22 Apr
2002
22 Apr
'02
1:05 p.m.
Dick,
I wouldn't either. I'm not sure that you can
go and get an education anymore.
...
Back when I was in high school, a score of 800 on one or the other of the
SAT's was a rare event that didn't occur every year in a school system in a
city of half-a-million or so. Nowadays, with the obviously much-lowered
standards, it happens all the time.
I really don't see how this follows. Students are scoring higher on standardized
exams, thus the standards must "obviously" be much-lowered.
Without having proof to the contrary, Occam's Razor would suggest that the
explanation
to higher overall scores on standardized tests would simply be "a better overall
quality of education today". After all, if students are learning more and
thus scoring higher on standardized tests, well, what more does that mean than
that the standardized tests are doing what they are designed for (as demographic tools)
and are representative of the increase in students' learning?
Without proof, we cannot assume either way. So if you would like to
make an argument about education quality in the US today, back it up with facts,
otherwise it just sounds like "In my day" geezer-ranting.
--
Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253
22 Apr
22 Apr
1:41 p.m.
Dick said:
> Back when I was in high school, a score of 800 on
one or the other of the
> SAT's was a rare event that didn't occur every year in a school system in a
> city of half-a-million or so. Nowadays, with the obviously much-lowered
> standards, it happens all the time.
In 1967, there were at least 8 students in my High School (myself
included) who got 800s on the Math SAT.
Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda Maryland. (medium sized)
2:14 p.m.
At 10:05 PM 4/22/2002 +0000, you wrote:
Without having proof to the contrary, Occam's Razor
would suggest that the
explanation
to higher overall scores on standardized tests would simply be "a better
overall
quality of education today". After all, if students are learning more and
thus scoring higher on standardized tests, well, what more does that mean than
that the standardized tests are doing what they are designed for (as
demographic tools)
and are representative of the increase in students' learning?
Without proof, we cannot assume either way. So if you would like to
make an argument about education quality in the US today, back it up with
facts,
otherwise it just sounds like "In my day" geezer-ranting.
The SATs have, in fact, been dumbed-down. Some relevant URLs:
http://www.edreform.com/news/sat_scramble.htm
http://www.heartland.org/education/dec00/recenter.htm
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=01sat.h16
2:39 p.m.
>otherwise it just sounds like "In my
day" geezer-ranting.
In MY day, (before the existence of portable calculators) when I took the
PSATs, they allowed, and encouraged, bringing scratch paper, and even
GRAPH paper, but NO slide rules. So, we brought logarithmic graph paper
and folded it. The next year, (when I took the SATs) they stopped having
students bring their own scratch paper.
Our school demonstrated with reasonable statistical significance, that
students who take a LOT of standardized tests score higher on standardized
tests. It really DOES make a difference to pace yourself well, and get
lots of practice at making best guesses. I have students these days who
get bogged down in a single hard problem at the beginning and don't finish
tests, and who leave BLANK multiple guess questions that they aren't sure
of the answer.
The SATs have, in fact, been dumbed-down.
Some relevant URLs:
http://www.edreform.com/news/sat_scramble.htm
http://www.heartland.org/education/dec00/recenter.htm
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=01sat.h16
They were too easy then!
And now they've further gutted them?!?
8153
days inactive
8153
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
nemesis-lists＠icequake.net -
zaft＠azstarnet.com