Basically I am comfortable stating that this forum is at least 80% Caucasian ergo I can say that the gorilla glue in hair incident is clearly your fault:
"The demand for racism outweighs the supply" This happened a while back. Their is no way to future progress without a proper understanding of the present.
By Heather C. McGhee Ms. McGhee is the author of âThe Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,â from which this essay is adapted.
There are plenty of excellent resources to prep kids, including online and the $20 SAT book, which was the bible when i was growing up.
All 4 of my kids used these resources, plus a $150 course at the local library.
I recall scores have been coming down the last few decades, despite all these overpriced prep options.
Game theory? Knowledge? It is all about formulas, specific strategies....that's why it's relatively easy to prep.
The point is, you prep. Most students, smart or not, who do not prep probably wont score well, or ass well, on one side of the test or the other. So if a smart kid (black, white, poor, rich) doesnt score well, it's usually a matter of not prepping. Not gaining the knowledge to do well. Shouldn't that be a key qualifier for college admissions?
I would have to care about your opinion to be offended.
My one kid studied, the other took the class. Different kids, different styles, different levels of confidence. The average SAT for their colleges last year was 1450 and 1470. It all worked out. At their level, it's not about the SAT getting you in, it's about the SAT keeping you out.
I spent $450k on college... I'm going to worry about saving $500 in SAT prep?
i guess i'm confused by this. i've heard the argument, but don't buy it. also, any student regardless of finances can be fairly well prepped with online videos, whether free or for a nominal fee. i think there is an argument they aren't effective; many who choke on these types of tests were and go on to be excellent students. there are downsides to any selection process.
My daughter went to a tutor who charged $500/hour for individual help. She was part of a group (created by the instructor based on her assessment of student focus), and that only cost $125/hour. She was referred to us by people who swore by her. Many credited her with 200+ points in the SAT. We now one kid who went up over 300 points...who knows why.
We asked her why she charged so much for solo instruction. She said it was because she didn't enjoy doing it, and figured if someone was dumb enough to pay it, she'd take it. She had elite liberal arts / Ivy credentials and her husband had the same (he would help on the really tough math issues...she was more humanities). She was probably 60-65, and each of her 5 kids went Ivy.
She was still making about $500/hour....my daughter was one of 3 or 4 in each class. She always ran long...more like 90 mins while paying for 60...did it out of her house.
She volunteered a great deal, helping kids in Camden prepare for the testing, but she's the exception. I think she also reduced her fee for those who said they couldn't afford her classes.
My daughter did well, and she will tell you her tutor made a big difference. It's not about knowledge, it's game theory. It is not a meritocracy.
Good point. Tutoring won't make you smarter per se, but it can teach you how to take tests efficiently. Stuff like scoring wrong answers differently than no answer, for one thing: skip questions you're unsure of, nail the ones you know.
I don't think solo tutoring is a good idea either: you can learn a lot just from other people in the same boat as you.
Test scores should not be 'the' entrance requirement. Just like GPA should not be 'the' requirement in hiring (I've seen it, it's stupid. I've been in the industry for 20 years, and you want my GPA? Forget it.).
Test scores (and GPA) are just one indicator of success. They can be helpful, but relying on them too heavily is just lazy - and counter-productive. c.
Schools get tens of thousands of applications. It's pretty difficult to screen applicants without something like GPAs and standardized test scores
i guess i'm confused by this. i've heard the argument, but don't buy it. also, any student regardless of finances can be fairly well prepped with online videos, whether free or for a nominal fee. i think there is an argument they aren't effective; many who choke on these types of tests were and go on to be excellent students. there are downsides to any selection process.
My daughter went to a tutor who charged $500/hour for individual help. She was part of a group (created by the instructor based on her assessment of student focus), and that only cost $125/hour. She was referred to us by people who swore by her. Many credited her with 200+ points in the SAT. We now one kid who went up over 300 points...who knows why.
We asked her why she charged so much for solo instruction. She said it was because she didn't enjoy doing it, and figured if someone was dumb enough to pay it, she'd take it. She had elite liberal arts / Ivy credentials and her husband had the same (he would help on the really tough math issues...she was more humanities). She was probably 60-65, and each of her 5 kids went Ivy.
She was still making about $500/hour....my daughter was one of 3 or 4 in each class. She always ran long...more like 90 mins while paying for 60...did it out of her house.
She volunteered a great deal, helping kids in Camden prepare for the testing, but she's the exception. I think she also reduced her fee for those who said they couldn't afford her classes.
My daughter did well, and she will tell you her tutor made a big difference. It's not about knowledge, it's game theory. It is not a meritocracy.
No offense, but "sucker"
There are plenty of excellent resources to prep kids, including online and the $20 SAT book, which was the bible when i was growing up.
All 4 of my kids used these resources, plus a $150 course at the local library.
I recall scores have been coming down the last few decades, despite all these overpriced prep options.
Game theory? Knowledge? It is all about formulas, specific strategies....that's why it's relatively easy to prep.
The point is, you prep. Most students, smart or not, who do not prep probably wont score well, or ass well, on one side of the test or the other. So if a smart kid (black, white, poor, rich) doesnt score well, it's usually a matter of not prepping. Not gaining the knowledge to do well. Shouldn't that be a key qualifier for college admissions?
Depends on who is putting together the criteria for the definition in use for a particular system.
If you are to ignore the above and say that yes, merit as a whole is racist, then it would follow that affirmative action programs are 100% racist and discriminatory.
i guess i'm confused by this. i've heard the argument, but don't buy it. also, any student regardless of finances can be fairly well prepped with online videos, whether free or for a nominal fee. i think there is an argument they aren't effective; many who choke on these types of tests were and go on to be excellent students. there are downsides to any selection process.
My daughter went to a tutor who charged $500/hour for individual help. She was part of a group (created by the instructor based on her assessment of student focus), and that only cost $125/hour. She was referred to us by people who swore by her. Many credited her with 200+ points in the SAT. We now one kid who went up over 300 points...who knows why.
We asked her why she charged so much for solo instruction. She said it was because she didn't enjoy doing it, and figured if someone was dumb enough to pay it, she'd take it. She had elite liberal arts / Ivy credentials and her husband had the same (he would help on the really tough math issues...she was more humanities). She was probably 60-65, and each of her 5 kids went Ivy.
She was still making about $500/hour....my daughter was one of 3 or 4 in each class. She always ran long...more like 90 mins while paying for 60...did it out of her house.
She volunteered a great deal, helping kids in Camden prepare for the testing, but she's the exception. I think she also reduced her fee for those who said they couldn't afford her classes.
My daughter did well, and she will tell you her tutor made a big difference. It's not about knowledge, it's game theory. It is not a meritocracy.
Good point. Tutoring won't make you smarter per se, but it can teach you how to take tests efficiently. Stuff like scoring wrong answers differently than no answer, for one thing: skip questions you're unsure of, nail the ones you know.
I don't think solo tutoring is a good idea either: you can learn a lot just from other people in the same boat as you.
Test scores should not be 'the' entrance requirement. Just like GPA should not be 'the' requirement in hiring (I've seen it, it's stupid. I've been in the industry for 20 years, and you want my GPA? Forget it.).
Test scores (and GPA) are just one indicator of success. They can be helpful, but relying on them too heavily is just lazy - and counter-productive. c.
Apologies. Should have read: eliminating the SAT should not upset you.
The test-optional opportunity afforded by the pandemic is going to be difficult to cancel in the coming years. Select schools have seen a noticeable increase in applications for the coming fall and will appear even more selective as admission rates drop. Much of that is credited with no SAT/ACT requirement.
Colleges and Universities know High schools, they know the rigor of the programs and can tell from the transcript, interviews, and recommendations who is likely to thrive at a school. Test scores have been going higher and higher, and the differences between students are less and less. The middle 50% of admissions for Cal Tech (highest SAT score) is something like 1520-1575. 1500 means you should be ready for the inevitable "how did you get in here" questions. That's pointless insanity. They can tell which kids are brilliant...the test is pointless.
Yeah, I guess I misinterpreted your original post in that way - thinking that you meant that more and more colleges are requiring the SAT/ACT instead of fewer. Oh, well...
i guess i'm confused by this. i've heard the argument, but don't buy it. also, any student regardless of finances can be fairly well prepped with online videos, whether free or for a nominal fee. i think there is an argument they aren't effective; many who choke on these types of tests were and go on to be excellent students. there are downsides to any selection process.
My daughter went to a tutor who charged $500/hour for individual help. She was part of a group (created by the instructor based on her assessment of student focus), and that only cost $125/hour. She was referred to us by people who swore by her. Many credited her with 200+ points in the SAT. We now one kid who went up over 300 points...who knows why.
We asked her why she charged so much for solo instruction. She said it was because she didn't enjoy doing it, and figured if someone was dumb enough to pay it, she'd take it. She had elite liberal arts / Ivy credentials and her husband had the same (he would help on the really tough math issues...she was more humanities). She was probably 60-65, and each of her 5 kids went Ivy.
She was still making about $500/hour....my daughter was one of 3 or 4 in each class. She always ran long...more like 90 mins while paying for 60...did it out of her house.
She volunteered a great deal, helping kids in Camden prepare for the testing, but she's the exception. I think she also reduced her fee for those who said they couldn't afford her classes.
My daughter did well, and she will tell you her tutor made a big difference. It's not about knowledge, it's game theory. It is not a meritocracy.
You have pivoted from merit to societal measures competence? If you want to work in a nail salon in NJ, you need a license...objective standards... but merit?
There are a few comments since yours that basically say "it's America, here are our rules". That's fine, but then own the fact that merit may not be the deciding factor. Most people who have "achieved" some measure of success feel like they earned it and anyone else could have done the same thing. That is simply untrue. It works both ways...for and against...but if you're white in the US you've had an easier path through the "meritocracy". If you don't think so, you're not applying logic and reason. There is no need to apologize for exploiting that advantage, but ignoring it, or worse rejecting it, doesn't eliminate it.
We don't need to beat this to death... I'm sure I'm missing something... I was just surprised to see logic and reason used as statements to impune the woman's statement of racism, when in fact bias and racism have provided the facts for logic and reason support her position.
If you truly believe in merit, eliminating the SAT should upset you. Those making admission decisions at colleges accept that more and more every year. Why argue with them?
I don't disagree with the points you are making about merit, logic and reason. However, from what I've seen, fewer (not more) colleges than before are requiring or using SAT or ACT as standards for admissions, or using their scores as criteria. One of those tests have been required by almost all colleges for at least the last 40 years. A substantial number of colleges and universities (including the University of California system) have decided to no longer require those tests for admission or to phase out their requirement, and have not just done so because of - or since-the pandemic. Some have suspended its requirement because almost no one was able to test last year because of COVID.
Apologies. Should have read: eliminating the SAT should not upset you.
The test-optional opportunity afforded by the pandemic is going to be difficult to cancel in the coming years. Select schools have seen a noticeable increase in applications for the coming fall and will appear even more selective as admission rates drop. Much of that is credited with no SAT/ACT requirement.
Colleges and Universities know High schools, they know the rigor of the programs and can tell from the transcript, interviews, and recommendations who is likely to thrive at a school. Test scores have been going higher and higher, and the differences between students are less and less. The middle 50% of admissions for Cal Tech (highest SAT score) is something like 1520-1575. 1500 means you should be ready for the inevitable "how did you get in here" questions. That's pointless insanity. They can tell which kids are brilliant...the test is pointless.
