next »

[Moderator 1]

There should be a really comprehensive test for incoming freshmen, based on the college's expectations. Those who do not measure up should be placed in non-credit remedial courses, or sent to community colleges for prep work. The SAT is so politically correct it no longer measures a student's ability to communicate or do simple math, just the likelihood that they could learn to do so. If the public schools don't teach them how to do these things, all the potential in the world is cruelly wasted.

We have thousands of incoming freshmen who have great self-esteem but no useful framework for doing anything that even resembles college-level work. I had a prof tell me that a junior in his business stats class didn't know that .1 and 1/10 represented the same ratio; a JUNIOR in college! For this kid to have passed even sixth-grade math is shameful, but I'll bet his high-school math teachers made precious little effort to correct the problem - they certainly wouldn't do so here in Texas, where pay raises are attached to sham measurements in improvements on standard tests, and classroom chaos is so prevalent that most spend their days trying to keep the decibel level down and prevent violence, forget meaningful instruction.

We're turning out a whole generation of clueless graduates, who can't write coherent paragraphs, who don't know where Caracas is, and who can't tell if they've been given correct change, much less take on responsible jobs. The college faculty are right, and the high-school teachers are delusional.

Author: Steve Gideon, publisher's rep
Date:   03-06-06 16:44

[Norman Hanscombe]

The fact that so long has passed without anyone posting a reply says it all.  Meaningful standards are a thing of the past --- an increasingly distant past at that.  Even among older teachers, lecturers abd administrators who remember what students once achieved, there's an unwillingness to speak out publicly.  To do so not only damages your career prospects, but also brings down upon you the wrath of the politically correct shamans of a society --- wielders of power who are high on that most potent drug of all, the virtuous self-esteem found among society's self appointed "saviours".

Meaningful change requires large numbers of those employed in what has become the industry of education, to accept unpalatable facts about themselves.  Facts which involve recognising the enormous gaps in their own education.  That's a lot to ask in this era of soaring self-esteems.  Here in Australia, and I suspect much of the West, students have been told for so long that "anything goes", that most have become far too dependent on their intellectual comfort blankets to give them up willingly.

It would be wonderful to be proved wrong, but I can't expect to live as long as Methuselah.

[zander]

I fear that this discussion starts from a flawed premise – the premise that a “comprehensive test” can accurately (adequately) evaluate whether or not an entering freshman has the basic qualifications needed to be successful in a university setting.  I fear that the real problem we face in education at all levels rests on our society’s obsession with easy, commensurable measurement standards.  In the name of efficiency, it’s nice to have a single numeric score that can (or purports to) measure all of the requisite skills or knowledge that a freshman should have.  But the quixotic hunt for such a test has, I think, taken focus away from the real need to foster critical thinking skills in our students – skills that have nothing (or at least precious little) to do with whether or not someone knows where Caracas is.

In my view, educational reform that has a prayer of changing our world must start with the radical notion that proxies, such as test scores (and US News and World Report Rankings, for that matter) may be useful starting points, but they are not endpoints in education.  We shouldn’t be teaching people to take tests, and we shouldn’t encourage high schools to teach people to take tests by creating more pre-entrance screening examinations.

[Norman Hanscombe]

Does Zander really think that by REALLY COMPREHENSIVE entry tests, the author meant no more than knowing where Caracas is?  Mind you, with students planning to enter studies such as Foreign Affairs or Recent Latin American History, it would be reassuring to know they'd heard about Caracas?
Or am I biased by the fact that my primary school days in distant Australia left me fully aware not only of where Caracas was, but also [unlike some applicants for College a few years back?] but also that Central America wasn't in Iowa.

I may be wrong,, but I can't help suspecting that, provided we permit "comprehensive" to retain something of its original comprehensive connotation, tests could give institutions a reasonably comprehensive picture of what applicants might be expected to handle.  I accept that this flies in the face of the views of that seminal contributor to postmodernism, Humpty Dumpty; but I remain convinced that, on this issue at least, Alice was right, Humpty was wrong.

Hopefully Zander eventually will adopt a truly radical approach, and work to reverse the trend which began when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.  The Ivy League powerbrokers meeting that day added an item to their Agenda, looking at watering-down the COMPREHENSIVE nature of their entry examination systems.  Admittedly they did this because of the expected shortage of competent staff which would result from the Nation's need for an enlarged military machine.  Today there could well be an even more serious shortage of qualified assessors who'd be needed to run an appropriately comprehensive entry examination system.  But while I accept this might  seem to some as, "A Goal Too Far", in educational terms at least, surely it's a goal worth tackling?

[zander]

I thought only that the reference to Caracas was serious (after all, the only reason to have this discussion, it seems to me, is to strive to find serious and real solutions).  And it highlights the trouble with the proposal for a “really comprehensive test.”  Humpty Dumpty might be seen as the quintessential postmodern, as you suggest, but, of course, that overlooks the emphasis in his claim that “[w]hen [he] use a word, it means just what [he] choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.”  (I take it that most post-moderns would, at the least, think that Alice had equal neologistic power.)  Humpty, in fact, chides Alice on several occasions for her misuse of words.  

I think that those of us who might claim the authority to decide whether or not knowing where Caracas is (or knowing whatever else you believe constitutes the irreducible minimum necessary to “measure up”) are following the lead of good ol’ Humpty Dumpty.

So, it is safe to say that you and I seem to agree on one thing, at least: Humpty was wrong.

(I should add that your reductionist suggestion that my scepticism about a comprehensive test can be conflated with a politically (and intellectually?) inert postmodernism is concerning.   While I’m not sure I’d call myself a post-modern, not all post-moderns share Baudrillard’s perspective that all we can do is “accommodate ourselves to the time left to us.”)  

It seems, however, that we could (and should) move this conversation forward in a more productive manner.  Let me see if I can start the process by asking how, precisely, you would propose fashioning your comprehensive test?  The Moderator says that the SAT is no longer sufficient because (if I understand his concern correctly) it does not sufficiently measure substantive knowledge or current ability but only capacity.  This of course begs the question: how might we decide whether or not students need to know where Caracus is?  How should we decide what, precisely, students do need to know?

[Norman Hanscombe]

I didn't make the initial reference to Caracas, Zander, and even accept that one might handle physics, philosophy and God knows how many other areas quite adequately without having stumbled upon that city's name or even its more fascinating neighbours such as Cartagena --- but I do understand the point the moderator was making.  There's a need for students entering every discipline (if it's to be taken at all seriously?) to bring at least some background knowledge with you.

In kindergarten we do our best to help those who arrive inadequately prepared for its modest demands.  There comes a time, however, as one drifts inevitably "upward" through the education industry, that we really do need to decide if we support those who say, "We should soften requirements sufficiently to ensure anyone who has a dream will be accepted --- even if this means providing a nightmare for those responsible for maintaining the standards once expected at this level."

You ask, what I'm suggesting should be in any "really somprehensive" entry requirements.  That would depend upon the course being entered, and websites are hardly the place to attempt a "really comprehensive" answer to that?  Of one thing, though, I have no doubts whatsoever.  In my own State of N.S.W., and probably elsewhere inAustralia as well, the quality of our teaching staffs would be nowhere near as low as it is now, if we saved costs by drasticly reducing the number of places in Mickey Mouse Teacher Training courses, upgraded the quality of the training we provided, and used the savings to provide bonded scholarships for trainee teachers.  This would not only improve the quality of our teachers, but also provide less of a demand on Australian taxpayers.  A genuine "win-win-win" outcome?  Whether it would work in the U.S.A., I'm not in a position to judge.

Since you've shown such a keen interest in the literature I've mentioned, Zander, may I suggest Mrs Beaton's Cook Book.  In it, when speaking of how to cook Chicken Dinners, she tells us, "First catch your chicken."  Were she still with us, I feel sure her advice would be to, "First convince the Education Tsars that money has to be spent on developing meaningful tests --- only then do we start working out the finer details of how it's to be done."

I confess --- I prefer Mrs B. to Mr H.D.

[zander]

Norman, I recognize that you didn’t mention Caracas, but you did seem to agree with the concept of testing for some sort of specific knowledge rather than the mere capacity to gain such knowledge.  Obviously, the Moderator was using Caracas as a mere example, as was I.

I’ll grant that a website might not be the place for a “really comprehensive” answer to the question of what precisely should be on your “really comprehensive” entrance screening examination, but that was not my question.  My question was a bit broader and, it seems, a bit more theoretical – how should we go about deciding what is on the “really comprehensive” entrance screening examination.  My question, in other words, was epistemological.  

Your response implies, however, that you’re not interested in having any discussion about how to fashion a comprehensive entrance examination.  Instead, you suggest that our current woes can be blamed on “Ivy League powerbrokers” who mucked up a perfectly sound screening process and that if the “Education Tsars” would only give you money, you could figure out how to get us back to the good old days.  

Setting aside for the moment your obvious frustration with academic politics (which I share – after all, who in the trenches doesn’t?), I am honestly interested in your proposal, if you have one.  But, my skepticism remains.  How would we actually go about fashioning a test that: (a) sufficiently (though I suspect you’re not contending perfectly?) measures incoming students’ current skill levels and knowledge base to determine if they are ready for college-level work; (b) does so in a way that avoids imposition of abstract and meaningless barriers to entrance (like apparently knowing where Caracas is or what a clerihew is); (c) actually tests internalized knowledge rather than mere memorization skills (a test, in other words, that does more than simply puts money into the hands of companies that specialize in breaking tests down into their simplest and easiest components so that they can be quickly mastered); and (d) avoids mere enculturation.

[dale1]

No test will do anything for the quality of college education, and let me tell you why:  Tests exclude people.  Only private colleges and universities who can carry the bottom line will actually benefit from the tests.

East-West State University, and even R1 institutions will not be able to implement a test because of one simple reason:  There's no money in it, and you actually lose money because it excludes otherwise tuition-paying students.

With the decline of state higher education appropriations, there's no incentive to do this at all.

[trentsands]

I find it odd that academicians continue these discussions about comphrehensive exams assuming that college students have somehow become less competent.  Meanwhile, the academicians only provide anecdotal evidence to suggest this.  I'm sure everyone can come up with an example of a student that didn't know what he or she should know by the time he or she entered [input academic level here] year of college.  This is not evidence of decreasing standards or decreasing competencies.

Where's the data (the studies, the models, etc.) that prove any of this.  If anything, I would argue that a broader range of students exiting high school have college level competencies than ever before because more public school districts and state governments have been making this a concern than ever before.  I suspect that school district are doing more to prepare students for college than in the past and that this has increased the number of students that have the basic competencies to succeed in college.

[philoctetes]

The funny thing about the idea the an entrance exam can do things like avoiding mere 'enculturation,' is that so much of the knowledge that we want students to have is 'encultured'. Like language skills. I have never been one for test like the SAT that attempt to test ability outside of knowledge. It is not possible. Better to have a set curriculum, and test against that.

The problem with GPA is that it is not a standard measure, the student own teachers and schools mark it. The IB or other external exam systems provide a fairer measure, not because poor student won't be at a disadvantage, but because it is more open about it's bias by listing the texts that create that bias. 

A placement exam at the beginning of the year is better, test the students you do have rather than the students you want and learn what they already know and what you have to teach them. Language departments do it all the time. I've never done it myself, but I know several people who give an exam the first day of class to see what they have to work with.

[trentsands]

philoctetes offers a good proposal - use standardized testing to diagnose rather than eliminate.  It allows colleges to know what students they are bringing in.  And over time, schools can develop a database of student characteristics to determine what admission characteristics students who are well prepared seem to have.  For state colleges and universities, such diagnostic measures can be used in the legislature.  Administrators can point to the skills their incoming students don't know and insist that more attention be paid to these skills at the high school level.  The incentive for legislators, like always, is money.  A state school that can pull from more prepared students in the state will become more competitive, will be able to increase the standards in their classes, and be able to devote more money to priorities other than the academic development of students.

[zharkov]

Reality 101:  Most colleges must trade off between two competing aims:  Increased enrollment and raising the bar for incoming first-year students. 

Corollary 1:  Most schools can increase enrollment by lowering the bar. Some even play limbo: How low can you go? Say what you want, but it is a quick and dirty way to balance the books.

Corollary 2:  Most schools can raise the bar at expense of lower enrollment. A well-funded school can both increase enrollment and raise the bar by having neat programs and cool facilities. But for most of us in higher ed, money is a problem.

[philo]

I don't know about a comprehensive exam.  My school, though, offers an exit exam that tests students' writing ability that they must pass before they can graduate.  I'm sure that the test isn't as demanding as it should be, but many students so have to retake it multiple times, and I commend my school for at least making some kind of effort. Still, I wonder... why don't we make this an entrance exam, instead of an exit exam?  Or, to allow them to take freshman comp. first, an exam that they must pass before they can take upper-level courses? 

[physics_girl]

It isn't a problem in countries that have a centralized education system.  Even in Australia where high school education is a state matter, and where the curriculum varies from state to state, everyone is held to about the same standard, so it becomes very difficult for schools to inflate scores.  In Victoria, I know that a test like the SAT is held to make sure that the school-assessed part of the coursework is allocating marks appropriately.

So a pass in high school English (required to get a good final score for university entrance) means a good level of competence in English.  A pass in high school maths means a good understanding of maths (which can usually be taken at a few levels).  Even around the maths and physics departments, all the kids here are good writers - maybe not brilliant essayists, but good enough.

Norman is right about the fact that our high schools are far from perfect, and I believe that we should have a national high school curriculum, probably a more rigorous one.  Not everyone who gets a good mark is ready for university.  But they do know the basics of their subject.

[genecks]

Math is math. Just because the person was a junior, it doesn't mean he or she was a math major. If a person can't pass a math test, then he or she fails the math test. Math is objective, not subjective. English can be objective and subjective. In terms of grammar, punctuation, and constructing a coherent sentence, it is objective. I think people need to modify the English tests.

Also, I don't like the entrance exams that make me do analogies with words. I hate those things. I rather have a person write an essay with plain English than an essay that belongs in an ivory library. Anyway, don't most schools have entrance exams for freshman?