Braylon Heard did not make it

[knapplc]

duh. major obvious outranks captain obvious once again.

If that was a reply to me.... you lost me. :dunno

 

[dergibog]

There are nine types of intelligence. The ACT measures two, math and language. It's not so much the cultural bias that standardized testing promotes, it's more a bias toward only certain types of intelligence.

http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm

I remember taking a "West Virginia test of intelligence" years ago in a class. It focused on stuff that would be common knowledge in West Virginia would but the only question I got right was best basketball player ever from West Virginia (answer: Jerry West)

The NCAA has these criteria, but they don't account for exceptions to the statistics.

 

[da skers]

I always felt bad because I scored a 33 on the ACT and 3 of my friends scored higher including one kid who got a 36 and handed back the test book with corrections he noticed they needed to make.

 

[HeyBurke]

Last year, when I applied to UNL, there were three entrance requirements:

1. 18 or higher on the ACT.

2. 2.0 or higher cumulative high school GPA.

3. Top 50% in your graduating class.

How many of those has Braylon met, out of curiousity?

 

[307husker]

I know what it takes for the military academies, its relatively high (and by that I mean the mid 20s ACT). Those are the people supposed to lead troops and all. That's not was I was contemplating and you know it. Academy requirements are an easy thing to find. Hell I've toured two of the academies in person before college and even googled it AGAIN before I made that assertion which you quoted... Welcome to the internet, where we research what we say before we say it so we don't look like morons.
Most recruits don't end up in an academy, and well are you kidding me?

Thank you for helping to prove my point. The academies do have higher standards and do value (somewhat) test performance. Whereas enlisted individuals are not held to the same academic standard. I thought the point was obvious enough... We're trying to debate the validity of the ACT with regards to academic performance. Why do you keep wandering off on tangents? I think I can answer that question, nevermind.

You are making assumptions based on the test score statistics.

Actually, the research supports the assertion that test performance correlates with college performance.

However I knew more then... dare I say (YOU) 307husker, and 95+% of your classmates...

Well I guess I'll just have to accept your bravado as fact... (Grammar errors look especially silly when trying to establish intellectual superiority. )

Are we relaying anecdotes? yes. Is that any worse then relaying statistics as some sort of gospel? no.

This tells me just about all I need to know. The answer to your question is YES. Relying upon anecdote over statistical analysis of data is unwise.

So redblood, let's recap. You are claiming that the ACT is invalid because, as an anecdotal example, you were a poor student yet obtained a reasonably good ACT score. The ACT score predicted success in college, yet you were unsuccessful. Because you were unsuccessful after the ACT predicted success, the ACT is therefore invalid as a tool of predicting academic performance. Is that it?

 

[knapplc]

Last year, when I applied to UNL, there were three entrance requirements:

1. 18 or higher on the ACT.

2. 2.0 or higher cumulative high school GPA.

3. Top 50% in your graduating class.

How many of those has Braylon met, out of curiousity?

Good lord, I would have missed two of those. :blink:

 

[307husker]

So what we're debating here is the NCAA requirement for student athletes. It doesn't seem entirely fair to individuals like Braylon that are so close, but without the test score requirement imagine all the tricks schools could use to grease star athletes in. The whole point is to establish a semblance of an academic standard so there's not a race to the bottom that puts schools with high academic standards at a huge disadvantage.

Well said Krill.

 

[HeyBurke]

@knapplc

Well, the good thing for some people is that if you do really well on the GPA thing, they'll usually admit you even if you don't get an 18 on the ACT. They just won't offer you any scholarships. =P

 

[krc1995]

I admire him for his try, try again attitude. But agree that we must have some minimal threashold that everyone must adhere to. How did LP ever get academic acceptance? I am being presumptuous, but I doubt if many high school kids had a rougher, more non-academic upbringing then his.

 

[funhusker]

[ I was a strait D student doing just what I could to get the grades that would get me out of the hell-hole I called high-school. Aside from about 4 teachers classes in HS... I didn't touch homework for 3 and 1/2 years. However I knew more then... dare I say (YOU) 307husker, and 95+% of your classmates... Since you are the one offended and if you don't believe that well...

So...are you agreeing that you may have been unfocused, for whatever reason, in high school? Thus, recieving a GPA that wasn't truly reflective of your intelligence. But doing well on the ACT, whether you cared to take it or not, shows that you truly are capable of learning you just didn't care to show it to most of your HS teachers?

307Husker is not saying people who don't do well in high school can't score high on standardized tests. He is saying people that do not score highly, are generally less successful in college. The statistics, which 307Husker stated, show that there is a corrolation to HS studies, learning ability, and ACT tests. It is just that, a corrolation, not a template. There are exceptions to this rule.

Back to Braylon, he had low scores in high school which led to a need for a certain ACT score. If he was "college worthy" he could make up for his "unfocused" HS career and show he can handle college coursework by scoring a sufficient score on a standardized test. However, his low score shows that his low high school grades might be more than just "not caring". He might just be one of millions, that are not capable of going to a Universtiy fresh out of high school.

 

[carlfense]

Lots of people here who feel qualified to assess the validity of a "gold standard" test. Interesting...

Would being a "bad test taker" or whatever, mean that the person was likely to be a poor performer in pressure situations? Or is it a type of disability that we should get Sally Struthers to make an infomercial about?

Do you run into a lot of situations out in the real world that are comparable to filling out a bubble sheet test? Yeah. Didn't think so. The real world isn't multiple choice.

Standardized tests largely measure how good you are at taking standardized tests. That's true with the SAT, ACT, LSAT and to a lesser degree the MCAT.

 

[funhusker]

Lots of people here who feel qualified to assess the validity of a "gold standard" test. Interesting...

Would being a "bad test taker" or whatever, mean that the person was likely to be a poor performer in pressure situations? Or is it a type of disability that we should get Sally Struthers to make an infomercial about?

Do you run into a lot of situations out in the real world that are comparable to filling out a bubble sheet test? Yeah. Didn't think so. The real world isn't multiple choice.

Standardized tests largely measure how good you are at taking standardized tests. That's true with the SAT, ACT, LSAT and to a lesser degree the MCAT.

How many times does an attorney have to dissect a frog in his career? Yet to graduate from law school, one has to graduate from a four-year institution, preceded by graduating high school, preceded by passing eighth grade biology, which required dissecting a frog.

One can argue that most of what is learned in school is totally irrelavant to everyday life. However, these irrelevant steps are required to show the ability to learn and move on to harder and more relavant material. If Braylon, or any student for that matter, can not pass the neccesary classes/tests, he need to find a way to show he is worthy of moving forward with his education.

Unfortunately for him that is two ways, "1" getting the necessary ACT score (culturally biased or not) or "2" go to JUCO and prove that he can be successful in the classroom. It's on his plate, not the University's, Bo's, High School teachers'. He can still make it, on way or the other. His choice.

 

[carlfense]

Lots of people here who feel qualified to assess the validity of a "gold standard" test. Interesting...

Would being a "bad test taker" or whatever, mean that the person was likely to be a poor performer in pressure situations? Or is it a type of disability that we should get Sally Struthers to make an infomercial about?

Do you run into a lot of situations out in the real world that are comparable to filling out a bubble sheet test? Yeah. Didn't think so. The real world isn't multiple choice.

Standardized tests largely measure how good you are at taking standardized tests. That's true with the SAT, ACT, LSAT and to a lesser degree the MCAT.

How many times does an attorney have to dissect a frog in his career? Yet to graduate from law school, one has to graduate from a four-year institution, preceded by graduating high school, preceded by passing eighth grade biology, which required dissecting a frog.

One can argue that most of what is learned in school is totally irrelavant to everyday life. However, these irrelevant steps are required to show the ability to learn and move on to harder and more relavant material. If Braylon, or any student for that matter, can not pass the neccesary classes/tests, he need to find a way to show he is worthy of moving forward with his education.

Unfortunately for him that is two ways, "1" getting the necessary ACT score (culturally biased or not) or "2" go to JUCO and prove that he can be successful in the classroom. It's on his plate, not the University's, Bo's, High School teachers'. He can still make it, on way or the other. His choice.

So filling in circles is as academically beneficial as learning the anatomy of animals? Noted.

I'll let you know in 5 months how useful frog dissection is to an attorney. I can think of a few scenarios where general lab knowledge would be helpful. It's certainly more useful to an attorney (keeping in mind that I'm not yet an attorney) than multiple choice testing ability. Virtually nothing in the law is multiple choice/black letter.

 

[307husker]

So filling in circles is as academically beneficial as learning the anatomy of animals?

It's not so much the ability to fill in the circle, but to choose the appropriate circle.

And I'd say anatomy is pretty worthless for the vast majority of attorneys, yet competence (@ dissection/anatomy) displays the ability to learn/process and possibly to some extent a measure of a well rounded education.

Virtually nothing in the law is multiple choice/black letter.

Though the ability recall and apply case law does seem rather important.

Getting hung up on the multiple choice format (done for the sake of efficency) is a bit of a red herring, don't you think?

 

[funhusker]

Lots of people here who feel qualified to assess the validity of a "gold standard" test. Interesting...

Would being a "bad test taker" or whatever, mean that the person was likely to be a poor performer in pressure situations? Or is it a type of disability that we should get Sally Struthers to make an infomercial about?

Do you run into a lot of situations out in the real world that are comparable to filling out a bubble sheet test? Yeah. Didn't think so. The real world isn't multiple choice.

Standardized tests largely measure how good you are at taking standardized tests. That's true with the SAT, ACT, LSAT and to a lesser degree the MCAT.

How many times does an attorney have to dissect a frog in his career? Yet to graduate from law school, one has to graduate from a four-year institution, preceded by graduating high school, preceded by passing eighth grade biology, which required dissecting a frog.

One can argue that most of what is learned in school is totally irrelavant to everyday life. However, these irrelevant steps are required to show the ability to learn and move on to harder and more relavant material. If Braylon, or any student for that matter, can not pass the neccesary classes/tests, he need to find a way to show he is worthy of moving forward with his education.

Unfortunately for him that is two ways, "1" getting the necessary ACT score (culturally biased or not) or "2" go to JUCO and prove that he can be successful in the classroom. It's on his plate, not the University's, Bo's, High School teachers'. He can still make it, on way or the other. His choice.

So filling in circles is as academically beneficial as learning the anatomy of animals? Noted.

I'll let you know in 5 months how useful frog dissection is to an attorney. I can think of a few scenarios where general lab knowledge would be helpful. It's certainly more useful to an attorney (keeping in mind that I'm not yet an attorney) than multiple choice testing ability. Virtually nothing in the law is multiple choice/black letter.

My point isn't to argue what is relavant or irrelavant (frog dissection/attorney might be bad analogy). My point is that people need to take necessary steps(irrelavant or relevant)to get where they want to be. I'm not arguing for or against the use of the ACT, like everything it has Pros and Cons. However, the NCAA uses this as a measuring stick, this point cannot be argued. Braylon has put himself in a position that his enrolling at Nebraska relies solely on this measuring stick.

If Braylon got jobbed by a bitter high school teacher, or the UNL Financial Aid Office was at fault, or if the NCAA changed the rules at the last minute, then I would feel sorry for him. But, he has put himself in this situation and he still has very attainable ways out of it. Therefore, I do not feel bad for him. Although, I do hope he makes it one way or the other because he seems to be a good ballplayer and he wants to receive an education beyond high school.