<p>Innumerable students' yearn acceptance to ''Ivy League colleges.'' The majority crave for perfect scores' and whatnot. The truth is, high school is utterly unfair and capricious. Hell, most of them just can't teach, except for the one's that truly want you to succeed and learn. My chem teacher cannot ''teach'', she's unable to. She jokes with jeers about her boyfriend the whole class period, while my math teacher is sexes firmly against males....
High school is a joke, nothing is taken serious, nothing. The one and only thing that I believe is purely fair in the high school system is the SAT.</p>
<p>^ tru dat 10 chars</p>
<p>sat requires preparation in order to really do well, unless you're a genius by nature. there is nothing completely fair about this process. but we do it anyway. this is america, i guess.</p>
<p>Maybe preparing for the SAT is what is unfair, not the SAT itself. I'm a big proponent of the SAT.</p>
<p>The SAT is a trivial barometer. The material is very easy to prepare for...</p>
<p>edit: Although I do believe that a test is necessary to compare students from different schools. I just don't believe the SAT is necessarily the best exam. However I haven't seen any better tests. =/</p>
<p>^ It's not easy by any means, except to the exceptional. Thats why even getting a 2000 (an kiss-of-death score for CC'ers) beats 95% of this country.</p>
<p>It's not trivial at all if almost everyone does bad on the SAT, while a few do good, which is what really seperates people.</p>
<p>I think a huge part about doing well on the SAT is caring about doing well. Fewer than 15,000 kids score 1500+/1600. But how many people who take the SAT are shooting for the Ivies? or really competitive schools? Many people have no problem settling for an 1200/1600 or something like that.</p>
<p>I agree that while we encourage education, it should not always be looked upon the students as the problem, but also the teachers. It is true, many teachers are a joke. My 8th grade history teacher didn't teach ANYTHING. He just told us to read the book and have a certain paper due by a certain day and we graded it. I had to read the book to learn. A few years back, I was told, he even fell asleep on a pizza. I don't blame him though, he has some health problems.</p>
<p>The SAT isn't purely fair. Nothing really is. They take a bunch of partially fair measures (grades, courseload, testing, recommendations, extracurriculars, essays, other stuff) but together they create a more accurate representation of the student.</p>
<p>^Accurate? But some people just don't test well.</p>
<p>The SAT is fair for one reason, it is the same exact test taken throughout the country. Everyone is notified, atleast in their freshman year what exactly the SAT is, thus preparation time comes in play. Therefore the SAT is merely the only thing FAIR. While teacher recommendations are ALL bias or purely self favorites. Also running for CLUB OFFICERS is based on POPULARITY. Boy's and Girl's, high school to me is merely a JOKE. Not to mention, most of my teachers do it personally for the money, since they couldn't find any other ''easy'' job.</p>
<p>I objected to the idea of buying one's score. I wanted to take the SAT once and only once and get the score that reflected my natural abilities, not my insecurity and my parents' income. I refused to take a prep course. I boycotted the books and guides. I got a 1480/2200 and, even though I'm sure I could improve at least a bit with practice, it was plenty high for me. I'm not doing it again.</p>
<p>Familiarizing yourself with the test isn't "buying one's score." I think the test tries to account for the fact that most people walk in knowing what to do where...
I mean who has time to read the directions and do all the questions??
So if you walk in completely cold.. u aren't going to reach the full potential of your natural abilities.</p>
<p>Jesus Christ, OP, learn grammar.</p>
<p>I second econner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Accurate? But some people just don't test well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some people don't sleep well. Therefore, we should eliminate sleep.</p>
<p>Some people don't have cars/rides. Therefore, we should eliminate extracurriculars.</p>
<p>Some people don't have supportive families. Therefore, we should eliminate family.</p>
<p>=P .. just because "SOME PEOPLE" are bad at something is no reason to completely get rid of it.</p>
<p>hardly anything is "fair" about high school.</p>
<p>If you live in a poor area you're forced to go to a poor public school</p>
<p>If you don't test fast enough then you do poorly on the SATs</p>
<p>If you're not a born athlete you'll never be an athletic superstar</p>
<p>If you're not outgoing or good-looking, you won't be popular and it will be hard to gain leadership positions</p>
<p>If you don't have a supportive family you have to make your own way through school. </p>
<p>High school, like life, just isn't fair. You have to make the best with what you've got and seek to balance out the difference.</p>
<p>btw, I'm on the fence about the SAT, it definitely isn't fair, it doesn't measure much anything. But its the best thing we've got right now.</p>
<p>I'm with Tyler09. The sad thing is is that kids who are brilliant mechanics or carpenters or dancers or sculptors that don't do well get the short end of the stick. Who's to say they aren't "smart" or "capable" enough to be accepted into the college of their choice? The SAT certainly didn't measure their area of expertise. I know there are other ways to let colleges know about your talents, but it still measures a specific set of skills---which is their form of examination---that not all are born or afforded to opportunity to become adept at. I mean, I know nothing about fixing cars, but does that make me less worthy of attending a good school? Certainly not. I don't believe the opposite is true either. And, unfortunately, I doubt any carpenters wanting a liberal arts education (or whatever) ever got recruited because of their woodworking skills and low SATs.</p>
<p>Then again, I have no idea what to do about it. Helpful, no? ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The sad thing is is that kids who are brilliant mechanics or carpenters or dancers or sculptors that don't do well get the short end of the stick. Who's to say they aren't "smart" or "capable" enough to be accepted into the college of their choice? The SAT certainly didn't measure their area of expertise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test</p>
<p>Colleges are looking for kids that can excel ACADEMICALLY.</p>
<p>All other abilities -- mechanics, dancing, sculpting -- are secondary when it comes to institutions of ACADEMIA. Maybe not when it comes to The Juilliard School, but at places like that, the SAT isn't weighted as heavily.</p>
<p>"If you live in a poor area you're forced to go to a poor public school"</p>
<p>I honestly loathe people who use that excuse. I went to one of the poorest school districts in the state, switched to a richer school district last year and being in the poor one hasn't held me back at all. You have what you have, deal with it and make the best of whatever you're given. </p>
<p>"If you don't have a supportive family you have to make your own way through school. "</p>
<p>Yeah... and? My family didn't support me, but yet I still managed. So we make our own way through school. How do you think it's going to be when you get to college? Mom and dad aren't going to be there to help. I think of it as getting a jump start on life :].</p>
<p>As to the SAT, it's NOT completely fair to everybody. What about people like me who are dyslexic? It's not our fault it's hard to read, but if we score low does that mean we can't achieve at top colleges? No, it means we can't test well with things like that. That's why I'm glad colleges look at much more than how well you can test.</p>
<p>Sorry for the snappiness, it's just been a really long, stressful day.</p>