SAT's (Squandering Assessment Test)

[Locutus]

via sda

“We get almost no return for our education investment"

small dead animals: ?We get almost no return for our education investment"

Yesterday the annual summary of SAT—formerly Scholastic Aptitude Test—scores came out, and the news was once again disheartening. Indeed, average reading scores hit a record low, and math remained stagnant. Writing scores also dipped, but that part of the test has only existed since 2006.

There are important provisos that go with drawing conclusions about the nation’s education system using the SAT. Most notably, who takes it is largely self-selected, and growing numbers of people sitting for it—some of whom might not have bothered in the past—could lower scores without indicating the system is getting worse. That said, as the chart below shows, no likely amount of self-selection or changing test-takers can account for the overwhelming lack of correlation between spending and scores. Per-pupil outlays have taken off like a moonshot while scores have either sat on the runway, or even burrowed down a bit.


more


Squandering Assessment Test | Cato @ Liberty

 

[TenPenny]

You're right. We should stop educating people; you are a perfect example of why it's a waste of money.

 

[CDNBear]

You're right. We should stop educating people; you are a perfect example of why it's a waste of money.

Wow!

You got that from Loc's post and corresponding article?

I understood it as a critical view of the skyrocketing cost of education, and not getting a return on that investment.

Can you point out where I went so wrong?

 

[Locutus]

You're right. We should stop educating people; you are a perfect example of why it's a waste of money.

Are you hard of reading pal? :lol:

 

[Tonington]

Are test scores what we want from our education system? Studies have shown that standardized tests like SAT and ACT scores aren't good predictors of academic achievement when compared to other factors, and the predictive value they do seem to have is better explained by confounding demographics. So if they aren't good predictors of achievement, what in the world makes anyone think they would be a good metric to evaluate the efficiency of education dollars?

Derp. Education fail from Cato.

As for rising education costs? Well it's become so political now that curricula are changing based on ideologies as much or more so than by evidence. So why wouldn't it cost more with time to constantly be tweaking and adjusting education curricula?

 

[Locutus]

There are factors that make comparing year-to-year SAT scores imprecise. But the trend clearly reinforces what we should already know: we get almost no return for our education “investment.”



The Next Subprime Crisis Is Here: Over $120 Billion In Federal Student Loans In Default

Whereas earlier today we presented one of the most exhaustive presentations on the state of the student debt bubble, one question that has always evaded greater scrutiny has been the very critical default rate for student borrowers: a number which few if any lenders and colleges openly disclose for fears the general public would comprehend not only the true extent of the student loan bubble, but that it has now burst. This is a question that we specifically posed a month ago when we asked "As HELOC delinquency rates hit a record, are student loans next?" Ironically in that same earlier post we showed a chart of default rates for federal loan borrowers that while rising was still not too troubling: as it turns out the reason why its was low is it was made using fudged data that drastically misrepresented the seriousness of the situation, dramatically undercutting the amount of bad debt in the system.

The Next Subprime Crisis Is Here: Over $120 Billion In Federal Student Loans In Default | ZeroHedge

 

[taxslave]

Are test scores what we want from our education system? Studies have shown that standardized tests like SAT and ACT scores aren't good predictors of academic achievement when compared to other factors, and the predictive value they do seem to have is better explained by confounding demographics. So if they aren't good predictors of achievement, what in the world makes anyone think they would be a good metric to evaluate the efficiency of education dollars?

Derp. Education fail from Cato.

As for rising education costs? Well it's become so political now that curricula are changing based on ideologies as much or more so than by evidence. So why wouldn't it cost more with time to constantly be tweaking and adjusting education curricula?

Other than test scores how else can we determine if kids are learning anything? Just passing them cause they show up some of the time does not make for an educated workforce.

 

[Tonington]

Other than test scores how else can we determine if kids are learning anything?

I really don't think the philosophy behind educating people is to produce people who are good at passing a standardized test...so why should that be the criteria for evaluating educational outcomes? Do you know why the SAT was developed? It was meant to be an objective assessor of students who wanted to go to the best universities but weren't fortunate enough to come from wealthy families that could put them through prep-schools. In other words it was meant to be an objective test adjusted somewhat for the student's socioeconomic status. What happens now? Some families pay anywhere from $100's to $1,000's of dollars to purchase practice guides and tutoring lessons, just for a standard test. Obviously some families can't afford that.

I'm sure you'll be able to remember some people who tested well in school and were useless tits once they got a job if you think about this.