February 27, 2005
SAT + BS:
SAT's Essay Question Spells Stressful Prep (Rebecca Trounson, February 27, 2005, LA Times)
Writing, Audrianna Galvin says forthrightly, has never been her strong suit.So the teenager was more than a little anxious when makers of the SAT college entrance exam announced in 2002 that a revised version of the test would, for the first time, include a handwritten essay.
"The whole idea of the writing section just really freaked me out," said Audrianna, 16, a junior at the private Buckley School in Sherman Oaks. "I thought, 'How on earth could I do that?' "
Now, with the debut of the new, longer SAT — and its fear-inducing writing section — two weeks away, Audrianna says she is feeling somewhat better. She has gained some confidence from hours spent on preparation, in classes and on her own. "But I'm still pretty nervous," she admits.
Other college-bound students are also stressed over the high-stakes test. They're filling test prep classes in record numbers, mainly, they say, to practice for the essay. For the exam itself, they will have 25 minutes to write, clearly and persuasively, on such broad philosophical topics as "Do people need to keep secrets or is secrecy harmful?"
Some students also seem loath to be among the first to face the new SAT. Enrollments for its initial offering, on March 12, are significantly lower than those for the essay-less test last March. Officials with the College Board, which owns the exam, said the 11% dip in registration is similar to a drop in March 1994, when an earlier revision of the test was introduced.
But many counselors and other experts are urging students — and parents — to keep calm. They point out that the essay, the subject of most of the nervous chatter surrounding the new test, will count for only about one-ninth of a student's overall score.
"They all need to take a deep breath and relax," said Jennifer Karan, director of SAT and ACT programs for Kaplan Test Prep.
When I took the English Achievement Test with Essay in November 1978 the essay was something to the effect of: "We have met the enemy and he is us: Discuss."
Conveniently for us, but sadly for the victims, the test coincided with early reports of the Jonestown Massacre.
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 27, 2005 9:35 AMIf it's like the rest of the SAT, not needing a crayon or not spelling cat 'KAT' will get you to 500.
Give me a call when we have a college entrance exam comparable to the Abitur, the Baccalaureat or A-Levels. Otherwise, it's just another example of educational flummery, the 'illusion of education.'
Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2005 12:21 PMThey are going to be sadly surprised when the revised test produces no more winneres among qualified minorities than the old test did.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 27, 2005 4:38 PMI am something of an expert on the SAT, having taught expensive SAT prep coures for 10 years. I could fill pages with my views but, here, I would like to point out three things about the SAT:
1. Meet the new SAT. Same as the old SAT. These cosmetic changes occur every few years but the core of the test remains. The essay will be graded by graduate students and M.A.'s who can't get by with real jobs, who can be easily impressed because of the volume of grading involved.
2. The SAT is severely flawed because it is based on a myth: that it is not coachable. That myth was perpetuated for years throughout the education industry until it was singlehandedly punctured by The Princeton Review.
3. The SAT is absolutely premised on NOT being based on what students have learned in high school -- thus the myth of uncoachibility. OF COURSE Choate-Rosemary Hall students will do well on it, the theory went. The SAT was designed by progressive elitists to expose the diamonds in the rough who grew up in, say, the sticks of Arkansas but "deserve" to go to Georgetown. It's manifestly not a test of education. In this sense, Bart is off base. However, he is right to suggest that we need a college-entrance exam based on generally-agreed content. The ACT is a good example of this kind of test, but it is somewhat remedial.
Posted by: Seven Machos at February 28, 2005 2:14 AMI am something of an expert on the SAT, having taught expensive SAT prep coures for 10 years. I could fill pages with my views but, here, I would like to point out three things about the SAT:
1. Meet the new SAT. Same as the old SAT. These cosmetic changes occur every few years but the core of the test remains. The essay will be graded by graduate students and M.A.'s who can't get by with real jobs, who can be easily impressed because of the volume of grading involved.
2. The SAT is severely flawed because it is based on a myth: that it is not coachable. That myth was perpetuated for years throughout the education industry until it was singlehandedly punctured by The Princeton Review.
3. The SAT is absolutely premised on NOT being based on what students have learned in high school -- thus the myth of uncoachibility. OF COURSE Choate-Rosemary Hall students will do well on it, the theory went. The SAT was designed by progressive elitists to expose the diamonds in the rough who grew up in, say, the sticks of Arkansas but "deserve" to go to Georgetown. It's manifestly not a test of education. In this sense, Bart is off base. However, he is right to suggest that we need a college-entrance exam based on generally-agreed content. The ACT is a good example of this kind of test, but it is somewhat remedial.
Posted by: Seven Machos at February 28, 2005 2:15 AMSeven,
It has boggled the mind how any sentient person could think the SAT was 'uncoachable.' It is a multiple-guess test graded by a machine, so you have to do stuff to decide which little circles to fill in. There is a quantum of knowledge involved. My dad bought me a book from Barron's for like $6.95 and it systematically covered each topic examined on the SAT. It was probably worth 100 points a test.
Posted by: Bart at February 28, 2005 7:03 AMWhile Orrin was essaying about Jonestown, I was arguing -- for hours, as it turned out -- with my editors that the story deserved page one coverage.
I'll bet every one of them had scored really high on the SAT English test.
The SAT measures how well you do on the SAT, nothing else, although the more widely you have read the better informed your guesses may be.
I once scored over 600 on an SAT-style trig exam even though I could not have solved a single one of the problems if presented with it and a blank sheet of paper.
Coachability may enter into it, but I never got that far. My daddy used to say, if they're stupid enough to present the answer, you should be smart enough to figure out which one it is.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 2, 2005 4:20 PM