(09-11-2014 01:44 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  IQ tests are also biased towards middle to upper class white people with English as their first language. As are SAT tests. I give glancing merit to them at best

wtf does being white have to do with anything?

Im not saying dont use them. Im saying use with caution and take with grain o salt.

(09-11-2014 01:56 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Im not saying dont use them. Im saying use with caution and take with grain o salt.

Since you brought it up, how is an IQ test biased toward whites?

(09-11-2014 12:12 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  IQ really matters? No. SAT matters? Maybe on getting a scholarship to university. If your university looks at these and these alone you're probably not one of the top 300 institutions in America ;]

The SAT/GRE scores have been shown by an overwhelming number of studies to be poor indicators of student ability and likelihood of success. In fact, the most reliable indicator in predicting student success are their high school grades (GPA), where a demonstrated high level of achievement correlates well with similar success as an undergraduate. That is, the hard work and work ethic necessary to obtain good grades in high school while undertaking a challenging curriculum are by FAR the best way to predict student outcome. So much that more and more universities are adopting testing optional policies or disregarding standardized test scores completely. This movement has not become mainstream yet, but as the model higher ed continues to drastically change, the need for standardized test scores will eventually be described as a relic from the last century. Unfortunately, standardized test preparation has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry so that is probably why SAT/ACT scores have been overvalued.


BTW, I read an article recently where the SAT by its own admission have indicated that the current test is not very useful and are promising to completely redesign the test to make it a better tool. Think about the current SAT: the vocab section is useless since most of the words are so seldom used that it silly to base a third of a student admission chances on that part of the test. The way the math sections are set up encourages students to prepare by ‘gaming the question’ by eliminating wrong answer than specifically testing any of the math concepts that they learned in high school. The essay section is a joke, as students are not really graded on content but rather the mechanics of writing a good essay.

(09-11-2014 02:07 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 12:12 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  IQ really matters? No. SAT matters? Maybe on getting a scholarship to university. If your university looks at these and these alone you're probably not one of the top 300 institutions in America ;]

The SAT/GRE scores have been shown by an overwhelming number of studies to be poor indicators of student ability and likelihood of success. In fact, the most reliable indicator in predicting student success are their high school grades (GPA), where a demonstrated high level of achievement correlates well with similar success as an undergraduate. That is, the hard work and work ethic necessary to obtain good grades in high school while undertaking a challenging curriculum are by FAR the best way to predict student outcome. So much that more and more universities are adopting testing optional policies or disregarding standardized test scores completely. This movement has not become mainstream yet, but as the model higher ed continues to drastically change, the need for standardized test scores will eventually be described as a relic from the last century. Unfortunately, standardized test preparation has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry so that is probably why SAT/ACT scores have been overvalued.


BTW, I read an article recently where the SAT by its own admission have indicated that the current test is not very useful and are promising to completely redesign the test to make it a better tool. Think about the current SAT: the vocab section is useless since most of the words are so seldom used that it silly to base a third of a student admission chances on that part of the test. The way the math sections are set up encourages students to prepare by ‘gaming the question’ by eliminating wrong answer than specifically testing any of the math concepts that they learned in high school. The essay section is a joke, as students are not really graded on content but rather the mechanics of writing a good essay.

Seems like that would be the best way to grade an essay if you ask me. The mechanics are the only thing that's truly objective. Content would be highly subjective depending on the reader.

(09-11-2014 02:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 02:07 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 12:12 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  IQ really matters? No. SAT matters? Maybe on getting a scholarship to university. If your university looks at these and these alone you're probably not one of the top 300 institutions in America ;]

The SAT/GRE scores have been shown by an overwhelming number of studies to be poor indicators of student ability and likelihood of success. In fact, the most reliable indicator in predicting student success are their high school grades (GPA), where a demonstrated high level of achievement correlates well with similar success as an undergraduate. That is, the hard work and work ethic necessary to obtain good grades in high school while undertaking a challenging curriculum are by FAR the best way to predict student outcome. So much that more and more universities are adopting testing optional policies or disregarding standardized test scores completely. This movement has not become mainstream yet, but as the model higher ed continues to drastically change, the need for standardized test scores will eventually be described as a relic from the last century. Unfortunately, standardized test preparation has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry so that is probably why SAT/ACT scores have been overvalued.


BTW, I read an article recently where the SAT by its own admission have indicated that the current test is not very useful and are promising to completely redesign the test to make it a better tool. Think about the current SAT: the vocab section is useless since most of the words are so seldom used that it silly to base a third of a student admission chances on that part of the test. The way the math sections are set up encourages students to prepare by ‘gaming the question’ by eliminating wrong answer than specifically testing any of the math concepts that they learned in high school. The essay section is a joke, as students are not really graded on content but rather the mechanics of writing a good essay.

Seems like that would be the best way to grade an essay if you ask me. The mechanics are the only thing that's truly objective. Content would be highly subjective depending on the reader.

Perhaps, but the essays don’t value accuracy or test student’s ability to exercise critical thinking or quickly synthesis a position. Instead, kids preparing for the SAT are coached to follow a very formulaic approach to answering the essay. It’s just a silly notion that a timed essay test can somehow measure how good a writer a student will be in college. BTW, this is not only my opinion but the one expressed by the President of the SAT board who was on NPR several months talking about how bad his company’s own test was and how major changes are on their way. The SAT is under immense pressure to reinvent themselves as many schools are disregarding their test, or even worse have turned toward their competitor in the ACT…who for the first time last year had more students take their test than the SAT.

(09-11-2014 02:07 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  The SAT/GRE scores have been shown by an overwhelming number of studies to be poor indicators of student ability and likelihood of success. In fact, the most reliable indicator in predicting student success are their high school grades (GPA), where a demonstrated high level of achievement correlates well with similar success as an undergraduate. That is, the hard work and work ethic necessary to obtain good grades in high school while undertaking a challenging curriculum are by FAR the best way to predict student outcome. So much that more and more universities are adopting testing optional policies or disregarding standardized test scores completely. This movement has not become mainstream yet, but as the model higher ed continues to drastically change, the need for standardized test scores will eventually be described as a relic from the last century. Unfortunately, standardized test preparation has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry so that is probably why SAT/ACT scores have been overvalued.


BTW, I read an article recently where the SAT by its own admission have indicated that the current test is not very useful and are promising to completely redesign the test to make it a better tool. Think about the current SAT: the vocab section is useless since most of the words are so seldom used that it silly to base a third of a student admission chances on that part of the test. The way the math sections are set up encourages students to prepare by ‘gaming the question’ by eliminating wrong answer than specifically testing any of the math concepts that they learned in high school. The essay section is a joke, as students are not really graded on content but rather the mechanics of writing a good essay.

What follows is not meant as a comment about the merits or lack thereof regarding the SAT. That's a debate where I don't think either side will be persuaded by the other side's argument. Anyway, whatever the College Board thinks about the quality of the current SAT, there are two market forces driving them to revise the test, one of which the College Board is very careful not to mention.

The SAT has lost market share to the ACT. The revised test will be more like the ACT, because students have been gravitating toward the ACT. They also intend to align the SAT with Common Core so that the SAT is more aligned with HS curricula. Given the fact that the CEO of the College Board is the person who has been the driving force behind the creation of the Common Core, their decsion to align the SAT with CCSS isn't surprising.

(09-11-2014 02:29 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The SAT has lost market share to the ACT. The revised test will be more like the ACT, because students have been gravitating toward the ACT. They also intend to align the SAT with Common Core so that the SAT is more aligned with HS curricula. Given the fact that the CEO of the College Board is the person who has been the driving force behind the creation of the Common Core, their decsion to align the SAT with CCSS isn't surprising.

Oy vey. "Not a smidgen of corruption."

(09-11-2014 02:37 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 02:29 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The SAT has lost market share to the ACT. The revised test will be more like the ACT, because students have been gravitating toward the ACT. They also intend to align the SAT with Common Core so that the SAT is more aligned with HS curricula. Given the fact that the CEO of the College Board is the person who has been the driving force behind the creation of the Common Core, their decsion to align the SAT with CCSS isn't surprising.

Oy vey. "Not a smidgen of corruption."

Like I said above, one of the main reasons the SAT/ACT have become a 'essential' part of determining college admission is b/c it's a huge business.

the image above is so true. Just last week I was trying to explain the FOIL method to my 7th grade son who is taking algebra. My 'old fashioned' way of explaining it was way easier than the contrived 'process' his teacher was teaching him at school. I've found that to be the case for a lot of Algebra and Calc. I guess its all relative and I think kids are just 'smarter' nowadays as they are learning more difficult concepts earlier than when I was going through school....but some of the approaches just make me scratch my head.

It amazes me how many people don't know basic math principles like FOIL and order of operations. Funny thing with me is I don't remember the terms FOIL or PEMDAS for that stuff. I think our teacher just drilled those things into our heads.

The same goes for grammar (ie, your/you're, they're/there/their, etc.) It still shocks me when college graduates have trouble with these. I won't lie, it actually drives me freaking nuts, like the guy who made this site.


http://learnyourdamnhomophones.com/

(09-11-2014 02:59 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It amazes me how many people don't know basic math principles like FOIL and order of operations. Funny thing with me is I don't remember the terms FOIL or PEMDAS for that stuff. I think our teacher just drilled those things into our heads.

The same goes for grammar (ie, your/you're, they're/there/their, etc.) It still shocks me when college graduates have trouble with these. I won't lie, it actually drives me freaking nuts, like the guy who made this site.


http://learnyourdamnhomophones.com/

principle vs principal drives me nuts...

I admit to sometimes mixing up capital/capitol and principal/principle in my early early 20s. The minute it was pointed out to me I correct this. I just never noticed a difference. Go figure.

(09-11-2014 03:18 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 02:59 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It amazes me how many people don't know basic math principles like FOIL and order of operations. Funny thing with me is I don't remember the terms FOIL or PEMDAS for that stuff. I think our teacher just drilled those things into our heads.

The same goes for grammar (ie, your/you're, they're/there/their, etc.) It still shocks me when college graduates have trouble with these. I won't lie, it actually drives me freaking nuts, like the guy who made this site.


http://learnyourdamnhomophones.com/

principle vs principal drives me nuts...

won/one is the worst I think. No idea how you screw that up but I've seen it plenty of times. Speaking of "worst" I've seen that one screwed up a lot too when they should have used "worse."

I can't stand, writing with unnecessary commas, sprinkled in sentences. I have come across writers, that use, at least three, misplaced commas per sentence.

I also think "that" versus "which" needs to be explained (and how the use of which gets commas).

(09-09-2014 08:08 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 07:50 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  The rankings are obviously bad but I always laugh at seeing Northeastern (a good university at #42 over America's top U's) or Clemson/TCU above high powered AAU schools, or heck even the two SUNYs Binghamton and Stony Brook ahead of Buffalo, which is the flagship.

Something's wrong but who really cares.

I don't think that there's any school that has zoomed up the rankings in the US News rankings the way that Northeastern has over the past decade, especially considering how glacial changes occur in those rankings in general (where the vast majority of schools are in the exact same tier that they were 20 years ago). When I was applying to colleges in the mid-1990s, Northeastern was essentially on the same tier as Arizona State in those rankings. The Chicago-based perception was that it was a place for kids who *really* wanted to spend 4 years at any school in Boston and had money to blow. The thought that it would be tied with BU in the rankings (which is where Northeastern is this year) and ahead of schools like Wisconsin would have been unthinkable.

That doesn't mean that the US News is necessarily wrong - I do know that Northeastern's co-op program has become a massive recruiting tool in the wake of the sluggish job market for college grads, so the admissions stats have risen accordingly. If your school is looking to move up in the rankings (and believe me - *everyone* is looking to move up in the rankings), Northeastern is who you need to study.

(09-11-2014 02:07 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 12:12 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  IQ really matters? No. SAT matters? Maybe on getting a scholarship to university. If your university looks at these and these alone you're probably not one of the top 300 institutions in America ;]

The SAT/GRE scores have been shown by an overwhelming number of studies to be poor indicators of student ability and likelihood of success. In fact, the most reliable indicator in predicting student success are their high school grades (GPA), where a demonstrated high level of achievement correlates well with similar success as an undergraduate. That is, the hard work and work ethic necessary to obtain good grades in high school while undertaking a challenging curriculum are by FAR the best way to predict student outcome. So much that more and more universities are adopting testing optional policies or disregarding standardized test scores completely. This movement has not become mainstream yet, but as the model higher ed continues to drastically change, the need for standardized test scores will eventually be described as a relic from the last century. Unfortunately, standardized test preparation has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry so that is probably why SAT/ACT scores have been overvalued.


BTW, I read an article recently where the SAT by its own admission have indicated that the current test is not very useful and are promising to completely redesign the test to make it a better tool. Think about the current SAT: the vocab section is useless since most of the words are so seldom used that it silly to base a third of a student admission chances on that part of the test. The way the math sections are set up encourages students to prepare by ‘gaming the question’ by eliminating wrong answer than specifically testing any of the math concepts that they learned in high school. The essay section is a joke, as students are not really graded on content but rather the mechanics of writing a good essay.

Can you give me a study that shows this?

Because the correlations I've seen say the exact opposite. SAT is a better predictor than grades (likely because of grade inflation). In fact, having been on admission committees looking at GREs, I know people pull out the studies that show a huge correlation between completed dissertations and higher GRE verbal scores. Below a certain number, it's scary to see the huge dropoff in dissertations completed.

(09-11-2014 02:59 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It amazes me how many people don't know basic math principles like FOIL and order of operations. Funny thing with me is I don't remember the terms FOIL or PEMDAS for that stuff. I think our teacher just drilled those things into our heads.

The same goes for grammar (ie, your/you're, they're/there/their, etc.) It still shocks me when college graduates have trouble with these. I won't lie, it actually drives me freaking nuts, like the guy who made this site.


http://learnyourdamnhomophones.com/

I was very advanced in math and had a perfect score in it on one standardized test. I took Trig as a freshman, Calc as a soph, Calc II at the University across the street as a Junior. Then had perfect score.

Never heard of FOIL. Is this taught everywhere?

(09-11-2014 11:08 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 07:50 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  The rankings are obviously bad but I always laugh at seeing Northeastern (a good university at #42 over America's top U's) or Clemson/TCU above high powered AAU schools, or heck even the two SUNYs Binghamton and Stony Brook ahead of Buffalo, which is the flagship.

Something's wrong but who really cares.

Considering the SUNY system has NO FLAGSHIP nothing seems wrong... the only people who think Buffalo is the state's flagship is UB's athletic department and the marketing people they hired to try and sell the schools major athletic teams as both UB and "New York" to their local public.

SUNY has 64 campuses, broken down into the four lead SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, and Stony Brook)... then there are other SUNY Doctoral Schools, University Colleges, Technology Colleges, and Community Colleges.

I was in a room with our system's Chancellor at SUNY Central.

Because of the state's UB2020 bill, she referred to UB as the flagship.

Sorry to tell you this, maybe you should take it up with her.

You do know that the entire new scheme for funding the SUNY Center's was made to benefit Buffalo right?

This was from 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/nyregi....html?_r=0

Then in 2012, UB2020 was passed in the legislature. Price? $1 billion all funneled through a regional economic institute that the President of UB heads. A tax-free zone was built for start-ups that ring the campus.

This is precisely why Zimpher referred to Buffalo as the flagship, despite the squeals from other SUNYs.

(09-11-2014 08:20 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 11:11 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 09:11 AM)CPR Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 08:22 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 11:36 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Judy's push for AAU status has improved many of the metrics used by this rankings. Good job by USF

Has Judy's made AAU a goal for USF?

Yes, but she's delusional if she thinks we have a chance. It's a good ol' boys club and always will be. Big brother UF down the road is also AAU, so that doesn't help.

While USF may not have an actual shot at it for a long time, it will still make the school better in the meantime.

With out a doubt its a country club and will be hard to break into. I went digging through research expenditures and USF is above several AAU schools already and close to twice UConn's expenditures (I know that there are other factors). Also, looking at the AAU membership you would think more states would assist their universities in working towards AAU membership (IE UF shouldn't be an obstacle for USF). I was shocked at how many schools in California are AAU. USC withstanding, its seems like half the UC system is AAU. I honestly didn't even know there was a UC San Diego and that it has 30k students. SDSU should just merge with them and provide the athletics, they'd be in the PAC tomorrow.

When it comes to USF and its high research, you have to realize that the AAU does not count grant money used to run hospitals. The only money it cares about are peer-reviewed funds for conducting research. This is why so many schools with teaching hospitals seem like candidates, but in reality they are not close. The AAU ferrets out any appropriations for things like hospitals.

This is why Nebraska was kicked out. Nebraska had a ton of money coming for agricultural research that was appropriated through the political pull of their federal representatives.

(09-11-2014 08:33 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:20 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 11:11 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 09:11 AM)CPR Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 08:22 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  Has Judy's made AAU a goal for USF?

Yes, but she's delusional if she thinks we have a chance. It's a good ol' boys club and always will be. Big brother UF down the road is also AAU, so that doesn't help.

While USF may not have an actual shot at it for a long time, it will still make the school better in the meantime.

With out a doubt its a country club and will be hard to break into. I went digging through research expenditures and USF is above several AAU schools already and close to twice UConn's expenditures (I know that there are other factors). Also, looking at the AAU membership you would think more states would assist their universities in working towards AAU membership (IE UF shouldn't be an obstacle for USF). I was shocked at how many schools in California are AAU. USC withstanding, its seems like half the UC system is AAU. I honestly didn't even know there was a UC San Diego and that it has 30k students. SDSU should just merge with them and provide the athletics, they'd be in the PAC tomorrow.

When it comes to USF and its high research, you have to realize that the AAU does not count grant money used to run hospitals. The only money it cares about are peer-reviewed funds for conducting research. This is why so many schools with teaching hospitals seem like candidates, but in reality they are not close. The AAU ferrets out any appropriations for things like hospitals.

This is why Nebraska was kicked out. Nebraska had a ton of money coming for agricultural research that was appropriated through the political pull of their federal representatives.

The UC schools have close to a monopoly on retaining through geography the best and brightest. No Ivies, or the the multitude of great privates to contend with.

With respect to Uconn's total federal research grants awareded though peer review, say versus USF's, the AAU adjusts the total $'s by the number of faculty. USF has 40% more faculty, so all things being equal having twice the research $'s means they are about equal with Uconn iin the AAU's eyes. Uconn has specifically recruited faculty that have a history of obtaining research grants. In fact, while other universities are cutting, Uconn is bucking the trend:

http://articles.courant.com/2012-06-06/h...rease-plan

http://grad.berkeley.edu/news/announceme...g-faculty/

These aren't plans or goals. They're actually doing it. I believe that is why all the talk about the AAU. That's what investing $4 billion over the last decade will get you. It is an amazing undertaking.