Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Sunday, May 28, 2006

SATs

Posted by Mark Bauerlein on 05/28/06 at 10:03 AM

It looks like this year’s SAT results dipped significantly from last year’s.  Here’s an AP story on preliminary findings, which come from university admissions offices.  A full picture won’t appear for a few weeks, but some schools report a serious decline in the cumulative numbers.  The UC system, for instance, tallied a 15-point slide.

The last time verbal scores dipped significantly, in 2002, one researcher at the organization that administers the test suggested that the cause lay in an increasing portion of high school English classes being devoted to visual materials. BUt we had a rise the following year, and 2004 NAEP data indicated that the amount of reading assigned to 8th- and 12th-graders was rising.  At the same time, however, the leisure reading by the same group dipped significantly.  In fact, the correlation between trends in leisure reading matched NAEP scores more closely than did trends in in-class reading.  And yet, in addressing the issue of reading scores, educators, researchers, and journalists rarely talk about trends in leisure reading habits.


Comments

How many especially easy (or especially hard) questions would it take to change the stats this much? Could it come own to, say, 4 too-hard questions one year, or four too-easy questions the next, or some other statistically-unexpected combination?

By John Emerson on 05/28/06 at 03:08 PM | Permanent link to this comment

The original analysis (less leisure reading=lower SAT scores) is ALMOST too shallow to bother commenting on, but here are a few problems with it.
1.  It neglects to note that the SAT changed in the past year.
2..  It ignores the fact that the new SAT is longer and thus increases the fatigue factor of the test.  The New SAT has ten sections rather than 7 (including an essay, which many people would find more tiring than, say, reading comp) and it lasts 3 hours and 35 minutes (the old test was 3 hours)--longer than the LSAT (law school), GRE, and GMAT (MBA programs), longer than a grad seminar--and when you take into account breaks and the amount of time a student typically waits for the test to start, most students can expect to be there for five hours.  Throw in there a 7:45 arrival time and lots of anxiety; I’d rather do my orals again any day of the week
3.  It does not mention the fact that although the test is longer and has more sections, it actually has fewer Math and Verbal questions in total than the old test did AND the Math section has a larger percentage of difficult questions (according to the test’s own scale) than the old test.
4.  It does not mention that the new test no longer has Analogies and Quantitative Comparison questions, which lent themselves much more than other questions to guessing and coachable techniques.
5.  There are very limited data about which section(s) suffered drops in average scores.  UVA reported drops in Math and Reading scores, which, if anything, suggests some other cause than less leisure reading, some cause that would affect Math as much as reading--see items 1-4, for instance.
Now, I suspect all of this information was neglected out of ignorance rather than a desire to hide some facts. 
I’m not sure which I find worse--ignorance or obfuscation? Either, in the service of an argument that seems at best riding the hobby-horse, if not self-promotion, is lame. Is this not the guy who thought it worthwhile to call out some grad students at a composition conference for their embarassing paper titles in order to warn us all that the world is watching the humanities departments?  I would think this same guy, a representatative of the US government, no, might also think it worthwhile to spend the time necessary to know his subject in order to insure that he not leave us thinking he was ignorant, duplicitous, and/or always ready to speak before thinking.  Of coure, that impression seems just about right on for our government.

By on 05/28/06 at 05:29 PM | Permanent link to this comment

The preceding comment, insults and all, begins by referring to the “original analysis (less leisure reading = lower SAT scores).” But the post doesn’t do any analysis of SATs and leisure reading or claim to do so. The correlations drawn concerned NAEP scores, in-class reading, and out-of-class reading, not SAT scores, and they can all be found in the NAEP 2004 Trends report. Also, the AP story linked to addresses several of the points listed by the commentator.

By on 05/29/06 at 09:10 AM | Permanent link to this comment

With all due respect, it’s not wholly clear to me from the post what sort of discussion, if any, you were seeking here.  That is, the information you posted was straightforward enough—but your post seemed to end abruptly without emphasizing the connection in your mind between paragraphs (1) and (2), beyond the segue from 2006 SAT scores to 2002 SAT scores.  Is there a particular conversation you wanted to initiate with your post, or did you just mean to provide information?  I apologize profusely if I’m not reading carefully or if I’m missing some obvious point, since it’s at least clear that people’s failure to read carefully is a problem you take seriously.

By pica on 05/29/06 at 02:52 PM | Permanent link to this comment

"Knocking our heads against each other seems and unlikely path to enlightement.” As the irenic scholar Jeffrey Perl likes to say.

It’s hard to tell, jasmurph, whether you are bashing at Mark’s post, the study, the report on the study, or all three. So, I’ll just assume you’re after all three of them, and respond to Mark.

That said, the questions could be the varialbe, the leisure reading could be the variable, both could be. Stats are slick that way. Reports are often not focused on the most interesting of their own findings.

But, that said, there’s heaps of annecdotal evidence that those who read for fun, and more so those who read widely for fun, become more skilled in comprehension and anaylsis as well as in writing. That is, in in taking in, processing, and expressing ideas. Have we not all had students to who are and are not readers and seen the difference in their facility with thinking and language?

There’s no harm in the strongest implication of Mark’s post: encourgage the youngins to read, to read many genres and areas of discourse.

By Simone Roberts on 06/01/06 at 11:10 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: