<p>I'm doing a persuasive paper for English, and my topic is: Should standardized testing be used?</p>
<p>I know most of you hate the SAT to some degree, so please give me some reasons why the SAT (or the ACT) should not be used.</p>
<p>For example: study shows that no connection have been found between SAT scores and college freshmen grades.</p>
<p>1.) No correlation between SAT and GPA/AP Scores
2.) Doesn't really check how much knowledge one has, but rather the test taking skills( CR MC technique to eliminate extremes is one example unnecessary skills)
3.) Can be biased at times; passages are easier for those with historic backgrounds, etc (had a passsage on Arab customs -.-)
4.) Too big of a factor for acceptance into colleges </p>
<p>Hope I helped a little =]</p>
<p>Rebuttal to 1.): That could also be used as an argument against GPA being such a strong factor. Or, for that matter, an argument that both are useful in deriving a "complete picture".</p>
<p>WOW we just had to do this exact essay.</p>
<p>I was one of the 3/30 students who said yes.</p>
<p>my reasons included:</p>
<p>Males do the best on the SAT. Women get better grades (which i explained by schools having more elementary women school teachers, which starts girls off on the right foot, as they can relate to the teacher while boys are taught by people they cant relate to. Minorities benefit from AA. Where does the white male have his advantage? SATs level the playing field and provide balance.</p>
<p>I also said that SATs require you to perform in the moment. If you train 4 years to become an ER doctor and graduate at the top of the class, you are worthless if you cant come through on the life saving surgery under pressure.</p>
<p>I got the highest grade :D!!! (not meaning to brag, just i was really excited about it).</p>
<p>Those arent really my personal views, but it made a sick essay. My teacher read it to the class, and some girl was like "thats not fair...girls do better because xxxx" and the teacher was like "you're mad at his explanation, he must have made a good argument- thats why he got an A"</p>
<p>ChaseD13 how can u make that analogy of SAT and performing surgery so save a life. wow . SAT is overrated however a standard is needed to be able to compare students. however i personally beleive the SAT IIs and APs are good enough....</p>
<p>A lot.</p>
<p>SAT</a> stories.</p>
<p>College</a> Board, Test Company Sued Over SAT.
Please disregard my post in which I went off the deep end and suggested a dark conspiracy between the CB and ETS. There are close ties, but of a different nature. So much for crusading against uninformed opinions...:o</p>
<p>This book would be helpful:
The</a> Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools.</p>
<p>The answer to your question is yes. There is a need to compare students from so many different places. That doesn't mean that the SAT/ACT could not be improved. </p>
<p>If you are investigating, check with the Duke TIP people and see what their take is on this. They must have tons of data and the seventh graders are taking the test mostly unprepared.</p>
<p>The question is should standardized testing be used, and that explains my analogy. </p>
<p>See the SAT is the most important test you ever take (well maybe not, but it's definitely up there). Often people complain saying that the SAT doesn't show how hard and well you have worked over the years, and just how you did on one day. I justified that with my doctor example.</p>
<p>Like i said, 95% of kids will say its bad, so if you can say it's good, and do an above average job at defending your argument, you will do very well.</p>
<p>Like i said, it you don't need to really argue what you believe- you just need to make a convincing argument.</p>
<p>Being capable of memorizing words like "halcyon" doesn't mean you have good reasoning skills.</p>
<p>In addition to my previous post.
Another good book on the evils of standardized testing:
Standardized Minds: The High Price of America's Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It.</p>
<p>First, lets leave two irrelevant questions outside of the scope of this discussion:
If the SAT is no good - what do I propose in place of it?
and
If I am so opposed to the SAT - why am I tutoring it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Growing number of colleges do not require the SAT/ACT scores at all or make admissions decisions about significant numbers of applicants without using the SAT or ACT.
How on earth do they manage to compare students?
Presently there are more than 700 of such schools.
Here's the list of them:
Schools That Do Not Use SAT or ACT Scores for Admitting Substantial Numbers of Students Into Bachelor Degree Programs As of Fall 2007.</p></li>
<li><p>How can the SAT scores be used as a measuring stick for comparing students if the tests are biased by several factors: gender, ethnicity, family socioeconomic status (not just an income), age.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Glenn Elert of Columbia wrote a very interesting paper in 1992 - "The</a> SAT. Aptitude or Demographics?". Incidentally, Mr. Elert is one of the most popular teachers in Midwood High School at Brooklyn College, NY: Glenn</a> Elert Ratings. He has a really cool website: Mr</a>. Elerts Midwood Website. I am not personally or otherwise familiar with Mr. Elert.
Here is the excerpt:
// The American College Testing Program openly admitted the age discrimination in its college admissions test: "Age groups are combined for prediction [by ACT scores]; however, this procedure leads to consistent underprediction of the grades of older students, and thus to bias against them"
If we buy into the whole notion that the SAT measures "verbal and mathematical abilities... developed over many years both in and out of school" then on the average most people lose ability shortly after high school. //</p>
<p>Another very well researched publication is the 1998 book "The</a> Case Against the SAT".</p>
<p>What was true about the unfairness of the SAT then still holds true today.
From the October 30, 2007 article Colleges Re-evaluate SAT in the The Cornell Daily Sun:
students from families in the highest income bracket ($100,000 and over) scored, on average, 300 points higher than their counterparts in the lowest (less than $10,000) income bracket.
The data showing score disparities by gender, ethnicity and income can be found in
2007</a> College Bound Seniors Average SAT Scores.</p>
<p>3.
Need more be said?</p>
<p>Meant to include the link:
From the October 30, 2007 article "Colleges</a> Re-evaluate SAT" in the The Cornell Daily Sun:
"
students from families in the highest income bracket ($100,000 and over) scored, on average, 300 points higher than their counterparts in the lowest (less than $10,000) income bracket."</p>
<p>I have an excellent idea: Every single college should interview, teach, test, and shadow each applicant in order to precisely determine their qualifications for their university.</p>
<p>Oh wait, I forgot, there's a reason why the assembly line and uniform parts were invented... because individualizing everything is extremely inefficient.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Growing number of colleges do not require the SAT/ACT scores at all or make admissions decisions about significant numbers of applicants without using the SAT or ACT.
How on earth do they manage to compare students?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The purpose of admissions isn't to admit students, it's to admit the best students.</p>
<p>Also, answer that question with the word "correctly" inserted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the SAT is no good - what do I propose in place of it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And at least make an attempt to answer this question instead of posing it and saying something completely irrelevant.</p>
<p>So</p>
<p>
[quote]
Need more be said?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>Do you hear any complaining from the discriminated people when they achieve high scores on the SAT? Whether we like it or not we live in stratified society and yes, on the average some groups score lower, but individually you have high achievers on any group (and low achievers too). SAT/ACT are not perfect, but it's what we have (improvement is always an option).</p>
<p>thanks for all the posts...really helped me</p>
<p>SOme people suggest that the SAT subject tests should be used instead of SAT 1s, but many schools may not prepare students well enough for certian subject tests, especially in language and history. A student attending a school offering many AP's has more opportunities to do well on the subject tests, than a student who does not.</p>
<p>People are responsible for their own learning. That some people have an advantage is just crap.</p>
<p>ChaseD13<- There are a lot of strong arguments against the use of standardized tests. These tests tend to be biased and pose a disadvantage for a lot of minorities & low-income families. Many people just don't have the money to get the right kind of education and such tests like the SAT ignore that fact.</p>
<p>Standardized tests only check you on "test taking skills" on a 3-hour sitting period. I don't think it has to do anything with ER doctors failing to save lives. Sure, what if you get 2400 in the SAT all the time but fail in life? I'm sure standardized tests are not the key to "screening" students, but I'm also sure that there are better ways to do it - it's just not been invented yet. We humans are not perfect beings.</p>
<p>SAT II's, on the other hand, are more fair. Still, there are arguments on whether they should focus on more important subjects or take a broader approach to the subject at hand.</p>
<p>Ultimately: there are good reasons as to why standardized tests should AND should not be used at the same time.</p>
<p>All the highly selective colleges and universities have always used a wide range of criteria for admission (in other words, they have been holistic for a long time).</p>
<p>If anything good comes out of all these discussions is that the holistic approach has been trickling down to a greater number of schools and that's great news.</p>
<p>SAT/ACT is just one more tool, not perfect, but let's not throw it away. If you really read the articles and look into the statistics, I would take them with a grain of salt (both for and against).</p>
<p>Standardized testing> GPA any day of the week, any week of the year.</p>
<p>GPA is a measure of how hard you try, how compatible your learning styles are with your teachers, the quality of your teachers, and your ablity to suck up.</p>
<p>SAT Is and ACTs measure your intelligence and your intelectual (sp?) potential. They are essential for the admissions decision process. There is no logical way to refute this when grading systems and teaching quality varies so much at so many different schools. </p>
<p>I also believe that SAT IIs and AP scores should be worth more than GPA. For example, the person who gets a 790 and 5 in Biology but a B in the class obviously is more knowledgeable about the subject than somebody who recieved a 690, 4, and A+ in the class because they sucked up and grade grubed. Why should the 1st person be considered inferior to the second person in any regard when they know more about biology. </p>
<p>I really think AP scores and SAT IIs should steal some influence from GPA. Doing extremely well on these proves that the student has learned the subject at hand better than GPA can.</p>
<p>Not necessary hopeful5. However it could be true.</p>