The CardBoard
Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN (/thread-2873.html)


Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - 82lsju - 01-30-2012

http://www.mercurynews.com/stanford-cardinal/ci_19853734?source=rss

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - fullmetal - 01-30-2012

Took the SAT and ACT a combined seven times...good dedication there.

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - FarmBoy - 01-30-2012

The whole idea of retaking standardized tests until you meet a certain bar speaks to a failure of the admissions system for athletes. Improving on your SAT or ACT is not a sign of being a better student or any smarter than you were before, it's a sign that you've learned the tricks to be a successful test taker, which has little to do with being a successful student or productive member of society, IMO. Doing things like taking extra classes or AP courses and improving your GPA is a much better proof of an applicant's devotion and scholastic aptitude. In BJS's case, it sounds like he did both. I just don't see who benefits from some kid taking standardized, at 3-4 hours per event, 6-7 times to prove he's learned the tricks.

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - fullmetal - 01-30-2012

Not much disagreement there, but standardized tests do indicate dedication (to some degree) for most and innate comprehension skills for the lucky few.  BJS toughed out 6-7 ~4 hr tests probably over the course of 18 months because he wanted to make it in.  Sounds like a workhorse to me.

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - dabigv13 - 01-30-2012

And a majority of the kids getting in to Stanford probably took the SAT more than once, and certainly took plenty of practice tests on top of that. Learning the tricks of the test is a part of it, and one that most high profile athletes probably don't budget much time for.

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - DC - 01-30-2012

I must be old school, because I only took the tests once.  It was a discouraged practice to take the test more than that unless you think you had a bad day.  The tests warned that if you took them again, BOTH scores would be reported, so don't take it again unless you think the first scores were an aberration. Statistics were then provided to show that most people who retook the test were within a fairly close range of their original score.  Something clearly happened since, now that kids are taking the tests multiple times.

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - fullmetal - 01-30-2012

Bad test scores have become so much of a dealbreaker that it's just worth it to go ahead and show that you can get that high score at least once.  Some schools say they'll look at your highest component scores out of all your attempts (which they still see).  The stigma of multiple testing opportunities died some time ago, I think.  I took the Duke TIP SAT in 7th grade (which is unofficial), the PSAT, and then the SAT twice.  I stood on my second SAT score (jr yr?), which was 120 pts higher (old 1600 scale) than my first one.  My first real SAT (soph yr) was 250 pts higher than my 7th grade score.  There's definitely a benefit to repeated exposure and practice (lots of focused practice).

No, I'm not answering any more questions about my actual score :p  Yeesh.  On the other hand, the familiarity with questions and test-taking skills carried over well for the GRE, which I didn't spend much time studying for.  (And when my GRE score came back lower than my SAT score, I knew why--but it was still good enough.)

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - jayasena - 01-31-2012

(01-30-2012, 08:29 PM)DC link Wrote:Something clearly happened since, now that kids are taking the tests multiple times.

The testing services found out they can grow revenues faster than the rate of population growth?

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - fullmetal - 01-31-2012

Admissions offices are getting bombarded with so many applications that a bad number has become a necessary application killer...

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - fullmetal - 01-31-2012

I saw Haryasz walking with some of his former teammates and friends outside the Fiesta Bowl after the game.  They were all looking about as good as a Stanford fan could look after that game.

Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - FarmBoy - 01-31-2012

I'm not arguing that test scores don't mean anything in themselves, especially the subject matter tests (SAT II's I believe they were called in my day), I just don't think raising your score through multiple takings is indicative of being better prepared for a Stanford class schedule. The objective of holding athletes to a high bar is not to puff up the GPAs and test scores for our recruiting class. Rather, it is to identify which of them can participate fully in the academic life of everyday students. Or, at least I hope that's what they're trying to do.

FWIW, I doubt Barry Sanders had a problem finding additional honors courses at Heritage Hall.


Re: Barry Sanders article from the SJMN - DC - 01-31-2012

(01-31-2012, 02:52 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I'm not arguing that test scores don't mean anything in themselves, especially the subject matter tests (SAT II's I believe they were called in my day), I just don't think raising your score through multiple takings is indicative of being better prepared for a Stanford class schedule. The objective of holding athletes to a high bar is not to puff up the GPAs and test scores for our recruiting class. Rather, it is to identify which of them can participate fully in the academic life of everyday students. Or, at least I hope that's what they're trying to do.

FWIW, I doubt Barry Sanders had a problem finding additional honors courses at Heritage Hall.

Can we take our finals over until we like our score?  ;D