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.
I agree it's a grossly invalid measure for a state where less than 10% of the students take it. But it is fair to compare Arizona where 26% take it to a state where 40% take it, if the state where 40% takes it, less than 10% take the ACT.
I've already stated that in states where 80% take it, it's an invalid measure. I teach ACT prep in St. Louis and in the low performing schools some of the school districts pay for the students to take it. They still don't get 100% participation, but I assume it's in the 70's. Of course that is going to lower that states overall score. I DO GET THAT! I figured if I used all caps you might read it this time since I've said it about 5 times and you keep repeating that I don't get it.
So I'm not allowed to make assumptions but you can assume that "there is a huge overlap in kids taking both tests". Where do you get this from? These tests cost money. Why would you take both tests unless you were planning on going out of state to attend school? I guess in Iowa where only 3% of the kids take the SAT, there just must be a group of underachievers that only see the need for one entrance exam. Where as in Arizona, the bastion of ****ty education, their students are paying to take both tests. Yeah that makes a lot more sense than the theory that they are taken equally based on my living in the state for 40+ years and teaching in it for 6.
The link you provided only states that Arizona is not one of the states that have more students taking the ACT in 2006. It also does not indicate how many more. Here are the facts:
1. 26% of Arizona students take the SAT (this has been confirmed by two different links I posted).
2. In 2008 51.4% of Arizona high school graduates went directly to college (also confirmed by a website, not sure if I posted the link so I'll post it here again).
3. In states such as Iowa where the ACT is the test that the state universities require, only 3% of students took the SAT (also confirmed in a link I posted earlier). Those students were probably those that you spoke of earlier that are applying to prestigious institutions.
So if we do that math and assume that about 5% of students take both tests in Arizona that would still leave over 20% taking the ACT to reach the total of 51%. Now I know the math is not perfect, but you have to see that the likelihood is clear that over 20% of Arizona students take the ACT. The only way it's not that high is if a bunch of them are going to college without taking either.
First, what the hell does IOWA have to do with anything?
Second, more kids take the SAT. It is the norm in AZ. Therefore compare that 25% to the top 25% of test takers in any other state. It is the only thing fair. Because you cannot support YOUR CLAIM (I did not make the intial assertion YOU DID) that they are separate groups. The person making the claim is the one who needs to support it. You didn't because you cannot.
Third, if you are assuming all of the college bound students in AZ are going to 4 yr schools you are off your rocker. As a matter of fact the three public universities in AZ do not even require EITHER test to get in.
Pretending the AZ school system is a quality one is pointless. A third of the kids drop out of high school, among those who do graduate and do go onto college of any kind, less than 20% get a degree. Its sad at best.
I agree it's a grossly invalid measure for a state where less than 10% of the students take it. But it is fair to compare Arizona where 26% take it to a state where 40% take it, if the state where 40% takes it, less than 10% take the ACT.
I've already stated that in states where 80% take it, it's an invalid measure. I teach ACT prep in St. Louis and in the low performing schools some of the school districts pay for the students to take it. They still don't get 100% participation, but I assume it's in the 70's. Of course that is going to lower that states overall score. I DO GET THAT! I figured if I used all caps you might read it this time since I've said it about 5 times and you keep repeating that I don't get it.
I get you have no idea how statistics work. Really you have made that very clear.
But until you can PROVE that the groups in AZ that take the SAT are different from those that take the ACT you are being intellectually dishonest.
"ACT scores are only one measure of how much college-bound students are learning. About 11,600 students, or 15 percent, of Arizona’s Class of 2008 took the test. More than twice that number take the SAT, which will release its scores later this month."
"Some guidance counselors recommend that students take both tests. "
In order to compare schools you need to use a measure that tests the largest portion of a population. Using SAT/ACT scores is intellectually dishonest at best because Arizona doesn't even graduate a third of its students in public school let alone have them go on to college.
Additionally, out of all students in AZ only the top 25% take the SAT and ACT. Whereas in the US the average overall is nearly half. Which really means to use ACT and SAT from AZ to another state you have to look at the top 25th percentile of SAT/ACT scores.
So do you really think the best way to judge your states success at public education is to ignore the third of students who do not graduate, and only look at the top 1/4 students? And then to compare that to the top 50% of other states? Really?
Not trying to get into the back & forth commentary, but I'm curious about why you are so educated on Arizona's education system.
In order to compare schools you need to use a measure that tests the largest portion of a population. Using SAT/ACT scores is intellectually dishonest at best because Arizona doesn't even graduate a third of its students in public school let alone have them go on to college.
Additionally, out of all students in AZ only the top 25% take the SAT and ACT. Whereas in the US the average overall is nearly half. Which really means to use ACT and SAT from AZ to another state you have to look at the top 25th percentile of SAT/ACT scores.
So do you really think the best way to judge your states success at public education is to ignore the third of students who do not graduate, and only look at the top 1/4 students? And then to compare that to the top 50% of other states? Really?
Well, I would say that using the ACT/SAT scores would be intellectually honest because if a state isn't graduating a 1/3 of it's students, there is a huge problem there and perhaps there is a good reason the "Midwest" is critical of AZ education, especially since the "Midwest" has graduation rates in the 90 something percent. Only at the worst schools here, and even then only a handful of schools, do you see stats like you posted about AZ. If you only want to look at the top 25% of SAT/ACT test takers, AZ falls even farther down the list since, again, in the "Midwest" 80-90% of all graduates take one test or the other (or both). Those top 25% in our state eclipse the top 25 in AZ by 237 points on the SAT. That is a HUGE differential, especially if you are only looking at the top students.
There is a national test students take that may offer comparison. Not all students are tested, however. NAEP tests a random sample. It isn't new.....they've been doing it for years. In our state, we use the results to measure how effective our state test is.
If you peruse the results, they are revealing about state tests. Many states whose students perform very well on their state test perform less well on this test than other states.
I agree it's a grossly invalid measure for a state where less than 10% of the students take it. But it is fair to compare Arizona where 26% take it to a state where 40% take it, if the state where 40% takes it, less than 10% take the ACT.
I've already stated that in states where 80% take it, it's an invalid measure. I teach ACT prep in St. Louis and in the low performing schools some of the school districts pay for the students to take it. They still don't get 100% participation, but I assume it's in the 70's. Of course that is going to lower that states overall score. I DO GET THAT! I figured if I used all caps you might read it this time since I've said it about 5 times and you keep repeating that I don't get it.
So, 70% of the MO students take the ACT, that is ballpark for how many kids in our state take the ACT. You average a 21.6, we average 22.9. On a 36 point scale, that is significant. If you take out the 2 lowest performing school districts in our state, our average goes up to 24.
MA and MN top the lists for ACT/SAT scores-with MN leading for ACT in states where more than 1/2 the graduates take the test, MA leading for states where 1/2 or more take the SAT. MN leads in the SAT race in states where less than half the kids take the SAT and same goes for MA on the ACT. Leading in all of those categories would indicate that MA and MN do the best job preparing students for college. Add in other telling stats like graduation rates, percent of adult population with a BA/BS or better, unemployment rates, etc. and you get a very good idea of which states have the best schools.
So, 70% of the MO students take the ACT, that is ballpark for how many kids in our state take the ACT. You average a 21.6, we average 22.9. On a 36 point scale, that is significant. If you take out the 2 lowest performing school districts in our state, our average goes up to 24.
MA and MN top the lists for ACT/SAT scores-with MN leading for ACT in states where more than 1/2 the graduates take the test, MA leading for states where 1/2 or more take the SAT. MN leads in the SAT race in states where less than half the kids take the SAT and same goes for MA on the ACT. Leading in all of those categories would indicate that MA and MN do the best job preparing students for college. Add in other telling stats like graduation rates, percent of adult population with a BA/BS or better, unemployment rates, etc. and you get a very good idea of which states have the best schools.
I agreed with everything you were saying until I got to "unemployment rates." There may be an indirect effect between unemployment rates and education but there are too many other variables involved with unemployment rates such as as state business practices, taxes and unionization.
Why would you take both tests unless you were planning on going out of state to attend school?
Many kids take both tests. Most colleges accept both tests and some kids do significantly better on one than the other. If the guidance counselors are any good they counsel the kids to take both the ACT and SAT their junior year and then to RETAKE whichever one they did better on the first time.
The SAT and ACT test different things. Students with more content knowledge tend to do better on the ACT. My son applied to colleges in MA, NY, MD, PA, IL and OH and all of them accepted both tests even though the ACT is more common in the midwest and the SAT is more common in the northeast.
Edited to add: BOTH U of AZ and AZ St. accept the SAT or the ACT for admissions.
Last edited by Momma_bear; 04-10-2012 at 07:54 AM..
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.
Naep
