schools that still require standardized tests, like Carleton, will now accept either SAT or ACT scores.

I don' think the ACT had been around for even 10 years at that time, so schools were still adjusting. I think there was a swing to only ACT for a lot of schools, but it has leveled off at "just give us one".

The ACT is now required in IL as part as the junior year testing; not just for scholarship purposes, but as a tool to judge the schools. It is just an horrible idea.