Now that we will NEVER need to worry about these tests again in our lives (Praise the Lord), I have a different perspective on the SAT I than I did when I was a junior. When I was a junior, I thought that these tests were make or break for my academic life... but that was more because I was pretty lame :P. I was relieved that I got a decent score, but after I look back on my experience with SAT and college apps, I wonder if the schools I applied to really care about the scores I worked hard to get. Are they impressed, disappointed or apathetic, to the hours of extra classes and test prep I, or anyone for that matter, did to achieve score numbers that they see daily and are probably jaded towards? SAT I scores should not be held to the same standard as our high school transcripts or academics, and I think that they trivialize what we have accomplished. This will sound extreme, but I feel that a 3+ hour test that asks if we know the meaning of "jocular" or "conundrum", the ratio between 500 pairs of shoes to size 10 customers, whether sentences should have parallel structure, or if we can write about how wrong choices can be life lessons, insults all of our intelligence.
Mine, and others, frustration towards the limited scope of the SAT I seems to growing according to this Newsweek Article. Nearly a 1/3 of all 4-year colleges do not require standardized test scores, including some very accredited colleges like Bowdoin, Smith, and Wesleyan. Only one state requires the SAT for high school graduation. The ACT, a more comprehensive test, is branching out to numerous states, and has been taken more often than the SAT I, for the first time! -the difference is very slim, but fast growing-.
Yet, there are some benefits of the SAT that might help me get into college. It offers selective schools, like Ivies and UCs, another measure to weed out the multitudes of applicants they receive. With more and more people setting their sights on schools that were seen as fortresses for patrician education, it's obvious that these schools will not accept everyone no matter how amazing they are. A good score, even on a test like this, gives that applicant an edge. Yet, can we agree that great SAT I results come not from the raw brain power your mama gave you? Clearly, students that have access to those pricey courses and time to practice do better than students who simply cannot afford it. This goes against Collegeboard's general belief that high intelligence and high scores go hand-in-hand.
I feel that the SAT I needs to go. While I think that Standardized testing is important and a way to show of your skills, I would much rather have a HARD test about what I have learned in my 4 years at school than a test where I have to find the area of a Z- shaped pool in 30 seconds.
So what do you all think at the end of this experience? Do you think the SAT I should become extinct or that it is a necessary "evil"? Do you think my opinion is silly? I could after all be jealous/bitter that I don't have a phenomenal score.
7 comments:
Last year I remember saying that the SAT should not exist because its stupid and wrong, but now that I look at the situation with all those tests behind me, im thinking its not so stupid after all. I think that the grades given in school aren’t consistent for every student which makes the SAT a good thing. The grading, course work, and finals are different depending on which teacher we have, which doesn’t make students GPA very standardized. I think that the SAT is useful, I just wish they wouldn’t rely their decisions so much on the test so that your either in or out depending on the results.
In my opinion, the SAT is an adequate tool (even though I prefer the ACT) for gauging student capabilities. It does set all students at an even level since every student is certainly capable of getting a 2400. Materials and resources to get that 2400 may be unevenly distributed, but the truly motivated can get an exceptional score without the excessively expensive prep classes. One or two test prep books is sufficient.
An examination that tests the education that we've learned over our past 4 years of high school is sort of unpractical, since not everyone's high school education is identical. It was a nice thought though!
In response to Eric's comment, I think that a test over what we've learned over the past 4 years in high school is practical. Even though everyone's high school education isn't identical, I think there is at least somewhat of a benchmark about what students should know by the end of their junior or senior year.
I have to respectfully disagree with Miya, Eric, and Rashmi. With the abundance of SAT classes and preparation programs, the most successful students are now those who spend the most money scores the highest scores. These classes give you inside tips and strategies, which result in significantly higher scores. Consequently, the SAT is not as strong of a test of intelligence as many would like it to be.
Hahahaha! I never took any classes or anything before taking the SAT's. I still got a pretty good score without any practice whatsoever. But I believe that the SAT's need to go away. It's too expensive and I had a lot of trouble trying to get my scores sent to my collegees because of how expensive they were (and how expensive they were to take the test). I think it is also unfair that richer people get an advantage from extra classes while people had to struggle and take the SAT's without any classes because they couldn't afford it. My parents weren't going to help me pay my SAT's so I had a big problem, which is why I never took any classes.
I found a rather interesting, if lengthy, blog about the SAT in response to my query about the test's origins:
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat
The argument Murray makes is compelling: according to him, what began as a level playing field to measure intellectual prowess has evolved into what many call a "wealth test" because of parents who can buy their well-to-do children high scores. Interestingly, a study done by the UC indicates that high school transcripts and AP scores, narrow as they are, serve as much better prognosticators of college freshman grades than the SAT scores do.
Needless to say, it's unfortunate that so much emphasis is placed on the SAT, which is almost as unfortunate as the inelastic demand for AP tests that seem almost mandatory, given the competitive nature of the education system. I only hope that more emphasis is placed on the holistic end of evaluating applicants as it becomes more and more obvious that there isn't a reliable connection between high SAT scores and good brains.
Post a Comment