Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for the additional information but it unfortunately doesn't increase my confidence in how the scores such as ACT are used. I'm afraid I don't have the information in front of me but saw one time the difference between a 32 and a 34 was just a handful of answers.
The difference between a 3.98 and a 4.0 is just a handful of answers, or one case of having an easy vs hard teacher.
Quote:
In effect there was no real difference between students with those two scores. Yet colleges made decisions worth a hundred thousand dollars or more on those insignificant differences. .56 may seem like a tiny amount yet is enough to move someone from the "gets no money column" to the "gets a full ride column" in some programs.
In effect there is no real difference between students with those two GPAs. Yet colleges made decisions worth a hundred thousand dollars or more on those insignificant differences. .02 may seem like a tiny amount yet is enough to move someone from the "gets no money column" to the "gets a full ride column" in some programs (such as one of the schools I applied to that meets your standards, so I had to instead go to a college that did not meet your standards).
Quote:
I'm not making the argument that a kid who scores 22 is suddenly going to score a 35 unless there was something drastically wrong the first time. Instead consider that you're the parent of a kid sitting on, say a 32 and a big college bill. But at a 33 there's a full ride available. And you could add a point by taking a prep course.
I'm not making the argument that a kid who GPA is 2.5 is suddenly going to score a 3.98 unless there was something drastically wrong the first time. Instead consider that you're the parent of a kid sitting on, say a 3.98 and a big college bill (I avoided the "big college bill" by attending a college that does not meet your standards, which you continue to mock me for). But at a 4.0 there's a full ride available. And you could add .02 by gaming the system so that you get an easy teacher rather than a hard teacher, or by dropping the class with the hard teacher.
You, rightly so, point out that grit and determination are major factors in success. But the person with the 3.98 with a hard teacher is the one with grit and determination who toughed it out with a tough teacher. The 4.0 student is likely the student who had the easy teachers, gamed the system to get easy teachers, or who dropped any class he/she was getting a B in.
But we aren't talking about whether a prep course could raise a kid from a 32 to a 33. Of course it could. We're talking about whether big gains (100 SAT points, or 2-2.5 ACT points) can be gained by "gaming" the system.
And as I mentioned, both of these companies have PhDs on staff to ensure the tests are more statistically valid than you're implying here. I pulled a random official practice test, and the total difference between a 32 and a 34 was ten questions. Ten questions is a real difference in performance, not a blip on the radar. Sure, some kid somewhere missed out on a scholarship because it required a 32 and he was one question away but ended up with a 31. But how does that "problem" not generalize to GPA and class rank, too?
Exactly. And, as I keep mentioning, I was somebody who lost out on a scholarship because I had a 3.98 rather than a 4.0.
I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer. Why is it that when I point out that I lost a scholarship since I had a 3.98 due to a single hard teacher rather than a 4.0, I'm just told (perhaps rightly so) that life isn't fair. But when somebody underperforms on the SAT or ACT for whatever reason, it's treated as a major injustice. Shouldn't it be treated the same way? Especially since you can take the SAT or ACT multiple times to make up for an underperformance, but it's usually not practical to retake an entire course in order to get an A rather than a B.
Also, what is so wrong with taking an SAT or ACT prep class? How is that any different from studying for exams in order to increase your grades?
Also, TNFF is big into how you need to adapt to different teacher's grading styles. So, why can't that be extended to adapting to the style of the SAT and/or ACT?
Was it gaming the system how I used "in summation" in every paper in 6th grade English class? Was it gaming the system how I used huge fonts in participation in government? Was it gaming the system when I stayed home with a cold the Friday before MLK Day when I had a bio exam, but could get a makeup exam with no penalty? Was it gaming the system when I went to school with bronchitis in 8th grade because my math teacher didn't allow makeup exams and would have given me a 0? Or were those adapting to a specific teacher's grading practices?
Exactly. And, as I keep mentioning, I was somebody who lost out on a scholarship because I had a 3.98 rather than a 4.0.
I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer. Why is it that when I point out that I lost a scholarship since I had a 3.98 due to a single hard teacher rather than a 4.0, I'm just told (perhaps rightly so) that life isn't fair. But when somebody underperforms on the SAT or ACT for whatever reason, it's treated as a major injustice. Shouldn't it be treated the same way? Especially since you can take the SAT or ACT multiple times to make up for an underperformance, but it's usually not practical to retake an entire course in order to get an A rather than a B.
Also, what is so wrong with taking an SAT or ACT prep class? How is that any different from studying for exams in order to increase your grades?
Also, TNFF is big into how you need to adapt to different teacher's grading styles. So, why can't that be extended to adapting to the style of the SAT and/or ACT?
Was it gaming the system how I used "in summation" in every paper in 6th grade English class? Was it gaming the system how I used huge fonts in participation in government? Was it gaming the system when I stayed home with a cold the Friday before MLK Day when I had a bio exam, but could get a makeup exam with no penalty? Was it gaming the system when I went to school with bronchitis in 8th grade because my math teacher didn't allow makeup exams and would have given me a 0? Or were those adapting to a specific teacher's grading practices?
But it's over and done with...in the past.
You cannot change what happened to you. You can only move forward.
Also, what is so wrong with taking an SAT or ACT prep class? How is that any different from studying for exams in order to increase your grades?
It is only different if you think the SAT and ACT represent some separate, esoteric skillset that is completely detached from "real" academic abilities. They don't, of course, but that's the motivation behind the arguments that say prep classes are "gaming" the system. No one thinks a math tutor helping you with Algebra is gaming the system, so in order for the argument to have force, prep classes can't just be some version of that. They have to be about non-academic tricks that only the elite have access to.
It is only different if you think the SAT and ACT represent some separate, esoteric skillset that is completely detached from "real" academic abilities. They don't, of course, but that's the motivation behind the arguments that say prep classes are "gaming" the system. No one thinks a math tutor helping you with Algebra is gaming the system, so in order for the argument to have force, prep classes can't just be some version of that. They have to be about non-academic tricks that only the elite have access to.
But it's over and done with...in the past.
You cannot change what happened to you. You can only move forward.
But why isn't the same said to somebody who underperformed on the SAT or ACT for whatever reason? That's the question I keep answering and nobody gives an answer to.
But why isn't the same said to somebody who underperformed on the SAT or ACT for whatever reason? That's the question I keep answering and nobody gives an answer to.
But why isn't the same said to somebody who underperformed on the SAT or ACT for whatever reason? That's the question I keep answering and nobody gives an answer to.
You can take it as many times as you want and only report the scores that you want. Some schools will even allow you to "superscore" which means take your top English score off one test session and combine with your top math score from another session.
You can take it as many times as you want and only report the scores that you want. Some schools will even allow you to "superscore" which means take your top English score off one test session and combine with your top math score from another session.
That is all true. But does not answer my question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
