schools and standardized testing
ottertee at silverwinggraphics.com
Wed Dec 22 11:28:45 EST 2004
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, at 05:32 PM, HSchinske at aol.com wrote:
> Low or medium scores don't correlate very well with being likely to
> fail or be mediocre, but very high scores really aren't possible
> unless you're pretty bright. That's why the colleges go on wanting
> them as one part of the data -- if you take a kid with high SATs, you
> may be getting a flake or whatever, but you're not getting one who's
> thick as a brick. They do have quite a bit of ceiling, so you can see
> a significant difference between, say, the 99th percentile and the
> 99.9th, for instance.
> Of course not *all* the bright people have high SAT scores, only a
> subset of them with a particular *sort* of smarts. Same with any
> criterion, really -- high scores always mean more than low scores.
> (Mediocre scores don't necessarily keep you out, either, if your
> grades are good -- I can certainly think of people I went to school
> with who got into quite tough colleges, like Smith, with not-so-great
> Mind you, in my day they were harder (the number of people who got
> 1600s in any given year used to be really, really tiny, instead of
> only kind of tiny). The modern ones may be less useful, don't know.
My siblings and I had the kind of brains that these tests were designed
for. We all did quite well. I did the best on the SATs with a 1502
in 1963. When my brother took the GREs, he got 1550. So you see.
But I, for one, did rather poorly in college because I didn't have any
self-discipline to speak of.
So, yes. They tell you about potential, but they don't say much about
what's really going to happen.
- I'm a little teapot, short and stout.
Here is my handle and here is my ... my ...
Hey, I'm a sugar bowl!
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj