SAT Reading Scores Are the Lowest They've Been in 40 Years (university, public school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Coming in with an average SAT reading score of 496, 2012's graduating seniors have the dubious distinction of having attained the worst reading score since 1972. Nearly half were minorities and about a quarter reported that English was not their first language. More than a quarter of public school test-takers — 27 percent — had family income low enough to qualify for a fee waiver. Another example of how immigration gone amok is affecting this country.
Coming in with an average SAT reading score of 496, 2012's graduating seniors have the dubious distinction of having attained the worst reading score since 1972. Nearly half were minorities and about a quarter reported that English was not their first language. More than a quarter of public school test-takers — 27 percent — had family income low enough to qualify for a fee waiver. Another example of how immigration gone amok is affecting this country.
If immigrants and their offspring who are taking the test lowered the average, I don't see that as a big problem in and of itself. It may explain why the average is lower, but I don't see why we need to have national pride in the average. In fact, I think it's a good thing if a wider pool of kids are taking the test and planning on going to college. Presumably those with lower scores will go to community colleges and other alternatives to a 4-year university.
What I do wonder about though is whether the lower scores have more to do with the over-abundance of media. Where I used to spend hours reading as a kid, because I had very little else to do, my 8th grade daughter is much more interested in watching Netflix, Youtube videos, Facebook, playing mindless games on her phone, etc. She basically only reads what she has to for school. I've told her that the lack of reading is going to affect her SAT scores later because she's not learning vocabulary, or reading complex sentence structures, etc., and sometimes I take away the electronics and make her read. But still, my first thought is that kids aren't scoring as high on reading because they're not reading for pleasure like they used to.
The SAT was scored differently, I question how relative they actually are... SAT questions are hard, my normal reading scores in school are very high but I got 560 in reading which is slightly above average (which is bad considering, that I don't usually score average)... The SAT writes questions that confuse people. I recently took the ACT and scored a 33 on reading and those questions are straight forward I'd like to see how those have changed
Anyway as Marlow said, I think it's good that more people are taking the tests, it implies that more people are looking to colleges. Another point, population now is much higher than that in '72, so % then isn't the same as here.
Coming in with an average SAT reading score of 496, 2012's graduating seniors have the dubious distinction of having attained the worst reading score since 1972. Nearly half were minorities and about a quarter reported that English was not their first language. More than a quarter of public school test-takers — 27 percent — had family income low enough to qualify for a fee waiver. Another example of how immigration gone amok is affecting this country.
It appears the authors of the article do not understand how SAT scores are determined.
The scores are determined by the student's percentile rank in comparison to other students taking the same test. The percentiles are scaled so that 500 represents the average score. So 496 is close to the expected average.
Unless the same test is given every year, it is unwise to compare scores across years.
In a given year, scores can be used to say that a specific group of students scored better --- or worse --- than its peers or an individual did better or worse than his peers.
Comparing the 2012 test to the 1972 test is worthless. The only way to do that is to know whether the newer test is less rigorous than the older one. If it is, then the same score on the new test compared to the old one means a lower level of achievement.
Coming in with an average SAT reading score of 496, 2012's graduating seniors have the dubious distinction of having attained the worst reading score since 1972. Nearly half were minorities and about a quarter reported that English was not their first language. More than a quarter of public school test-takers — 27 percent — had family income low enough to qualify for a fee waiver. Another example of how immigration gone amok is affecting this country.
Sorry, but this isn't attributable merely to immigration.
In at least some cases, this is attributable to students never reading anything challenging.
At one school with which I am familiar, a teacher was forbidden to give her students any independent reading at all -- too much work. At the same school, they essentially ignored the Common Core requirements in favor of a dumbed-down curriculum. Students weren't supposed to be given more than maybe 15-20 minutes of reading a night, which rather limits the number (and difficulty) of the novels you can teach them.
It appears the authors of the article do not understand how SAT scores are determined.
The scores are determined by the student's percentile rank in comparison to other students taking the same test. The percentiles are scaled so that 500 represents the average score. So 496 is close to the expected average.
Unless the same test is given every year, it is unwise to compare scores across years.
In a given year, scores can be used to say that a specific group of students scored better --- or worse --- than its peers or an individual did better or worse than his peers.
Comparing the 2012 test to the 1972 test is worthless. The only way to do that is to know whether the newer test is less rigorous than the older one. If it is, then the same score on the new test compared to the old one means a lower level of achievement.
Your raw score is then converted to a scaled score (reported on a 200-800 scale) by a statistical process called equating. Equating ensures that the different forms of the test or the level of ability of the students with whom you are tested do not affect your score. Equating makes it possible to make comparisons among test takers who take different editions of the test across different administrations.
What is true is that the test today is very different than it was in the past. I have read articles though that say if you want to compare a score from the past to one today in many cases you need to add to your score since the College Board "recentered" the test scores in 1995 to make 500 the average again.
All that said, I think it is great that more kids are taking the test. I don't know if I would do very well if I had to take a test in another language in particular, so I applaud those who try.
What is true is that the test today is very different than it was in the past. I have read articles though that say if you want to compare a score from the past to one today in many cases you need to add to your score since the College Board "recentered" the test scores in 1995 to make 500 the average again.
All that said, I think it is great that more kids are taking the test. I don't know if I would do very well if I had to take a test in another language in particular, so I applaud those who try.
I'm confused. What was inaccurate about what I said?
The point is that 500 will be the average score for everyone taking the test in a given year. Don't try to compare average scores for the entire test population across years.
I'm confused. What was inaccurate about what I said?
The point is that 500 will be the average score for everyone taking the test in a given year. Don't try to compare average scores for the entire test population across years.
What appears to be inaccurate is the statement that you cannot compare test scores across years. It is actually designed so you can make comparisons from year to year. However, I agree with you that it would be difficult to make comparisons over a longer period of time because of testing changes.
I think the claim that the score is based on percentiles is also confusing. There are tests that are scored predominantly this way. They will give a score stating that your child scored in the 75 percentile, which means that your child scored better than 75% of the kids taking the test. The SAT is not quite scored that way. The hope is that 500 will be at 50%, but it is not always there. Therefore, they re-centered the scores in the 1990's, as I mentioned. They did this because the average score kept falling.
According to the news article, this past year the 50th percentile score for reading would be at 496, not a 500. A child who got a score of 500 would be above the 50th-percentile for that year. However, colleges are not likely to consider that since they are looking at the scale score and are not given a percentile rank.
I have an idea: Maybe it's because no one reads anymore?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
