the Sam Jackson College Experience

One of the most popular posts ever written for this blog was the one in which I wrote about the finer details within the 2006 Senior SAT College Board data. In a way, I am very much a beneficiary of the same standardized-testing and college admissions stresses which I rail against. However, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try to provide clear and accessible information about the 2007 Senior SAT data–information which will help de-stress applicants, hopefully, and also raise awareness of some of the ways in which the SAT is biased and why we should think twice before judging people on their SAT scores.

I’m going to break it up into a few posts, starting with this one about some general data for the SAT I: Reasoning, with another on percentiles and more detailed demographics, and one more about the SAT II subject tests.

There’s a lot of information in the total national report to cover, so I’ll start with the big picture and hit the most important tables. If you’re interested in the whole report, it’s worth checking out. I aim to give a narrative overview of what is going on in all the most important tables of that 18 page document, so if you don’t want to stare at numbers but want to know what’s going on… keep reading. Numbers given are in Critical Reading / Mathematics / Writing , or complete SAT I reasoning composite score out of 2400 maximum.

The College Board says this data can be used to

• interpret scores of individual students within the broader context of data aggregated across groups of collegebound seniors;
• study changes over time in the characteristics of students taking SAT tests; and
• look at year-to-year educational and demographic changes in this population, along with changes in test performance.

So let’s do the last two, and individual readers can do the first with their own scores or whoever’s scores they happen to have handy, if they want.

First things first–scores dropped for the second year in a row. These scores are “within the expected range” over the long term, but this continues the trend seen with the introduction of the “new” SAT last year. What does it mean? Nothing that should matter on an individual level–the test, in its new longer and more expensive format, is unlikely to change again any time too soon.

Of the 1,494,531 people who took the SAT, with an average composite score of 1511 (502 Critical Reading, 515 Mathematics, and 494 Writing), 53% were female and 46% were male; this mirrors results from last year. The score comparison is, for CR / M / W, Male v. Female, 1526 (504 / 533 / 489) v. 1501 (502 / 499 / 500): a total score difference of just 25 points, in favor of guys. Last year, the difference was… 26 points. You see where this trend is going? Females were helped, once again, by the 11 point writing section advantage in the new SAT, which held steady from last year.

Here’s some correlational information which I find especially interesting: breakdowns of who took the test when. The College Board tracks people over their high school years and indicates if they most recently took the test in Senior, Junior, Sophomore, or Freshman year. Of the graduating class of 2007, 1,001,667 took the test their senior year (either only, or most recently, as an additional sitting). 485,401 took it their junior year, and from there it trickles down with 6339 / 1124 for 10th and 9th grade, respectively. Now, the scores from these sittings? Freshman fare worst overall, and they don’t have writing scores to compare since it wasn’t around for them, but still manage a 1 pt increase over seniors in mathematics. People who only take the test their senior year are the next worse, with 493 / 505 / 486 for a composite score of 1484. Followed by, shocker here, juniors! Who go 522 / 534 / 511 for a total composite of 1567. The best scoring group are those who take the test only in their sophomore year, and their mean score is 1603 (526 / 549 / 528).

Lastly for today, a few Fun Facts, a preview of the percentiles and demographics data to come in the next post in this series:

• Of the 9% of test takers for whom English is not their first language learned (reporting), there was a 7 point mean increase on the math section, while there was a 32 point decline in the critical reading and 24 point decline on average in the writing section.
• 22% of test-takers say they don’t plan to apply for financial aid. (Why not? Lot’s of reasons, but a lot of those numbers probably should be applying, I bet!)
• Those students with coursework or experience in Italian did worst on the math section of all languages polled, with a mean score of 509–lower even than the dismal performances of “other languages.”

Look forward to more to come! Just didn’t want to overload people with too many numbers and too much text all in one place. Enjoy!

Hey all,

Midterms have consumed my life for the last couple weeks, and continue to do so, but as soon as I finish writing some papers I will be taking a train to New York for the College Board forum, where I am doing a little presentation on Saturday! Come visit me if you are there, Matt McGann (of MIT) and I will make sure it’s worth your time. I’m missing the first two days because of classes / other obligations, but hey, fun all the same. Give a call, e-mail, or carrier pigeon and say hello if you’re there. More updates when I get back.

Sorry to have been out of the loop, it’s just midterm season here. I have been doing some other writing, though (and feel a little like I’m cheating on my blog-readers as a result) and thought I would share it to tide you over for a little bit.

My column in the Yale Herald is about ‘things that outrage me’ and is titled ‘Snakes on a What?!’ : )

The first, “Definition of rape eludes Ivy League students” is exactly what it sounds like. Here’s an excerpt:

The Yale College Class of 2011 doesn’t know what rape is. Not all 1,322 of us are completely ignorant, mind you, but a disturbing number seem to be out of the loop. During the orientation program Sex Signals, a scenario played out where the actors indicated to the audience several times that consent was lacking in a sexual encounter. When asked if we thought that a rape had been committed, the barest sprinkling of hands went up. Men and women alike rose to defend the actions of the character accused of rape, arguing that the ambiguity of the situation precipitated the rape. From a legal standpoint, there could be no question in this (admittedly fictional) case—rape had taken place. But every single Sex Signals group failed to recognize a problem with the lack of consent. This graphic failure of the newest inductees into the Yale community to collectively identify a crime is deeply troubling, but it hasn’t provoked in most of us the lingering shock which compels me to write this column now. Why hasn’t it?

The second is more lighthearted, titled “A plateful of grapes makes the long nights go by.” This one is perhaps more topical to the blog and touches back on my thoughts on the esthetic of schools and admissions offices from a few weeks ago. Excerpt below:

A bowl of grapes in the Pierson dining hall convinced me to come to Yale. The admissions office would no doubt like to know the secret of these grapes—their dark magic, and how they might harness it—but truth be told, it’s all very straightforward. My love of fruit compelled me. Visiting a school far from Napa in late fall only to find that, wonder of wonders, grapes were abundant in the dining halls, I was powerless to resist.

So… have a look, let me know what you think! I will be at the College Board forum in New York later this week (I have a little presentation on Saturday) so I am dying as I try to get everything done before I go. Hopefully I’ll see some of you readers there!

Just a quick mention to get out this scary / funny word out: Our friends at ePrep wrote way back in February that SAT tests were being recycled, and no, I don’t mean the paper. FairTest Examiner wrote in April about the same issue:

The College Board cancelled the January 28, 2007 SAT scores of 900 Koreans because some students previously had access to the questions. The reason test items circulated in advance is that the exam was identical to the SAT administered in December 2005.

 

Though the December 2005 SAT was not made public under “Truth in Testing” provisions, which apply to questions and answers from only four of the seven SAT administrations each year, students post items from every exam on the Internet. In addition, some coaching schools have run sophisticated operations to collect entire exams, either by sending in teams of test-takers to memorize the exam or by obtaining entire forms.

 

The College Board offered no reason to believe that the prior-exposure problem was confined to one Asian nation.

Other thoughts: it must suck to be one of those test-question memorizers. I tend to remember the ones I think I missed, which haunt me until I get my scores… at which point they continue to haunt me.

Wait, it gets better. The College Board explanation for the repeated test?

The College Board, which owns the SAT, and its contractor, the Educational Testing Service, justified the test recycling practice by claiming that it costs “probably $350,000″ to create each new exam. But 326,000 students took the January SAT, paying a base registration fee of $41.50. That means test-makers took in more than $13 million at this administration. Given that huge revenue stream and the fat surpluses historically enjoyed by the College Board and ETS), the companies had no credible financial excuse for cutting corners.

The lesson from all this? Taking those practice tests could be even better than you first expected!

Oh, by the way, that official online College Board SAT prep course is still 100% free, check out my post on it from last year.

I was looking through my folder of old posts and I saw one from ePrep mentioning some Senate pressure last December for the ACT. I had a very interesting discussion about the SAT with some midwestern readers last year, and I thought I would just make a quick post for the record to explain why I never took the ACT.

There are two reasons I didn’t take the ACT, aside from its lack of trendiness here in the Northeast.

• Reason number one is that I had good SAT scores in hand by the time I had the opportunity to ever sit for the ACT.
• Reason number two is that although looking at practice books made the ACT look like a better and more fun test than the SAT, it was almost impossible to take from my then-HQ in Exeter, NH. There were one or two changes to take the ACT throughout the entire year–and both meant getting up around 4:30 and driving to Maine. I don’t know how bad the situation is back home around Boston, but the unavailability of testing centers in the Northeast scuttled my desire to take the ACT.

Now you know!