The NY Times has an Op-Ed piece by Richard Atkinson (YES! that RICHARD ATKINSON) and Saul Geiser (who?) on problems with the new SAT which appear to be many. Though they don't actually say this, I believe their argument is that the new SAT still lacks ecological validity (i.e., does not predict performance or "success" in everyday life). Make up your own mind; see: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/opinion/the-big-problem-with-the-new-sat.html?mabReward=CTM
It could be just me but I don't think that the "criterion referenced" tests they argue for in the article is a solution nor is it obvious how it differs from the "norm referenced" tests (which are still "speed" tests which require performance in a limited amount of time versus "power" tests which remove the time restriction). I am open to correction. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=44611 or send a blank email to leave-44611-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
