Skip to content

Do College Admission Policies Provide Motivation for Sit-n-Get Education?

July 27, 2011

This summer I’ve joined Twitter and begun blogging, and what I’ve read from both about getting students to “do” science has really resonated with me and inspired me.  As a former engineer, I’ve always agreed with this and designed a very active and hands-on curriculum during the 8 years I’ve been teaching.

For the first time ever I’ll be sharing the 9th grade physics teaching duties at my school this year.  My talents and the talents of my colleague actually complement each other, I think.  We hold different opinions when it comes to the level of structure.  I would characterize my course as less structured and exploratory.  My colleague’s course is more structured and scripted and would probably cover more material.  In a recent conversation about which topics we should cover, I was impressed at my colleague’s level of detail and concern over my intent for a lower-structured classroom.  I soon realized the reasons: 1) my colleague had reviewed the SAT physics exam and 2) has a daughter entering 9th grade at our school and she may take the SAT physics exam early.

A discussion regarding our respective classroom philosophies ensued.  One point I offered was that college professors complain that their students don’t come with a good conceptual understanding of the material.  My colleague offered that unless the student gets at least a 780 on the subject exam they can forget about getting into a prestigious college.

She has a point.

So again I return to wrestle with my nemesis: what is the balance between a low-structure, open, and exploratory classroom and preparing my students for standardized tests that could have just as much impact on their future as instilling a love of learning?  Does the product of these functions have a maximum?  And does “doing” science even have a chance if college admissions policies remain so heavily dependent on test scores?

How many teachers have actually squared this circle?  Please comment.


8/1/11: Just saw this blog post and thought it relevant to this discussion.



From → Thoughts & Ideas

  1. Andy "SuperFly" Rundquist permalink

    I have argued a lot recently for depth over breadth in high school. I teach at the college level and have noticed that my strongest students are the ones who can approach a new problem in lots of different ways.

    As for what colleges are looking for from an application perspective, for mine (in St. Paul, MN) it’s a decent ACT score and decent HS GPA. In other words, specific physics understanding or even test scores are not really used. Once here, they take calculus and then start our physics sequence in the spring. In early courses, the students who have done a lot of breadth in HS seem to do quite well. However, when we get to something they haven’t seen, the depth HS students really start to outshine them. As they move further into the major, it is those latter students who do the best.


    • If colleges don’t really use test scores, then why would high school students even consider taking SAT subject tests?

      • Andy "SuperFly" Rundquist permalink

        I suppose it depends on the school. In the midwest a lot of schools use the ACT instead of any SAT tests. Certainly if a school requires a test score, the score is used in admissions. My school only requires the ACT.

  2. Hi Brian,
    I’ve wanted to write about this for a few days now, but have finally found the time. As a former college counselor and physics teacher who worked with dozens of students who earned admission to elite colleges, I can tell you that your colleague is wrong. You don’t need to earn a 780 on the physics SAT II to earn admission to an elite college.

    Here’s a story of how a student gained admission to MIT, told by Brian Carpenter about a student he worked with. The basic idea is that you do something extraordinary—this student learned integrated circuits, then went on to land an internship at an engineering company and built all sorts of cool stuff. All of this looks a million times better than an physics SAT score of 780, which only puts you in the top 12 percent of test takers, and I can guarantee than every one of those 12 percent sees themselves at MIT. Brian’s student student score was good (near 700), unfortunately the way the scores are normalized, that’s the 63rd percentile. But when you’re learning integrated circuits in your spare time and building advanced electronics, MIT admissions officers could care less about SAT II scores (so long as they aren’t truly horrible.

    I’m sure you know the SAT II in physics is a pretty crappy test. It’s an especially crappy test for freshman, and if your goal is to have students get outstanding scores on the SAT II, it’s almost certainly going to require tutoring and many hours of study. And the problem with that is those hours of study have to come from somewhere. If that somewhere is doing something unique and interesting like learning integrated circuits, the student is actually harming his/her chances of admission by over prepping for the SAT II.

    And that’s the problem with chasing scores. If you’re going to distinguish yourself on scores and grades along, your scores and grades have to be out-of-this-world good. Better than 780. Heck, 7% of all test takers got a perfect 800. It’s a tightrope walk for most students that leads to an incredible amount of stress, and it won’t stop with the SAT II physics test.

    But if students do focus on developing a deep interest and establishing strong connections with teachers to help them explore these interests, their path is actually fun, and very low stress. The amazing thing is, in the end, to the admissions officer, this low stress path often looks to be more impressive, since leads to extraordinary and unique accomplishments (as opposed to the perfect test scores they see all the time).

    I’ve written a couple of posts about my thoughts on the SAT II on my blog, and if I could recommend only >one book for incoming freshmen to read about how to succeed, I’d recommend How to be a High School Superstar by Cal Newport (and his incredible blog— Study Hacks). It is a manual for high school students to lead a life in high school almost devoid of stress, focused on exploring one’s deep interests and leading a life worth living, which just happens to have a side effect of extraordinary success in the college process.

    • Brian Lamore permalink

      Thanks, John. This all makes sense. I taught an engineering elective one spring and had a few less-than-stellar female students. (They happened to be female — I am not equating gender and ability.) She and a couple friends joined my class to learn, among other things, how to change the oil in a car and change a flat tire. They also learned about soldering, circuit boards, breadboards, digital logic, and robotics. They even built a chin-up bar: mixed and poured concrete, drilled holes, welded, sawed, hammered, and leveled. That summer she got an internship working in the IT department at Lehman Bros. (yes, that one) She told them all the stuff we did in my class and said she “beat out some Asian kid with a 4.0.” Oh, did that make my day! And it supports your point: they wanted someone extraordinary. Kids with 4.0s must be plentiful.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The SAT II might be a roadblock for extraordinary accomplishment « Quantum Progress

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: