Black market schools - Page 15

Misfire · #**141** 09-07-2007, 01:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Whether SATs are or aren't objective, and how close they are to being objective, designing objective tests obviously can be done. Until then SATs and other standardized tests are a reasonable proxy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they absolutely aren't. If you only knew what a sham of at test the SAT really is. Seriously. It's so bad, the College Board's lawyers advised they remove the word "Aptitude" from the official name of the test to avoid being sued. (I've heard they did get sued over the name, but I can't find verification that's true). Anyhoo, it's now just called "The SAT," which stands for "The SAT," and what used to be the "right" answer is now known by the more subjective (and less lawsuit-vulnerable) term "credited response". In reality, the SAT only tests your ability to take the SAT.

Truly objective tests are virtually impossible to create, let alone create for use across a very large population of students. The development of tests like this require literally thousands of questions to be created and extensively tested across demographics to accurately weigh their difficulty among students. This is a tall order in and of itself, but don't forget the even larger challenge of ensuring that each of those thousands and thousands of questions actually tests aptitude in its intended subjects. You'll be hard-pressed to find even one test that accomplishes this goal.

Solution? Don't standardize. The quality of education should be judged by the customers--students and their parents. Under a private system, the consumer has a choice among competing systems to weigh their own needs and values against a variety of choices available.

Misfire · #**142** 09-07-2007, 01:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no current monopoly. There are numerous opportunities for private schooling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hogwash. You have a tax-subsidized market dominator who engages in nothing less than predatory pricing, driving away any real competition.

If the government gave away free mid-sized sedans, pickups, station-wagons, and SUV's, most automakers would disappear, along with their products. Those left standing would only be those selling expensive luxury cars not offered by the government auto monopoly. This is the same situation we have in education, which perpetuates the myth that private education is too expensive for the average or even below-average family.

Misfire · #**143** 09-07-2007, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who is lazy about learning in a public school will be lazy about learning in a private school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good. Since nothing will change for the lazy students, it's a moot point. Let's talk about opportunities for motivated students and involved parents.

Copernicus · #**144** 09-07-2007, 02:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether SATs are or aren't objective, and how close they are to being objective, designing objective tests obviously can be done. Until then SATs and other standardized tests are a reasonable proxy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they absolutely aren't. If you only knew what a sham of at test the SAT really is. Seriously. It's so bad, the College Board's lawyers advised they remove the word "Aptitude" from the official name of the test to avoid being sued. (I've heard they did get sued over the name, but I can't find verification that's true). Anyhoo, it's now just called "The SAT," which stands for "The SAT," and what used to be the "right" answer is now known by the more subjective (and less lawsuit-vulnerable) term "credited response". In reality, the SAT only tests your ability to take the SAT.

Objective tests are virtually impossible to create, let alone create for use across a very large population of students. The development of tests like this require literally thousands of questions to be created and extensively tested across demographics to accurately weigh their difficulty among students. This is a tall order in and of itself, but don't forget the even larger challenge of ensuring that each of those thousands and thousands of questions actually test aptitude in their intended subjects. You'll be hard-pressed to find even one test that accomplishes this goal.

Solution? Don't standardize. The quality of education should be judged by the customers--students and their parents. Under a private system, the consumer has a choice among competing systems to weigh their own needs and values against a variety of choices available.

[/ QUOTE ]

SATs are still the second highest predictor of college success, not signficantly lower than high school GPA, when measuring freshman grades. ACT scores are a very signficant predictor of persistence and college graduation rates. Stanford 9 and SOL tests show very high correlation with subjectively graded essays.

Your outright dismissal of all standardized testing is way out of line. They arent perfect, they are improving.

Misfire · #**145** 09-07-2007, 02:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
SATs are still the second highest predictor of college success, not signficantly lower than high school GPA, when measuring freshman grades. ACT scores are a very signficant predictor of persistence and college graduation rates. Stanford 9 and SOL tests show very high correlation with subjectively graded essays.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crap that ETS and the College Board and GMAC use to sell their illegitamate tests. Correlation =/= causation. Seeing people carry umbrellas is very closely correlated with the chances of rain in my area. Can we use umbrellas as an objective measure of future weather patterns? Or is there perhaps another factor that affects both?

Asians and Indians as a group tend to do disproportionately well in college. Asians and Indians also tend to eat a diet disproportionately high in rice compared to other ethic groups. According to your logic (and the testing companies' propaganda) the amount of rice consumed must be an accurate predictor of college success.

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. Fallacies are fun!

[ QUOTE ]
Your outright dismissal of all standardized testing is way out of line. They arent perfect, they are improving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I make my [censored] living teaching people who don't understand the subject being tested how to beat standardized tests. They're a sham.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Edit: One google search produced the following:

"[A] study of 10,000 students at 11 selective public and private institutions of higher education found that a 100-point increase in SAT combined scores, holding race, gender, and field of study constant, led to a one-tenth of a grade point gain for college GPA...This offered about the same predictive value as looking at whether an applicant's father had a graduate degree or her mother had completed college."

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satvalidity.html

Copernicus · #**146** 09-07-2007, 03:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SATs are still the second highest predictor of college success, not signficantly lower than high school GPA, when measuring freshman grades. ACT scores are a very signficant predictor of persistence and college graduation rates. Stanford 9 and SOL tests show very high correlation with subjectively graded essays.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crap that ETS and the College Board and GMAC use to sell their illegitamate tests. Correlation =/= causation. 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. 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. Seeing people carry umbrellas is very closely correlated with the chances of rain in my area. Can we use umbrellas as an objective measure of future weather patterns? Or is there perhaps another factor that affects both? Yes, it IS an objective measure of future weather patterns. what you meant to say is that it isnt indicative that umbrellas CAUSE rain. See my comments above. 

Asians and Indians as a group tend to do disproportionately well in college. Asians and Indians also tend to eat a diet disproportionately high in rice compared to other ethic groups. According to your logic (and the testing companies' propaganda) the amount of rice consumed must be an accurate predictor of college success. No, it doesnt. The methodology described above is very well illustrated by this. The "causation" of rice is examined and to be found to be the result of the same thing that results in college success...culture and strong family influence. Once that is identified as a cause of both, rice can be eliminated as the cause of college success.

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. and if they do they are valid PREDICTORS. Fallacies are fun! Yes, your strawman of replacing prediction with causation is fun to refute. 

[ QUOTE ]
Your outright dismissal of all standardized testing is way out of line. They arent perfect, they are improving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I make my [censored] living teaching people who don't understand the subject being tested how to beat standardized tests. They're a sham. 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? There are clearly elements of both, and I know of no studies that differentiate between the two.

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. hyperbole clearly refuted by their predictive value 

[/ QUOTE ]

Misfire · #**147** 09-07-2007, 03:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is the crap that ETS and the College Board and GMAC use to sell their illegitamate tests. Correlation =/= causation. 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.

[/ 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 ]
 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. 

[/ 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. and if they do they are valid PREDICTORS.

[/ 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 ]
 Fallacies are fun! Yes, your strawman of replacing prediction with causation is fun to refute. 

[/ 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 ]
 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?

[/ 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. hyperbole clearly refuted by their predictive value 

[/ 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.

FooSH · #**148** 09-07-2007, 06:19 AM

Quick question.

If there are 1000's of independent schools, how can parents and employers objectively tell which one is better without some kind of standardized testing?

tomdemaine · #**149** 09-07-2007, 08:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quick question.

If there are 1000's of independent schools, how can parents and employers objectively tell which one is better without some kind of standardized testing?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't. It's a subjective choice. Based on whatever is important to whoever is making the choice. It's called freedom.

pvn · #**150** 09-07-2007, 09:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quick question.

If there are 1000's of independent schools, how can parents and employers objectively tell which one is better without some kind of standardized testing?

[/ QUOTE ]

OH NOES TOO MANY CHOICES WE MUST IMPOSE A CHOICE TO SAVE YOU FROM THE NIGHTMARE!!!!