Yeah, they got rid of all those blank are to blank questions, now, though. Honestly, I would more argue that Americ has racist educational instutions to explain the gap; here in Colorado, minority students do worse on the CSAP and other such statewide standardized tests, true, but if one looks at all the tables, the real difference is in proportion to free lunch percentages. Simply put, poor areas do not attract good teachers, at least not nearly so much as do wealtheir ones, and poor parents rarely have time to go in and argue on behalf of their child, as wealthier “helicopter parents” are so fond of doing, which can become quite important in getting children into better classes and dealing with any learning disabilities they may possess. At DSA, The Devner School of Internation Studies, and other such magnets, the rich-poor standardized test divide (and the minority one, as well) is much smaller, as they are magnet schools, thereby allowing poorer students to go to a school with better teachers and better facilities that will provide a superior educational environment. Of course, that’s hardly an ideal solution, as those schools can take only so many students, and it’s difficult to pay for the lessons to get into many artistic majours while on a low income.
For the most part, the Southwest doesn’t, either. Our student advisors actually reccomended against taking it. I took it anyway, but nonetheless, it’s very uncommon over here.
Isn’t that below the minimum? Or is it possible to score lower than the minimum and they just count it as the minimum, like on AP exams?
The 984 score was for 2002-2003. That’s on the old 1600 scale where the minimum was 800. The current minimum would be 1200, so a comparable score on it would be 1476, I believe.
I disagree STRONGLY that wealthy parents deal substantially better with any disability. The only advantage they have over poor parents is that they can throw money in the vain and laughable hope that it will help their child.
No, they won’t actually help, but they’re more likely to go in and threaten to sue and generally bitch until their child is allowed to take an SAT with no time limit, on computer instead of paper, or other such mitigating factours for their learning disability. They also have the money (and ability to get time off work) to see specialists and get even an inaccurate diagnosis to make those threats and bitching “valid” to the school district to approve the altered test.
“Dealing with” was perhaps not the ideal phrasing. I meant they made tests (and school in general) easier for children with such problems by avoiding situations where they actually have to deal with such problems.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean. If the kid doesn’t really have a disability of any sort, but is said to have one, the SAT will still be much easier without time limits; it would be easier that way for anyone. If you mean that wouldn’t apply to all the children of wealthier parents, true, but it’s just one more advantage wealth might give.
Arac has a point about the “disability advantage” and the fact that you can buy it. My aunt is a special ed. teacher at a suburban school. She diagnosed someone with a “slow reading” mental disability, which qualified him to take the SAT untimed. He spent the whole day (more or less) taking the test, got a fairly good score, and went to a good college.
My question: why him? The timed SAT takes into account that, if you read and think slowly, you’ll have a hard time with college exams, being called on in class, and reacting on the spot to work-related issues. Maybe his genetics are at fault; so what? If he’s got a bad mind now, he’ll have a bad mind five years from now. Employers don’t care whether your slowness is <i>something special</i>. Why should the SAT? Or, to put it differently, anyone can solve a problem. Intelligence and success lie in solving it before others. So what good’s an SAT that doesn’t simulate that part of real life?
I prefer a more laissez-faire approach to college admissions tests: no giving advantages, no giving disadvantages, and (as much as possible) no knowledge-based questions. [Edit: Of course, there are excellent reasons for knowledge-based questions on graduate school tests.]
The extreme subjectivity and lack of transparency to the diagnosis of a plethora of childhood (inexistent) psychological “disorders”, not to mention the sheer insanity that is the so called treatment to these problems whose existence is highly debatable, makes it such that giving people an edge when taking a test like this is utterly absurd. That’s in addition to the relevance of giving these people extensions considering how either they’ll get fucked in college or in the workforce, as Xwing hinted.
I’ll take Xwing’s example because it fits my point so nicely. He says someone as unqualified as a special ed teacher made a clinical diagnosis for a disorder called slow reading. Firstly, as far as I’m aware, special teachers in high schools are not trained or certified to make these kinds of decisions, esp not on a nationally regulated basis. If those problems even existed (which sadly many people think they do), then its my idiot peers who make these decisions. Secondly, calling slow reading a diagnosis is utterly meaningless. In fact, its not a diagnosis. It is a description of that person’s capabilities, making this special treatment even more ridiculous.
The problem with psychology is that it addresses everything mentally like medicine treats biologically. If something is abnormal , there are people that attempt to reset it to the norm. There is a subjective and inconsistent perception of what the normal homeostatic mental state should be and deviations from that subjective norm are normalized, usually pharmacologically. What happened with the SAT and the time extension is the kind of garbage that is linked to that perception of mental health. Because he is abnormal, for reasons that we can’t discuss for lack of details (even if it is a common occurence) he is given special privileges, which is absurd for reasons already stated.
Ultimately, it all comes down to people not wanting to acknowledge the truth. Their son or daughter is inferior; mommy and daddy don’t want to accept it, accept their progeny’s place in the world, accept the fact that not everyone is born or raised equal or that they have to taper some of the hopes and dreams they deluded themselves into having as they lived in denial while their son progressively fell further back in a school system that refuses to enforce failures.
… anyway, Crotanks, if you’re not picking a highly specialized field, choose a course of study that you can excel in as much as possible. Despite what they’ll say, most grad school or university-hiring employers will look at your GPA and Class Rank before anything else. Curtis is right on point.
if you’re going for something really specialized (like med school or being a plumber … something like that), then you don’t have as many choices of courses, so make sure you can handle whatever it involves. If you’re thinking about law school, LSAT >>>>>>> GPA/Rank/major/anything else.
lastly, if you are thinking about doing some sort of above-college schooling, definitely take 1 or 2 years off first.
Did anyone else envision a helicopter that transformed into a soccer mom when they read “helicopter parents”? That’s seriously the coolest thought I’ve had all week. :hahaha;
Sin: Yeah, that’s essentially what I was saying (although, some “learning disabilities,” such as Visual/Motor Syndrome, can be observed and treated biologically, and I tend to avoid viewing people as “superior” and “inferior” because there are far too many subjective criteria for the quality of a human being); learning disabilities are a way for wealthier parents to buy slow-working children out of a hard test.
Merl: The only exception to the LSAT rule is schools with preferred admissions/3-and-3 programs, wherein one’s stellar performance within a school itself allows them to enter the law school without taking the LSAT at all. This isn’t very common, and won’t really apply to this specific instance as a result, but a few schools have it and it’s a good enough thing to be worth noting. Vanderbilt and Tulane are the only ones I can remember that I know have it, just off the top of my head.
During Law Day at U of Michigan, I asked fifteen admissions officers from different schools whether they rated the LSAT or GPA more highly. Two said GPA: Duke and (I believe) Boston College. About five said they regarded both equally, or gave BS answers about proceeding on a “case-by case” basis. The rest – including all the top ten law schools present – said the LSAT. So, in 13/15 cases, the LSAT is <i>at least</i> as important as your undergraduate career. <i>Buy a study guide and use it.</i>
Take this with one grain of salt: Most schools have a rough range of “acceptable” GPAs, and if you fall outside that range, your LSAT probably won’t be enough to get you in.
Oh, yeah, most Law Schools rate the LSAT as more important, for those looking for regular admission. Like I said, I was mostly talking about relatively rare 3-and-3 or similar advanced-admission programs, where students from the university may be admitted to its law school early with excellent grades and by generally standing out within their institution.
On the contrary, now it’s your turn to write a mini-essay on getting into med school. Then SK and RPT will write about the academic graduate admissions process; Infonick, Rast, etc. will list the educational benefits of joining the military; and things will conclude as GAP laments the creative writing major.
I’m one of the worst people you could possibly ask about Med School. I have very effective rants against it and have actually been able to make people cross over. What I would do is discuss the benefits of going into research and how it is the best thing in the world. There’s nothing easier than getting into research. The hard part is getting into a good lab doing something you like. Before we even get near that, Cro would have to actually start taking some rigorous science classes and I already know he doesn’t like those very much. This thread is about talking about what he can do in order to get some money so he can go to school. The first thing he needs to do is figure out what he wants to do in what school. Once that is done, it’ll be clearer as to how he’s going to get funds. Different schools will have different opportunities for financial aid. Some schools and some states are better off than others. On top of that, they might attach some strings, like you might not be able to live at home while you collect money, which I think would be a good thing so he can learn more about life and disconnect himself from his umbilical cord. I’m not familiar with how things work in Kentucky , so I don’t know if they have effective forms of aid like California and apparently Georgia, but that is something which the financial aid office or a high school guidance counselor should be able to help you with. One’s major, aspirations and grades also play important roles in how much help one might be getting, so if I were Cro, I wouldn’t just be taking fluffy bs classes that lead nowhere because it just sounds dandy.
There isn’t a decent school without a financial aid office out there to help you with. Be sure to research where you wanna go. Schools are very different from one another AND so are States in terms of what they offer. You will enjoy university A LOT more if you like where you’re at , what’s offerered, what the campus atmosphere is like, etc. Keep in mind also that if you go to the nearest piece of crap community college to save a few bucks (and you WILL), you will be able to get some of the credits for general education classes. From there on, you can transfer to a good 4 year university and it will NOT have mattered where you did your other stuff because you’ll be getting a degree from the good university. You really need to ask yourself if you want to stay that near to your mom though. Big universities = big bucks. Community colleges = cheapies. Be smart about how you spend your money since you don’t have a lot to go around. There is 1 big caveat: watch out what you take because not all classes transfer easily. When you take classes, figure out if you’re going to need to repeat it once you get out or not.
My big point is: get out there and fucking talk to people at different colleges. See if you can take tours. Ask what they have to offer. Ask yourself if you want to stay in Kentucky since hate it so much and what the pros and cons are of staying vs leaving, then ask yourself where you can go and what you can do elsewhere.
When you’re in college and you’ll have half figured out what major you want, then you’ll have different paths avaialble to you to get some experience and know if you want to do x job or y job. Like in biology, you do medical volunteering and undergraduate research to get a feel for those fields. When you want to go to law school, you try to get a spot in a given law office doing something hopefully you find interesting. Etc. But this is all once you’re in and the ball is rolling. For now, you have more basic questions: what and where.
Speaking as someone who is currently scrambling to get the money for college, I can actually speak a grip on financial aid.
Apply for fucking everything you can. Go to a library, and photocopy the living hell out of a book that lists scholarships. Everyone you can apply to, apply to. If it’s a visual art product and you can’t draw, do something abstract and hope they’re pretentious enough to go for it. As long as you don’t have to pay, you really cannot lose money.
Secondly, look into what your state has, like Sin said. If you do want to go to a Kentucky school, there’s a good chance there are some Kentucky-only scholarships you can apply for. While they might not be for the huge money national ones are, there’s one hell of a lot smaller pool of applicants. Second, you may get some stipends and whatnot just from living in state. Your tuition to public Kentucky schools will certainly be lower than elsewhere.
I can answer other, specific questions. Though some things I’m not in the realm of normal experience on.
Keep in mind also that if you go to the nearest piece of crap community college to save a few bucks (and you WILL), you will be able to get some of the credits for general education classes
Yep. I actually did this for a few of my gen ed courses. Only drawback to this is sometimes the teaching is very poor; but on the same hand the grading is also extremely easy at these places. Course your college will not factor those grades into your GPA; but you will save a lot of money(usually community college courses are 300-500 dollars apiece).
I’m not sure that it’s relevant to the topic at hand, but if you’re asking, I can say that one’s background is much more important than standardized tests in that process. They expect you to take the GREs, usually, but even a perfect score doesn’t give you so much. It’s much more important to have taken certain kinds of classes, for example advanced mathematics for scientific fields, and to have good recommendations from the people who taught them.