The College Board, the company that produces and distributes the SAT, knows its tests are not kind to the poor, or to minorities.
“We need to get rid of the sense of mystery and dismantle the advantages that people perceive in using costly test preparation,” David Coleman, the College Board president, told a crowd at the SXSW Conference on Wednesday, where he announced significant changes to the test’s format.
“Too many feel that the prevalence of test prep and expensive coaching reinforces privilege rather than merit,” he said.
SAT test prep can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. But the students who can least afford the help are the ones who would benefit the most from it. The chart below (via Fair Test, a standardized testing watchdog group), shows clearly that as family income increases, so do scores on the exam. Between the poorest and richest students, there’s a 400-point gap.
The new test, to be first administered in 2016, is designed to reflect more classroom knowledge. It’s going to scale back on the use of “SAT words” — you know, the ones that only seem to exist for the sake of the test. (Who actually would say the word “simulacrum” out loud?) The new vocabulary will reflect words more commonly used in college classrooms. The essay, which was introduced in 2005, will become optional. A perfect score will once again be 1600, down from 2400. Math questions will focus more on equations, and the reading sections will incorporate more science and American history texts.
“It is time for an admissions assessment that makes it clear that the road to success is not last-minute tricks or cramming but the challenging learning students do every day,” Coleman told USA Today.
In addition to the changed exam, Coleman also announced fee waivers for low-income students who will be able to send their scores to four colleges free of charge.
Whether these changes can get more poor students admitted into college (and ostensibly a higher chance of entering the middle class), we’ll have to see.
What We're Following See More »
Nikki Haley. Jeb Bush. Scott Walker. Lindsey Graham. John Kasich. The list is growing ever longer of Republicans who say they wouldn't even consider becoming Donald Trump's running mate. "The recoiling amounts to a rare rebuke for a front-runner: Politicians usually signal that they are not interested politely through back channels, or submit to the selection process, if only to burnish their national profiles."
"Donald Trump holds a 15-point lead over Ted Cruz in the potentially decisive May 3 presidential primary race in Indiana, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll. Trump gets support from 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters — followed by Cruz at 34 percent and John Kasich at 13 percent. If that margin in Indiana holds on Tuesday, Trump would be on a glide path towards obtaining the 1,237 delegates he needs to win the Republican nomination on a first ballot at the GOP convention in July."
In a statement released on Sunday, President and Mrs. Obama revealed that their oldest daughter, Malia, will attend Harvard University in the fall of 2017 as a member of the Class of 2021. She will take a year off before beginning school.
Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.
Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”