Search News


Browse Archives

News

College Board Rethinks Error Policy

April 13, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Of all those affected by the SAT scoring snafu, one group hasn't had any complaints: the 613 students whose scores were mistakenly reported as being higher than they deserved.

That's because the College Board, consistent with its policies, is not re-reporting those scores to make them accurate. The College Board's policy is based on the belief that test takers shouldn't be punished for a board error, and the fact that students unhappy with their accurate scores wouldn't have time to retake the test to try to raise the scores. (The board did give colleges revised reports on students whose scores were originally reported as inaccurately low.)

Those fortunate 613 from the October 2005 test are safe. But the College Board -- facing criticism and a lawsuit over its policy with regard to those test scores -- has announced that it is reviewing its policy on such errors.

Gaston Caperton, president of the College Board, announced the review in an e-mail message to the association's members this week. In the e-mail, he said that the actual scores of these students would have declined by only 10-40 points when corrected. (Many of the several thousand errors in the other direction were substantially larger in magnitude.) While Caperton restated the reasons that the board was not changing the 613 students' scores, he also wrote that "at the request of some of our members," the board's SAT Committee would meet next month and review the practice.

Don't expect to hear protests from those 613 students about the review of the policy that has helped them. A College Board spokeswoman confirmed that they were never told that their scores were inaccurately high.

Most of the publicity about the SAT scoring problems has focused on those students who were told they had done more poorly than they actually did. These are the students who may have been mystified by their low scores -- and who may have scrambled to enroll in test-prep programs or to have adjusted their college plans. But a lawsuit announced last week has focused new attention on the other group of students -- those who benefited from the scoring errors.

The class action suit is being pursued on behalf not only of those with inaccurately low scores, but on behalf of people whose scores were reported accurately, but who had to compete for college admissions and scholarships with students whose scores were inflated. When those applicants who had accurate SAT scores are added, the potential class for the suit grows from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand. In an interview after announcing the suit, Joseph Snodgrass, a St. Paul, Minn., lawyer leading the effort, said that those students were victims, too.

“No one went into the SAT thinking they would have to compete against people with inflated scores,” Snodgrass said. One of the demands in the suit is that all incorrect SAT scores be re-reported.

The College Board has a policy of not commenting on lawsuits and so did not comment on the suit announced Friday, which is expected to be followed by others. But the e-mail noting the review of the policy of not correcting some scores came just days after the filing of the lawsuit that makes those scores a key issue.

The e-mail from Caperton was a regularly quarterly message he sends to members. In it, he also appeared to respond to criticisms that the College Board has failed to sufficiently apologize for the mess-up. He noted the "deep regret" of everyone at the College Board and expressed regret for the "additional stress and inconvenience" for test takers and college admissions officers. "We could not be more sorry that this happened," he wrote.

Later in the e-mail, however, Caperton used an analogy that suggested that the fiasco was more of an annoyance than the crisis of confidence that many of the board's critics see. In a long analogy, he compared the SAT scoring error to finding a rock in your shoe.

"This situation has tested us. It has tested me. It makes me think of the times when I have been walking in the countryside with a loved one and everything seems wonderful. Suddenly a sharp rock gets in my shoe and I want to keep walking along happily, but all I can think of is that sharp rock in my shoe," he said.

He went on to say that the College Board has historically "been very lucky" and not had such difficulties. "It has been as if we were walking along happily, with a cherished mission to guide us as we moved steadily toward serving more students and schools. But suddenly there was the sharp rock in our shoe and it was this unusual scanning mishap on the SAT Reasoning Test. It has not been easy to think of anything but shaking that painful rock out of our shoe."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on College Board Rethinks Error Policy

  • Pull the wool over your eyes
  • Posted by David Robertson , Professor at SUNY on April 13, 2006 at 11:00am EDT
  • ‘I want to keep walking along happily’

    This ridiculous analogy from the president of the College Board – he does not intend to see the test to be fair – since the test does alter parents wishes and aspirations for their children, structuring the test in a manner to put African Americans and minorities who do not have financial resources; that are employed in test preparation studies - imagine a whole race of African Americans being labelled by as lazy and stupid by the College Board demagogues.

    Yes, he has been walking happily, by charging the parents to pay for a product – that he knew well ahead of time – that the product is flawed and is not just; the product does not measure or predict test-taker success – and the parents are dissapointed at their children for not doing well in a test – while in reality it is not their children at fault.

    Imagine you go to a restaurant – you ask for a rare steak; you are provided with a burnt steak – and you have no recourse – that is College Board motto. Now they have to face the music – College Board whatcha you gonna do when the parents come to sue you?

    Well this case is godsend to us who scored less than 1200 in our SAT – which I have framed it – my parents were very upset and dissapointed with the result, now it is our time as jurors to stick it to College Board, big time.

  • Posted by CJO on April 13, 2006 at 11:40am EDT
  • Professor Robertson,

    Your parents' inappropriate response to your under 1200 SAT score is *not* the fault of the College Board, despite all of its shortcomings. Your parents' misplaced values are, and your family's dynamic--are their problem.

    Are you suggesting that your less-than 1200 score was inaccurate or false? From some of the posts I've seen from you, it seems that the tests may have pegged you well especially in reasoning and language use.

    Further, your understanding of civics and law is problematic: jurors are not supposed to go into a courtroom with preconceptions, and certainly not with a desire for revenge!

  • CJO angel
  • Posted by David Robertson , Professor at SUNY on April 13, 2006 at 12:05pm EDT
  • I assume you are Caucasian.

    Did you ever consider O J Simpson, innocent?

    Did you ever consider Michael Jackson, innocent?

  • Standardized Tests
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on April 13, 2006 at 1:25pm EDT
  • Dr. Robertson, at least it is possible to tell when standardized tests are wrong - the machine is off. When teachers are off, all bets are off. The test made a couple mistakes out of million and millions, and it has been recognized and corrected (except in the 600 with higher scores). The standardized testing system is still the best means of judging ability we have.

  • Posted by RS on April 13, 2006 at 3:30pm EDT
  • There are reports that the SAT, ACT and other standardized tests are biased against some racial and/or socioeconomic groups. Perhaps they are. Critics say wealthy families can afford test-prep courses that give their sons and daughters an advantage. Perhaps that is true.

    I've worked in college admissions for about ten years at a somewhat selective liberal arts college. These standardized tests are one, albeit imperfect, measure in making an admissions decision. By being standardized, it is a way of evaluating applicants on a (theoretically) level playing field. A student earning a 3.4/4.0 GPA at one school might only earn a 2.2/4.0 GPA at a much tougher school. In theory, the standardized test (SAT, etc.) would "sort" these students out.

    OK, let's assume the SAT is imperfect, as is the ACT, etc. If there were a standardized test without bias or the other criticized flaws, I personally think colleges and universities would line up in support of such a test.

    What is the solution? Most colleges and universities deal in a high volume of applications. It's not realistic that admissions committees (or, more accurately, an individual admissions person - don't let newspaper articles fool you) can make a decision on an application knowing the myriad factors surrounding that student. These can include strength of school, strength of individual teachers within that school, strength of their school class cohort, etc. In dealing with the masses, standardized test scores are a reasonably useful, and I personally think essential, tool in making an admissions decision.

    Criticize these tests all you want, but please offer a realistically better way of making admissions decisions.

  • Posted by Clyde MOnma , auditing the SAT on April 13, 2006 at 3:30pm EDT
  • I would like to see an audit of past exams to verify their accuracy before I would declare this to be a one time "rock" in their shoe.

  • Posted by Thomas Nixon at Degree Press on April 13, 2006 at 5:50pm EDT
  • "The standardized testing system is still the best means of judging ability we have."

    I truly hope not. There are many ways to evaluate students including:

    1. grades
    2. reference letters
    3. admissions essays
    4. interviews

    And so on. Test scores are one measure, not a great one, but there are so many other valid ways as well.

  • OJ and MJ
  • Posted by Larry on April 14, 2006 at 3:40pm EDT
  • Professor Robertson,

    I am white. Both those D-list celebrities were acquitted, and therefore they are innocent.

    I never liked either of them.

  • Reply to Mr. Nixon
  • Posted by Larry on April 14, 2006 at 3:40pm EDT
  • Mr. Nixon, Grades are a function of 1) how well someone can get along with the teacher and/or whether a person can select courses that they will do well in (thereby not challenging themselves; 2) reference letters are a function of social skills and how well one can convince teachers that they are the “right” kind of people; and 3) admissions essays are often done by others and even when they are the student’s own product, they are tailored to give false impressions; and 4) interviews are a function of social skills and usually are just coached, anyway.

    Let’s face it. Even the “best” schools are filled with partiers and slackers. All of these people were able to convince people to write letters of recommendation (say that they were smart); write “brilliant” essays, and sometimes even convince people that they are “college” material in interviews. But you know, and I know, and I know that you know, that colleges are filled with people that drink and party and do whatever they can to get out of doing work.

  • Bias
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on April 15, 2006 at 6:45pm EDT
  • The only bias the ACT and SAT has is towards actual ability. The fact that people have prep courses simply means that they are better at the skills being measured. Anyone who is better educated or more trained in the skills measured will do well, it is really as simple as that. The test cannot be biased against races, as it cannot tell what race the test-taker is.

    Grades reflect individuals instances of individual teachers - they do not compare well. Letters of recommendation do not reflect academic ability but rather ability to find someone to write one - many low-ability students can get glowing letters.

  • tests are only as good as...
  • Posted by Larry on April 16, 2006 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Kevin, I agree with you, and I am almost reluctant to write this clarification, but here goes. Standardized tests are only as good as the ability of the drafters of the test to map it on to the tested skills. Whether this has anything to do with “ability” is a matter of luck and politics. (I think that the SATs are quite well-designed, but colleges fail students by not requiring them to employ the skills tested on the SATs.)

    Whatever the case, knowing how to take a standardized test is pretty much required of all people, and I have little respect for people that think it isn’t important or who do badly on such tests.

  • Posted by Sasha on April 22, 2006 at 4:50pm EDT
  • At the end of the SAT,The students are required to answer questions about their race.It says it is optional to answer them,but the Proctor tells the students to answer them.Also,I believe that the College Board should review the test and give out the correct scores.Many students are getting rejected because of their scores.Somes might be getting accepted,eventhough the high score isn't their's.

  • Posted by Colin Kelly on May 1, 2006 at 4:35am EDT
  • Our proctor told us the questions about ethnicity were optional, and they would prefer if we answered them for statistical purposes. But he emphasized that they were optional. I left mine blank.

    Colin

  • Posted by Michele on May 1, 2006 at 4:40am EDT
  • My teen has a GPA of 3.8, takes advanced classes, swims varsity, has a part time job and attends a private high school known for its rigorous academics. The new SAT was taken April 1st & returned a 1320. Will we trust no more mistakes have been made...not likely. Will we question College Board, demand a rescore...You bet!

  • SAT scores
  • Posted by Sharon on June 19, 2006 at 10:45am EDT
  • When are we going to realize the power we have erroneously given to this private company? It is neither God nor even the government and is certainly not all-powerful and all-knowing. It is a flawed, privately held company that we allow to dictate our curricula, our choices and ultimately, our lives. Read its history and understand how far afield we are from its beginnings.