Re: Black market schools
[ QUOTE ]
This is the crap that ETS and the College Board and GMAC use to sell their illegitamate tests. Correlation =/= causation. <font color="red"> Strawman. You don't understand the difference between predictors and causation. I never said that scores CAUSE success, just that they are good predictors, and they are.</font>
[/ QUOTE ]
Please show me where I indicated you did. Your implication this whole time (until the last post where you conveniently switched topics from objectively measuring results to reliably predicting the future) has been that these tests would be an objective tool for measuring the success of one's (grade school) education -- that successful education causes better SAT scores. I can demonstrate that is not the case because those without knowledge of the subject matter can beat the tests.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> The statement that correlation =/= is also woefully incomplete, but makes a nice sound bite. Correlation is indicative of an underlying relationship and cause for further study. If A is highly correlated and appears to be a cause of C, until a factor B can be found that is causative of both, it is reasonable to assume that A is a cause of C. </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
I've demonstrated B. Coaching (B) can also cause SAT scores to rise (C), calling into question the idea that high SAT scores are the result of educational success (A).
[ QUOTE ]
I'll bet money average number of assists in field hockey correlates nicely with college success, as does the number of oxford sweaters one owns. <font color="red">and if they do they are valid PREDICTORS.</font>
[/ QUOTE ]
Fine, I'll accept your argument that SAT scores, rice-eating habits, field hockey stats, and oxford sweater collections are all "valid" predictors of college success. What a good selling point. What was your undergrad preppy clothes score anyway?
[ QUOTE ]
</font> Fallacies are fun! <font color="red"> Yes, your strawman of replacing prediction with causation is fun to refute. </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
And your shift from the SAT indicating past educational success (causation) to predicting future educational success (prediction) was very well played as well.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> And I make my living interpreting and applying statistics. Can standardized test scores be improved with coaching? Yes. Using your soundbite, does coaching unfarily inflate standardized test scores, or is it the additional focused study and better understanding of the topic (ie the education that the tests are measuring) that improves scores?</font>
[/ QUOTE ]
We don't teach the actual topic, only how to avoid having to understand the topic to find the right answer, which in fact DOES negate the test's value as an objective measure of what a student has learned about said topic. If I can answer your geometry question without applying the Pythagorean theorem, you have not successfully (or objectively) tested my ability to use it.
[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't pass my 10th grade geometry final if you gave it to me today (it's been 14 years since I've done a proof). But on the GRE I look like a math genius because I know how to get around the test. These tests are not objective in the least. <font color="red"> hyperbole clearly refuted by their predictive value </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
Their predictive value (like that of oxford sweaters) says nothing of their ability to objectively measure quality of education which is exactly what you advocated using them for.
|