mel1@houxa.UUCP (03/14/87)
I put a similar request out about a year ago and got only negative replys (about 8). All were variations on the theme that much cheaper printed material was much better. Not being one to follow advice, I went ahead and bought Barron's SAT for the PC (also available for the Apple II). It is a well setup program and on the surface has all one would want in such a program. Easy to use, lots of explinations, drill with good reviews and help on errors, practice quizes, etc. However, the kids won't touch it past the first few minutes (and I mean just minutes). We have had the thing readily available for several months, and constantly try different strategies to get the kids to try it, but they don't. We have some of the printed preparation material, too. Now our HS junior is scheduled for the April test (she took the PSAT and didn't do too well considering her grades), and has done no drill. Our oldest, a senior, didn't do any preparation either (but did well on the exams). The next two, HS freshmen, probably won't prepare either. The SAT program may be good for a kid motivated to get good scores, but probably such a kid would probably do just as well with the books. Having the material on the PC didn't help get the kids interested in preparing for the SAT. Mel Haas , odyssey!mel
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) (03/18/87)
In article <343@houxa.UUCP>, mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes: > ..... I went ahead and bought Barron's SAT > for the PC ..... > However, the kids won't touch it. > ....... (she took the PSAT and didn't do too well considering her > grades) Maybe I full of beans - but how can you effectively study for an Aptitude test? Oh sure, you could become more comfortable with the "style" and format of the test, but improving your aptitude ?? You have noticed a phenomenon which has bothered admissions counselors for years (I have been on an admissions council) - Grades are almost completely UNCORRELATED with the SAT! Plenty of good grade earners are just that - and plenty of poor grade earners have lots of (un-used) aptitude. The SAT attempts to measure the applicants ability to reason, and utilize existing knowlege - I would be very skeptical of anything which claimed to be very effective in raising SAT scores - short of a good long school carreer! -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM
tr@thumper.UUCP (03/19/87)
In article <2189@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.UUCP writes: > > Maybe I full of beans - but how can you effectively study for an > Aptitude test? Oh sure, you could become more comfortable with the > "style" and format of the test, but improving your aptitude ?? > > You have noticed a phenomenon which has bothered admissions counselors > for years (I have been on an admissions council) - Grades are almost > completely UNCORRELATED with the SAT! Plenty of good grade earners > are just that - and plenty of poor grade earners have lots of > (un-used) aptitude. > > The SAT attempts to measure the applicants ability to reason, and > utilize existing knowlege - I would be very skeptical of anything > which claimed to be very effective in raising SAT scores - short of > a good long school carreer! > -- > [...] > John M. Pantone Hasn't it been shown that taking a class, such as Stanley Kaplan's, can significantly raise your score? Hasn't it been shown that SAT's, like IQ tests, are biased towards white middle class people who live on the coasts of the USA? Are you going to contend that minorities have less aptitude than whites? Don't these "aptitude" tests test the ability to take these tests more than anything else? # This paragraph is supplied to satisfy the news poster. # Lines submitted must exceed lines replied-to. So now # I am adding text. Efficient, huh? Tom Reingold INTERNET: tr@bellcore.com -------- UUCP: ---- watmath!clyde!bellcore\ ucbvax\ \ lll-lcc\ ihnp4!mhuxt!ulysses!faline!flash!tr seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!allegra/ -- Tom Reingold Internet: tr@bellcore.com Uucp: ..!allegra!ulysses!faline!flash!tr
pzl@hjuxa.UUCP (Mister Rem) (03/19/87)
In article <2189@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > Maybe I full of beans - but how can you effectively study for an > Aptitude test? Oh sure, you could become more comfortable with the > "style" and format of the test, but improving your aptitude ?? > Well, I took the SATS, got a respectable set of scores, then took a workbook/instructor SAT prep course which was basically lectures on the intent of the questions, and piles of examples... Then I retook the SATs (about 3 monthes later) and got a combined ~200 more points! Familiarity with the types of test questions definately helps your score. (I don't think I improved my "aptitude", my score went up though)
johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) (03/20/87)
In article <2189@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >Maybe I full of beans - but how can you effectively study for an >Aptitude test? Oh sure, you could become more comfortable with the >"style" and format of the test, but improving your aptitude ?? Just because ETS says that the SAT measures your aptitude doesn't mean that it does. I always did far better on ETS tests than I had any right to, and I firmly believe it's because I grew up in the same town where the ETS people live, Princeton NJ, and so was culturally more attuned to them and was more likely to think the way they expected me to on their multiple-guess questions. They always denied it, but they kind of had to. Given that, and also given that SAT prep courses like Stanley Kaplan's have been shown quite clearly to raise SAT scores, I'd think that a well-designed prep program could be of some use. This has nothing to do with computers, though, let's keep this in misc.kids. -- John R. Levine, Javelin Software Corp., Cambridge MA +1 617 494 1400 { ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something Where is Richard Nixon now that we need him?
awr@panda.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (03/20/87)
In article <2189@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >In article <343@houxa.UUCP>, mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes: > >> ..... I went ahead and bought Barron's SAT >> for the PC ..... >> However, the kids won't touch it. I don't blame them! I can't think of anything more booooring than cramming for something as worthless as a standard test (except actually taking one, that is)! I took the GREs in the Fall of '85. I hadn't taken anything like that since my (gag) SATs in '67, so I thought it might be prudent to brush up on my test-taking skills first. I tend to do well on such tests, but nevertheless couldn't believe what drudgery preparing for them can be! I feel extremely sympathetic toward any high-school kid who has to go through it (especially if s/he isn't a natural-born test taker) - particularly when you consider the peer pressure on him/her (negligible on an adult taking the GREs mostly as a formality). >> ....... (she took the PSAT and didn't do too well considering her >> grades) > >Maybe I full of beans - but how can you effectively study for an >Aptitude test? Oh sure, you could become more comfortable with the >"style" and format of the test, but improving your aptitude ?? The myth that the SATs had anything to do with "aptitude" (and that any attempts at studying for them were therefore futile) was perpetuated on generations of gullible high school students. Nowadays kids (and parents) are too hip to swallow the ETS party line; they know damn well that the SATs can't hope to measure anything other than test-taking ability, and therefore invest considerable time (and money) improving that. (I suspect that that has a *lot* to do with the much-vaunted recent jump in SAT scores.) > >You have noticed a phenomenon which has bothered admissions counselors >for years (I have been on an admissions council) - Grades are almost >completely UNCORRELATED with the SAT! Plenty of good grade earners >are just that - and plenty of poor grade earners have lots of >(un-used) aptitude. There were studies *twenty years ago* which proved *exactly* what you pointed out above, and in fact found no meaningful correlation between SAT scores and anything other than 1) parental education and 2) parental income. So why do admissions councils use them? Well, they *do* give Prestige U. a ready- made rationalization for limiting the number of hoi polloi admitted to their hallowed halls: "Oh, we'd *looooove* to admit more applicants from {ethnic| working-class|non-college} backgrounds - we just cawn't find [piously intoned] *qualified* ones! Why, just *look* at their SATs!" >The SAT attempts to measure the applicants ability to reason, and >utilize existing knowledge - I would be very skeptical of anything >which claimed to be very effective in raising SAT scores - short of >a good long school career! Replace "attempts" with "pretends" in the above statement, and you'll be a lot closer to reality. The fact is that the SATs are a test just like any other, and can be prepared for in much the same manner: taking sample tests to acclimatize to the test format and identify problem areas for further practice, plus (in this case) attention to the mechanics of test-taking (allocation of time, avoiding traps set for the unwary, guessing more effectively by weeding out obvious wrong responses, etc.). That's basically what I did when preparing for the aforementioned GRE's, and I raised my scores from high-600s on the first practice test I took to 780V/790Q/780A on the real thing. The above is also what J. Richkid III's parents pay $200 to Stan Kaplan (group instruction) or $500 to Princeton Review (private cram course) for, and by all indications they're getting their money's worth. (As the SK/PR ads say, "Better SATs mean better colleges!") Of course, Joe Poorkid could probably do the same thing himself with a good $10 cram guide (to PR's credit, they do publish one), but chances are that *his* parents would balk at spending even that! AWR PS: I saw an ad in a New York Times college supplement a year or so ago: "Former Ivy League admissions councillor will review your son or daughter's college application." For about $1K, as I understand. What next - "ETS data entry clerk will review your son or daughter's answers to the SATs"???
goldy@think.UUCP (03/22/87)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.att,misc.kids Subject: Re: SAT Practice Software Recommendations? Summary: Expires: References: <865@mtunb.UUCP> <343@houxa.UUCP> <2189@calmasd.GE.COM> Sender: Reply-To: goldy@godot.think.com.UUCP (Steve Goldhaber) Followup-To: Distribution: na Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA Keywords: In article <2189@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >In article <343@houxa.UUCP>, mel1@houxa.UUCP (M.HAAS) writes: > >> ..... >> ....... (she took the PSAT and didn't do too well considering her >> grades) > >Maybe I full of beans - but how can you effectively study for an >Aptitude test? Oh sure, you could become more comfortable with the >"style" and format of the test, but improving your aptitude ?? > > ....... > >The SAT attempts to measure the applicants ability to reason, and ~~~~~~~~ >utilize existing knowlege - I would be very skeptical of anything >which claimed to be very effective in raising SAT scores - short of >a good long school carreer! > Just because the SAT people tell us they are giving our kids an aptitude test doesn't mean it *is* one. Everyone I know who studied for SAT type tests was able to raise their scores significantly. For instance, I took one test (many years ago) and scored in the 49th percentile. I went home, studied the study book, retook the test and got in the 95th percentile. These tests (the SAT in particular) don't test aptitude, they measure your ability to take SAT type tests. You *can* study for them. - Steve Goldhaber; Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA +1 617-876-1111 goldy@think.com, seismo!think!goldy, ihnp4!think!goldy "Life's a bitch, then you die."
flowers@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/24/87)
No, it's not software, but I've seen a Trivial Pursuit type game called "College Pursuit" intended for SAT preparation. Might be more enjoyable in that format that in a drill-and-test program.
jnp@calmasd.UUCP (03/24/87)
In article <512@thumper.UUCP>, tr@thumper.UUCP writes: > > Hasn't it been shown that taking a class, such as Stanley Kaplan's, > can significantly raise your score? No. It can - in most cases - improve your score, but even Kaplan doesn't claim a "significant" raise in the score. > Hasn't it been shown that SAT's, like IQ tests, are biased ..... Only to the extent that any written test, given by the mainstream academic community is. In fact - mainstream academia is where the SAT's are used for credentials. > Don't these "aptitude" tests test the ability to take these tests more > than anything else? No. Given the above limitations they actually have a very good correlation with success in college; little if any of which is taking SAT-style tests. Of course I may still be full of beans - but this has been my experience over the course of 10 years of pre-college admissions consulting. Take the PSAT for practice - then the SAT. Cheaper than sitting through a course which can't teach you - if you can't teach yourself from a book on the subject. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM
maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (03/24/87)
John, what the SATs really measure is (1) general level of academic knowledge (i.e. FACTS ONLY) (2) aptitude for taking multiple choice tests like the SAT. Not much anyone can do about (1), but a fair amount you can do about (2) if you've psyched out the tests, which the Princeton Review and some other folks have done. If you know how the test WORKS, you can do lots better than if you don't. No, you won't go from a 600 to an 800, but you might go from a 600 to a 700, depending on how the scores for your particular session go. Honest, there are lots of wierd things about the SAT. First of all, the questions go from easy to hard in a section. Second, there are some standard "types" of questions that you can learn formulas for answering, etc. Valerie Maslak
jlw@io.UUCP (03/25/87)
My contribution to the comments about the SATs is that practice testing testing can only improve your skills to a certain level. Being nervous, upset, sick, or unpracticed in that type of test taking can only lower your scores. BTW my authority for the following is my wife who is a ten year ETS veteran. Every standardized test from ETS contains some questions which are not scored. These questions are test questions which may or may not appear on future tests. They are being calibrated against the test being administered and the demographics of the people taking the test. Those of you unfamiliar with ETS may be surprized to learn that less than 50% of its revenues come from administering the SATs for the CEEB (College Entrance Examination Board). Most of ETS's revenue comes from administering tests for Real Estate, Insurance, Stock Brokerage Certification, etc. My wife was involved in the development (by an outside shop) of a neat little gadget called Keyway. Its a battery operated microprocessor box with a removable encoded BBU RAM CART. The box, about 4" by 6", has an LCD display and a membrane keypad. First you answer a lot of questions about yourself SSN, TESTID, etc. Then you take the test. The form of the answers is for question 37 the answer is D. Standard multiple-choice type encoding with the box having no knowledge of the test. The questions are on paper. After you have completed the test you give your plug-in cart to the test administrator who plugs it into a PC which grades your test on-the-spot. Scores are shipped back to ETS in duplicate by alternate routes for official scoring. On problem encountered in this type of testing is that they have a lot of walk-ons. These people pay by check or credit card and then, if they don't like their scores, cancel the check or charge. Another thing on the standardized testing horizon is a system developed at ETS called CAT. This stands for Computerized Adaptive Testing. The claim is that within 23 questions they can get as good a result as with the full SAT type test. The method is that each response leads to a a separate sub-tree of new questions. The problem is that new questions cannot be easily hidden in the real questions. This is the only reason why the SAT doesn't take a half-hour or less. Joseph L. Wood, III AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Middletown (201) 957-5475 ariel!jlw
tr@thumper.UUCP (03/26/87)
[] There is another interesting point to be made. Some students score higher on their Acheivement tests than on their Aptitue tests. If they are scored the same way (if that's possible), then their aptitude is supposed to be higher than their achievements! How well does this speak for these exams?!?!?! -- Tom Reingold Internet: tr@bellcore.com Uucp: ..!allegra!ulysses!faline!flash!tr