Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT's SAT Math Error

Posted by Zonk on from the maybe-they-should-get-a-college-graduate-to-check-it dept.

theodp writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that for years now, MIT wasn't properly calculating the average freshmen SAT scores (reg.) used to determine U.S. News & World Report's influential annual rankings. In response to an inquiry made by The Tech regarding the school's recent drop in the rankings, MIT revealed that in past years it had excluded the test scores of foreign students as well as those who fared better on the ACT than the SAT, both violations of the U.S. News rules. MIT's reported first-quartile SAT verbal and math scores for the 2006 incoming class totaled 1380, a drop of 50 points from 2005."

13 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps they should offer a Quality Assurance majr by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    and a minor in dupe detection ;-)

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  2. 1220 in 1989 by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can't compare any scores because it's all been rebased to be meaningless.

    Back then, a 1400 really meant something, and a "perfect" score was a one or two person thing.

    1. Re:1220 in 1989 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Back then, a 1400 really meant something, and a "perfect" score was a one or two person thing.

      What it really meant was they were sitting at the same table!

    2. Re:1220 in 1989 by JoelKatz · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's correct, the scores are normalized so that the distributions are the same. This means you *can't* compare scores across years. If you did, you would find that, amazingly, the distributions were the same. But have the students stayed the same? Nope. Have the questions stayed the same? No again.

      If you google around, you'll see articles about how "national SAT scores fell for the second year in a row" or some nonsense like that. There are ways you can sensibly compare SAT scores across years, but you cannot compare averages over a significant fraction of the testing pool.

    3. Re:1220 in 1989 by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Showing interest in indicating intelligence to MENSA is a clear sign of lack of intelligence.

  3. Re:If I could do it all over again... by renegadesx · · Score: 5, Funny

    I pitty the fool... stay in school

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
  4. Those whacky MIT Kids... by physicsphairy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yet another hilarious prank, no doubt. I wonder how many kids scored 1337?

    Just watch out when one of them attains the CEO position at your company.

    "Hey, you know what would be a really hilarious number for our stock prices to hit?"

    Uh oh.

    --
    When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
  5. Well there's your problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    MIT's reported first-quartile SAT verbal and math scores for the 2006 incoming class totaled 1380, a drop of 50 points from 2005.


    I don't normally put a lot of stock in standardized test scores, but with a total score of 1380 for an entire class, I can see how that might be a problem.

  6. Re:is that a word? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    What is quartile?

    Don't worry, you're not in it.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  7. Re:The editor of Forbes would agree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is silly; I can find mainstream pundits that agree with pretty much any side of a debate. I agree with the OP moderation: first, this whole thread has little to do with the article (calculation of school ranking error) or even marginally relevant (are school rankings relevant). Instead, the first post takes the deliberately polarizing and wide-encompassing claim "college is not worth it" in a single line, obviously with the intent to garner a lot of replies.

    Did the OP add anything to a conversation? Is a unilateral claim such as this insightful? Informative? Ask yourself this seriously. It is off topic, and just a way to get the predictable responses (I did well in school and have a sucky job... I didn't go to college and make millions...) A serious post would at least have some text, or make a well-reasoned claim to *something*. Some of the replies in the thread are actually insightful, and have been moderated accordingly.

    The original post is pretty much the definition of a troll, and judging by the number and type of replies, a successful one.

  8. Re:If I could do it all over again... by icedcool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me fix that for you... 1) Work 2) Profit! There you go.

    --
    Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
  9. Re:If I could do it all over again... by allacds · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think that anyone who wants an engineering degree for the money will be disappointed. I have a degree in chemical engineering, and I make $55,000 (that is with 10 months of experience). That sounds like a lot for being just out of school, but given the extra effort of obtaining the degree, and the amount of work that is expected from me at my job, I don't think it's a better deal than a liberal arts degree would've been. I think that the value of any degree is what you do with it. If you work to gain valuable experience, advocate yourself, and work well with others, you can make a 6 figure income with any degree.


    Yes but consider this. The average starting salary of a liberal arts degree holder is generally quoted as $30-35k. The average starting salary of an engineering degree holder is generally quoted in the $50-55k range. That's a pretty significant difference - the engineering degree yields a return of 40 to 80% straight off the bat. Granted the engineering degree is harder but I'd say it's well worth the effort.

    Now that said, I do agree with you that a degree is only as valuable as you make it (to a certain point). But I think taking these numbers in the aggregate probably cuts a lot of the variance due to super high- and low- achievers.
  10. Re:If I could do it all over again... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Funny

    "what do you expect when you're 22?"

    A six figure income, no dress code, full benefits, three assistants, and a 32 hour work week??

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"