<br>
<blockquote> <p>Why in a meritocracy should anyone object to merit being rewarded? And why would you want to reward mediocrity?</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Not very many "mediocre" students get accepted to Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Exactly my point and why would that bother anyone and why would they want to change it.</p>
<p>"Well, I for one strongly believe the SAT measures nothing except a person's ability to take the SAT. "</p>
<p>And I don't believe a chemistry test measures anything except a person's ability to solve meaningless little problems designed to tirck and ensare. However that is how professors determine if you have learned the material. Oddly even the Motor Vehicle Administration uses this biased means method for handing out drivers licenses.</p>
<p>Liberals seem annoyed that people don't merit their merit any more than they merit their health or their good looks or lack thereof. Life is not fair if by fair you mean everyone has an equal proportion of what society values. </p>
<p>BTW you might want to talk to Mike Tyson about economic mobility in the USA. I think he may have some perspective on it.</p>
<p>Not even the collegeboard really claims that the SAT measures 'merit' or 'intelligence' or 'scholastic ability' any more. Some test...like chemistry tests, ro subject specific ones, are quite a bit better. However, I personally believe that a single standardized test for an entire nation of ~300 million people is bound to have built in expectations for a subject's upbringing and culture, particularly in verbal sections, as math is more concrete. </p>
<p>If there was an accurate way to measure 'merit,' then by all means, please use it. however I do not believe the SAT is in any way a measure of merit. </p>
<p>And just because some people can change their socio-economic status does not mean any one could. Very few Americans see the massive class-changes that athletes achieve. The Horatio Alger stories are largelly mythical.</p>
<p>Hmm - yes I am sure 300 million separate tests targeted to measure what if anything each of 300 million people know would be better or at least fairer. After all they presummably all know something even if that something is neither true or useful just like you know that there is very little economic mobility in the USA. On that basis we could get them 1600's on their SATs.</p>
<p>Clearly it is impossible and completely unreasonable to give some 300 million seperate tests.</p>
<p>Instead, we could take a combination of, say, several different tests, essays, activity lists, and teacher recommendations, all the while taking into account the culture and background of the individual,and this would eliminate many of the problems with standardized tests, while still giving the most accurate results possible.</p>
<p>And you cannot have a meritocracy if the people whose merit is being judged do not have the same starting point. If people are given vastly different opportunities, it is not a "system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement." It wouldn't be solely due to individual ability.</p>
<p>Whatever floats your boat arador. At the end of the day it will still be the same people at the top and your "taking into account the culture and background" is as fraught with cultural bias as any standardized test. The puzzle-meisters who solve those "meaningless" puzzles on the SAT will game your system too.</p>
<p>Oh, clearly it is not perfect. I just believe it is less imperfect.</p>
<p>I favour a system where every year the government draws up a budget to meet all of our basic human needs. The when it has a number of what this will cost it puts every american name in the hat and starts drawing them out. If your name comes up we take everything you have except the clothes on your back whether you are Bill Gates or the meanest homeless person on the street. We keep drawing names until we balance the budget. Repeat each year and I have guaranteed economic mobility, a balanced budget, and a government that meets all our needs.</p>
<p>I really don't want to start an argument about economic systems. Your example is ridiculous - not even marxists would agree with that plan, let alone socialists. I just have 2 points:
1. The US is not a meritocracy, as there are manyother factors in determining the chances you get in life, including family wealth, race, the individuals sex, etc.
2. If the US was a meritocracy, the SATs would be a really poor way of measuring merit.</p>
<p>Yes the SAT does not measure intelligence or true merit. Yes taking into account circumstances of an individual combined with several tests may seem less imperfect. But only to a completely impartial judge, of which there are none. </p>
<p>What the SAT does measure is how a diverse, differently abled population is able to handle the exact same reasoning problems. The standardization here is necessary for a concrete basis for comparison. School's are all different, grades differ from class to class, teacher rec's differ from teacher to teacher and some kids are homeschooled. Certain schools have the benefit of more lab equipment and better Chemistry teachers. Nothing is fair or absolute. Those who deserve the most do not always receive the most.</p>
<p>When looking at the SAT scores on an application the admissions officers are THEN able to take into account other factors such as race, socioeconomic status, opportunities etc. Thus the only "fair" way to measure merit is to design the least biased reasoning test and judge based on how people in similar circumstances perform.</p>
<p>If student X comes from a working class family in the city and attended an inner city school but has gotten good grades and shows leadership in the community their SAT score is not equally weighted when compared to student Y who is rich, attends a well known prep school and had the benefit of several SAT courses to improve his or her score. Collegeboard has no ulterior motive or impulse to create a test that is inherently unfair to some people, and at this point the SAT is the best they can do. But in terms of SOME kind of ability I disagree that the SAT is a bunch of meaningless puzzles that rich kids do better on simply because they are rich. The SAT does measure a form of ability. It measures reading comprehension, mathematical reasoning, and the mastery of the english language - and now the ability to coherently write an essay. None of these things are meaningless, and there is no way to create a test that measures ABSOLUTE merit, which is why there are a host of other things that are taken into account on any given application.</p>
<p>You know I have never been able to figure out why it is that the GM's of professional baseball, football, basketball, soccer and hockey were only able to turn out half-a**ed teams when the DID take "into account the culture and background". When they stopped doing that we got Bill Russels and Reggie Jacksons and Jim Browns and I would much rather watch them play then any of the teams that George Preston Marshall put on the field.</p>
<p>And why is it that the first time some Black man or woman doesn't toe the party line there will be a liberal there to point out that they wouldn't be there if it weren;t for afirmative action - whether that is true or not? Affirmative action from the minority perspective may seem necessary but from way too many white perspectives is a way of one - easing ones conscience and two - dismissing minorities as permanently handicapped lesser beings.</p>
<p>People can legitimately argue about what the correct ruler is to measure merit but until all merit is measured with the same ruler we will have two americas separate and unequal.</p>