<p>Then if mainly high-performing students are entering college why does a certain few tend to choose only the best of the best while everyone else goes to “lower” school?</p>
<p>“Then if mainly high-performing students are entering college”</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s the case. I imagine most college students are average students at average schools.
Most of the students attending really selective colleges (and most colleges aren’t) are high-performing, because that’s the only way you get in.</p>
<p>“why does a certain few tend to choose only the best of the best while everyone else goes to ‘lower’ school?”</p>
<p>Because people often pick a college with the idea that they will go to the best school they can get into and afford. (Of course there are a lot of other factors, but when comparing two similar colleges people often look at rankings or go visit or ask around to figure out which school has the best program in their chosen major.)</p>
<p>Then… I got nothing. I don’t want to ask too much questions. Apparently I am in question mode this week.</p>
<p>It’s not just the students. Don’t forget about the faculty - highly ranked instutituions tend to have a higher percentage of Nobel laureates, National Academy of Sciences members, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And? What’s a chemistry Nobel laureate going to teach you that a person who was a former biochem researcher can’t? Someone who won an award is not necessarily going to be a better teacher.</p>
<p>Well, we know for sure that the Nobel laureate accomplished something.
The other one could have gotten fired for being a really bad biochem researcher. ;)</p>
<p>But I agree that being a good teacher is mostly about how well you actually teach and not about how much you know about your field. The Nobel laureate and the biochem researcher have the same amount of knowledge about basic chemistry, but one or the other might be better at explaining it.</p>
<p>However, in a lot of universities (including Ivy League) the classes are frequently taught by grad students and not the famous professors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, the biochem researcher realized that 90 hour weeks aren’t fun.</p>
<p>Okay, you’re right, I can’t objectively prove that the Ivies and other top schools are better than others. But no reasonable, rational-minded human being would believe they have a better shot at really anything in life at somewhere like Dayton than they would at somewhere like Princeton. </p>
<p>I can’t “prove” that LeBron James is better than Paul Pierce, but no one in their right mind would dispute that fact. Plus, statistics point to LeBron being better, just like statistics point to Princeton being better than Dayton.</p>
<p>Those things would be disputable if there was a foolproof way of identifying “betterness.” But since nobody can agree on what constitutes superiority, it can’t be determined objectively.</p>
<p>Such is the plague of all opinions.</p>
<p>You can’t objectively prove that anything is “better” than anything because the idea of something being better in general is always an opinion.
The best you can say is that one option is more likely to bring about some desired result. For example, if someone wanted to go into investment banking, they’d be more likely to get a job in that field coming out of an Ivy League school, and you could back that up with statistics.</p>
<p>Even then, you could question the source of the statistics and, more often than not, find that it is a biased organization carrying out.</p>
<p>This is getting too philosophical though; this is about the SAT/ACT, not whether any statement can ever really be a fact.</p>
<p>The arguments I hear against the SAT and ACT (for convenience, I’ll just say SAT) generally fall into one of these categories:
-It’s stressful, a pain, or something I don’t feel like doing. – This is a reasonable cause for discomfort, but not only will you have to do many stressful things in college anyway; you probably already are in high school. Well, you might earn straight A’s effortlessly, but then you probably do well on standardized tests too, and if you don’t you should learn to, because college is not devoid of tests that are standardized or of similar conditions.
-It rewards men. – Men score only marginally higher than women; women’s advantage over men in grades is more significant. Besides, you can’t blame a whole gender for what it tends to be better at.
-It rewards people who live in nice neighborhoods and have access to a good education. – Well, maybe it does, but, if those people are better prepared for college due to their circumstances, shouldn’t it be in colleges’ best interest to prefer them?
-It punishes minorities. – First, Asians are a minority, and Jews may be depending on your definition; and second, black and Hispanic students likely perform worse due to educational upbringing as mentioned above. There is little if any evidence that they perform worse when compared to a control group of whites or Asians in similar circumstances and with similar upbringings.
-It shouldn’t be worth so much when it only takes a few hours once. – First of all, most test-takers study extensively; second, your entire education up to the point of test-taking is, in a way, a time of preparation; third, it’s becoming worth less over time because of its bad reputation.
-Aren’t good grades a better indicator of academic potential and achievement? – Within a school, the answer is generally yes, but all schools are not created equal.</p>
<p>I don’t claim to have “debunked” anti-SAT sentiment; this is just how I see the whole debate.</p>
<p>
This assumes that “prestige” is defined by teaching quality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It rewards the wealthy for being wealthy because they can afford tutors and books and classes galore to train the student to take the test. It has nothing to do with their preparedness for actual college. The SAT is a measure of test taking ability more than college readiness.</p>
<p>Ooh we got another one:
</p>
<p>1.) I don’t expect to wake up 6 in the morning (I shower at night) just to go down to a completely different school and take a 4-6 hours test in college… And if I stress in college then that mean it is a combination of factors not just exams.</p>
<p>2.) I really don’t want to touch on the gender issues so I’ll leave that be.</p>
<p>3.) If it is in colleges’ best interest to put more people from nice neighborhoods and better schools then we are depriving the youth of their rightful education and denying there right to follow their dreams and succeed in America.</p>
<p>4.) I don’t consider jews a race just a religion. So… Yes Asians are minorities but usually people reference minorities to Black and Hispanics because they are. But even when you put all minorities with each other then yes they are “punish”.</p>
<p>5.)
a. You’re assuming that most test-takers are studying extensively. You lack proofs to back this up. And I ain’t talking online blog.
b. This is what I been saying. This would topple the whole “Studying” foundation.
c.)??? unsure of what you are saying</p>
<p>6.) Nor have all men and women been granted equal oppunities.
Also I want you to think about college. Not all of them are created equal neither. So why is it a good idea to take a test and only the top colleges would care the most about the scores.</p>
<p>Rich families have an advantage in all aspects of college acceptance.</p>
<p>^thank you for proving our points</p>
<p>They’re essentially worthless and the emphasis on them is a joke.</p>
<p>I hate it. It’s not an “aptitude” test anymore; it’s a strategy test. Look at the rising number of people getting 2400s.</p>
<p>Haters</p>
<pre><code> .
</code></pre>