|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SAT article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|SAT is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for SAT:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 23, 2013 and June 23, 2014.|
- 1 Added content
- 2 New SAT
- 3 English SATs
- 4 2006 SAT Scoring error
- 5 Incorrect?
- 6 University of California's conversion chart
- 7 ETS
- 8 References no longer have good links
- 9 Name of the test and article title
- 10 RM
- 11 Section on "1980 test and associated changes"
- 12 How crucial is test prep to this article? What do reliable sources say?
I added some more content. Stuff someone should add soon:
- links to more statistics
- sample questions
- comparision with PSAT, etc
Also, I feel there should be a rebuttal of some of the criticism (for example, IIRC, Asians score slightly higher than whites on the test) but I'm unsure how to do this in a NPOV style.
I keep switching the "five column grid" phrase in the SAT Reasoning Test section to "four column grid," because that's what actually is. I have proof: [[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/prep_one/spr/prac/prac01.html SAT Student-Produced Responses]] Whoever is switching it back should stop.
- Hm. Sorry, for some reason I kept thinking you were changing the one referring to the usual five-column grid. Hope you weren't discouraged or anything. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What are the SAT subject tests (SAT II) for?
What is a perfect score on the SAT I? \
Hi I'm new here... I have an idea though. Maybe the bit about the Asians scoring slightly higher than white should be taken off of here. That's ethnocentrism/prejudice. Thanks!
Oh and sorry I don't have any info on the SAT s but I will take them soon
OK, since the New SAT has officially been administered for the first time (I took it yesterday, yay!), I think it's time to update the information to reflect this as the primary area of information (currently, it pretty much sums up the old version and then briefly comments on the new one). Any objections?--User:naryathegreat(t) 20:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I support this move. We shouldn't remove info on the old version, though; just add more on the new one. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, there is some information on the disambiguation page. Still, maybe it should be more prominent?
I don't even see a disambiguation page? Can someone re-add this ASAP.
2006 SAT Scoring error
I added the news about the error under the history section, but it could probably be added to a different part, or maybe be made into a new section. I'm not sure if I put it in the best place. If anyone wants to do anything about it, here's a news article with some of the information:
- "The "old" SAT had an incredibly high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. If one makes the reasonable assumption that all of the very brightest people in that U.S. age group, which numbers 3 million, took the test, then a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand., equivalent to the 99.9997 percentile. "
The source that is cited here refers to the SAT before what is now know known as the "old" SAT...the one that was replaced in 1995. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to affirm about either the pre- or post-1995 test the claim that "a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand." Deleted the section.
- I don't see how this claim (7 in a million to get 1580) could be possibly be correct. A friend took it in 1977 and got 1590. I met or heard of several people with similar or better. To me this speaks of 1 in 900 or 1 in 5000, not 1 in 100,000. Otherwise where did all the super smart people of these generations come from? It wasn't just some pathetic coterie of 7 people, but thousands and tens of thousands. (The friend is a professor of math at a top place, but as I said, there are thousands and tens of thousands.)
University of California's conversion chart
This conversion chart either has changed or is flawed. They do not use the composite for the ACT instead, "[T]he University multiplies the sum of your converted math, reading and science scores by two-thirds, then adds the converted English/writing score." the article is misleading. I would use the one by The Princeton Review found here . Zginder 2008-04-17T22:10Z (UTC)
I think the first few lines are misleading or at best confusing. My understanding is the College Board now owns the test and therefore helps shape it, but ETS still writes the tests as well as administering it. That's what they do---develop "fair" standardized tests. The college board never "took over" the test from ETS. The universities who were members of the College Board (and others followed the example) began adopting the SAT as an admission test before ETS came into being. If anything, ETS took the test over from the College Board after it was created. http://www.ets.org/about/who/ http://about.collegeboard.org/history I'm writing an informational college paper over the test, BTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antigone75 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Antigone75 is correct. The SAT has always been owned by the College Board; ownership was never transferred to ETS. The ETS was formed in 1947, 21 years after the SAT was first administered, to handle the ever-increasing volume of standardized tests including the SAT. According to ets.org, "ETS develops and administers the SAT®, the Advanced Placement Program® Exams and other programs on behalf of the College Board. The College Board sponsors these testing programs and decides how they will be constructed, administered and used." So the second paragraph has incorrect information and is inconsistent with the entry for ETS. Erjwiki (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Along these lines of the above, unless there are objections, I'd like to change the second paragraph to read: "The SAT is owned and published by the College Board, a private, nonprofit organization in the United States. It is developed and administered on behalf of the College Board by the Educational Testing Service. (Reference will be: "Frequently Asked Questions About ETS". ETS. Retrieved 2014-06-06.) The test is intended to assess a student's readiness for college." Note that the reference given in the current version of this paragraph is no longer relevant. Erjwiki (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Please could somebody help improve and update the following references (or the URL's within them, they no longer work): 28. "2010 SAT Trends". The College Board. 2010. and 38. "Chapter 12: Improving Paragraphs". The Official SAT Study Guide (Second ed.). The College Board. 2009. p. 169. ISBN 978-0-87447-852-5
the first (28) I cannot find because the URL doesn't work, nor can I find the other (38) anywhere.
Any help would be appreciated, I need these references for an article and I can't trace how the original wiki-editor found them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Searching the College Board website for the SAT national report will find some of those links; others were copyright violations and should never have been posted here in the first place. Almost any local public high school counseling office will have the printed materials about the SAT at hand. For more background, see the Intelligence Citations bibliography here on Wikipedia. Good luck with your article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Name of the test and article title
Recently (since Google last cached them) most of the references to "SAT Reasoning Test" on collegeboard.org seem to have been changed simply to "SAT Test". Should this be reflected in the article and/or the title of the article? -- Erjwiki (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, most of the College Board pages just call it "SAT." I will be bold and do an article rename based on the latest authoritative source, as soon as I have checked what that will do to redirect pages. Thanks for your attention to detail. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Section on "1980 test and associated changes"
This paragraph (about the "strivers" project) has no sources and I can't seem to verify any of it. Some quick research shows that there was in fact a "strivers" program, which the Wall Street Journal reported on August 31, 1999, several years after this paragraph suggests. The origins of the program seem to date to the early 1990s. For example, see: here, here, and here. Should this paragraph be deleted? Erjwiki (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The text in the section above was added more than 6 years ago, so a "citation needed" at this point doesn't seem useful. Unless there are objections, I'm going to delete this subsection within the next few days.Erjwiki (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
How crucial is test prep to this article? What do reliable sources say?
I see a lot of advertising claims about the effectiveness of test prep in the article that are not backed up by reliable sources. Let's discuss this. Who has scholarly sources to suggest on this topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Not backed up by reliable sources"? Reliable sources are not, nor have they ever been limited to scholarly articles. Rather than call these people liars, a neutral point of view must be preserved on the page by presenting the various different viewpoints. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources --TDJankins (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- While a Preparation section is useful in general, the recent additions of specific test prep claims (in this article, and in others like GMAT ) is problematic to me. First, I don't know of any third-party reliable sources that have examined specific test prep claims, and thus mentioning specific claims from companies seems more like advertising than fact. Second, including these specific claims seems like a slippery slope where sooner or later every testing company has a basis for inclusion if they publish a score increase claim. Given that it can be extremely difficult to determine what's legitimate, the better approach seems to be having a broad overview of the study options (course, tutor, etc) instead of a rundown of specific companies or claims. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- In regards to whether a citation is being used to evidence test prep effectiveness or being used for advertising, all one need do to discern that is read the passage in question. You "don't know of any third-party reliable sources that have examined specific test prep claims." Do you know of any third parties that have examined all of the claims made by the test owning company? Should we have to have every single claim made by the test owning company examined by third party sources in order for them to be included on the page? Again, I don't think it's appropriate to call any of these people liars. The appropriate thing to do is to represent each of the major varying viewpoints in order to preserve the page's neutral point of view.--TDJankins (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is a topic I have read much about. Actually, there is considerably research evidence on the (lack of) test-prep effectiveness, and I know research psychologists who conduct some of that research and summarize the overall research in authoritative textbooks and practitioner handbooks for psychologists and college admission officers. So the claims about test prep in the article caught my eye, because by the Wikipedia verifiability policy, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, and by the content guidelines on reliable sources claims by people about themselves come into Wikipedia only if the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Without a doubt, the overall industry of test preparation is a topic that fits the main topic of this article. And without a doubt, some statements about test-prep-as-such belong in the article as long as the statements can be sourced to reliable sources. We are still in discussion here about what due weight is on the topic of test prep when the overall article is about the SAT test, and where to look for reliable sources the phenomenon of test prep. I suggest checking the user bibliograpy I've just been updating today for some helpful sources on several topics related to this article. Thanks for joining the discussion. (P.S. Please don't refer to editing that examines a source by reading the source and then updates article text to fit what the source says and what Wikipedia policy requires "destructive editing." That's just the kind of editing that happens to any professionally edited reference book, and it violates the editor conduct guideline assume good faith to call "destructive" what another editor might reasonably deem, on the basis of reliable sources, to be constructive editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
As it appears that my recent addition of the CNN article is what stirred up the repeated destructive editing, I will revert the page to the version prior to that in order for the page to maintain a neutral point of view.--TDJankins (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if test prep is exactly crucial to the article, but the effectiveness of coaching for standardized tests is certainly inextricable from the history of the SAT, from the College Board's "Effects of Coaching on Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores" (1965) to the FTC and Kaplan (1978), to today's test prep claims. I'd like to see more third-party viewpoints (not from the ETS, College Board, or test prep companies) in either this section or in the history section. Some good sources for this (to name two on somewhat different "sides") are "None of the Above", Chapter 6, David Owen, 1999, and "SAT Coaching, Bias and Causal Inference", Briggs, 2002. (The latter, a dissertation, is particularly useful for a compilation of references and studies, and can be easily found on the Internet.) Erjwiki (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
If you don't mind me responding to comments directed at me above, let's not make a straw man here. I never stated or "call[ed] any of these people liars." And, if an opinion were to be included, I think it helps if it comes either from a reliable source, or at least a company deemed notable. All that aside, while studies have been done about general test prep effectiveness overall, in my comment I was referring to the recent examination of specific claims by a specific company (as in, "company X increases scores by Y points") as that is what was added to this article (and others) originally. I still maintain that general commentary on test preparation is relevant to this article, but should only be a minor section. That is consistent with multiple viewpoints as well as neutrality. Cheers! Transmissionelement (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Transmissionelement. I'm not saying that you called anyone a liar, I'm saying it's not our place to speculate. And it doesn't matter anyways; when the context is "test prep companies have boasted higher results," a boast directly from a test prep company is a very reliable source.--TDJankins (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)