Why SAT's Rule

[A.E]

<p>

@bpkap

Lastly, if the SATs are so essential for college admissions people, then how do you explain colleges like Bowdoin (which only accepts 19% of applicants!), Bates, Connecticut, and Mount Holyoke, which don't require SAT scores?

Lastly, huh? I don't think so.</p>

<p>Anyway, these colleges probably have superior admissions offices. While the SAT can serve as a good means of comparing students with similar GPAs from different schools, it's not the only thing that accomplishes that. I would say that, even among elite schools, the admissions offices are full of lazy, uncreative people who aren't trying to think outside the box when it comes to evaluating new students. They rely on tried-and-true methods, such as the SAT, for that. And, for the most part, that works. But, for people looking to try new things, it's not too difficult to discern someone's academic competence and potential through other methods, such as essays, interview questions, and so on.</p>

<p>Throughout this thread, bpkap, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The OP's entire premise is that GPA is non-standardized and, therefore, quite flawed as a measurement of someone's academic potential. Standardized metrics are needed to properly evaluate people and, historically, the SAT has done a good enough job of that. It also happens to correlate to other metrics, such as IQ and success in life and so on. Are there better, fairer ways of evaluating people? Of course, but that's not really the point.</p>

[A.E]

<p>

@smiley44

No, the SATS aren't indicative of one's intellegence. Anybody can cram some words and learn grammar rules. The only section I think is good is the math section, because it requires critical thinking in a short period of time.

</p>

<p>High IQ societies around the world would disagree. The simple fact is that IQ scores and SAT scores correlate. Also, to suggest the verbal section of the SAT requires no critical thinking, but just memorization, is laughable. What's more, your argument about cramming and forgetting is a lot of BS as well. Why? Short-term memory is every bit a component of intelligence as long-term retention is. Whether it's being able to hold a string of digits in your head long enough to make a phone call or retain information about a subject for a day after cramming it in so that you can take a test, the more intelligent you are, the better success you'll have at doing it. And, like it or not, your success at a place like Swarthmore will rely on being able to effectively cram for tests, because sometimes you won't have the luxury of fully mastering every subject you encounter, because there are only so many hours in a day.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are really smart people who are horrible test takers, and there are really not-so-smart people who are good test takers, but as soon as that test is over, have forgotten everything they crammed.

[/quote]

Of course there are exceptions, but so what? Most of the time, a person who is a better test taker is also more intelligent. If a person is very bright but poor at taking tests, his intelligence will be apparent in other ways. This is why colleges don't rely 100% on SAT scores and discard everything else. You are making the illogical argument that exceptions somehow disprove a correlation. In fact, they are merely outliers, and in no way invalidate the trend that high SAT scores indicate high intelligence.</p>

[bpkap]

<p>OK, I'm not going to respond to the argument between A.E. and smiley, because you two seem to be dealing with that yourselves, so I'm just going to talk about what was addressed at me. So, staring with your first paragraph, I don't think that it is the job of the high schools to make it easier for the traditional-minded admissions departments at colleges to stay with their traditional-minded attitudes. I don't think that just the argument that many admissions people are narrow-minded is enough to make it permissible to do all of the horrible things associated with standardized tests (if you want more specifics about that, read the rest of the stuff I've posted.) The ends so don't justify the means in this type of situation, it's like a joke. Plus, we've never tried not having SATs, so we've made it easy for admissions people to be lazy and narrow-minded. If the SATs were abolished, the admissions committees would have to do something to compensate. If more and more high schools get out of the grades and standardized test thing, then the colleges will have to adapt. This is a change that high schools will have to initiate rather than waiting for universities to signal their readiness.</p>

<p>As for the second paragraph, I already showed the studies by Collegeboard that disproved the notion that SATs predict future success in life. Remember? I don't think the SAT scores really predict anything besides future test scores. And why do you feel the need to make such a fetish out of the IQ tests? You mentioned it in multiple posts. Read the thing I posted about multiple intelligences. Yes, IQ is certainly one form of intelligence, but it is not all there is to it. I don't believe intelligence can be measured, but that's a different discussion. The comment that I most disagree with, though, is your philosophy that in society, there is an inherent need for standardization, and that it is essential that all born children compete with each other in a measurable manner. I so couldn't disagree more. Forgetting the fact that the SAT is totally not a good way to objectively measure everyone's skills (Again, there was a study of math results on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress about the SATs, and they concluded that the combination of number of parents living at home, parents' educational background, type of community, and poverty rate accounted for 89 percent of the differences in scores), and forgetting how much it caters towards one type of learner, why do we NEED to standardize everything? Is that really the type of education you want? A "standardized" one? I think we should celebrate diversity, rather than mindlessly pin people against each other in a crazy competitive frenzy in the name of standardization. Plus, if you want to talk about standards, there is a difference between giving standards offered as guidelines (“See if this type of thinking works for you”) and standards presented as mandates (“Learn this or else”). I don't think any student should be expected to meet an academic standard that a cross section of successful adults in the community cannot. What's the point? I think that if colleges only relied on the things I suggested they rely on (written comments, portfolios, interviews, student-led conferences, exhibitions, etc.), it will be much easier for them to get a sense of who the candidate really is, and it will be much easier for them to see if that type of person is right for the school, rather than the SAT, which "standardizes" people.</p>

[bpkap]

<p>( also, everyone should watch this video: YouTube</a> - Not on the Test )</p>

[CollegeDadX3]

<p>"Really? You're going to chastise him for saying "chicks," and then go on to call the men men and the women ladies?" I never knew there was a negative conotation to the word ladies. Enlighten me if you would because I always thought the word ladies was a positive thing. If not, my apologies. And - "pal"? Nice!</p>

[A.E]

<p>

@CollegeDadX3

"Really? You're going to chastise him for saying "chicks," and then go on to call the men men and the women ladies?" I never knew there was a negative conotation to the word ladies. Enlighten me if you would because I always thought the word ladies was a positive thing. If not, my apologies. And - "pal"? Nice!

OK, buddy, here you go:</p>

<p>[lady</a> definition | Dictionary.com<a href="check%20out%20the%20first%20Usage%20Note">/url</a></p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady#More_recent_usage:_sexism_.28US.29%5DLady"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady#More_recent_usage:_sexism_.28US.29]Lady&lt;/a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lady%5Dlady"&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lady)&lt;/p>

<p>Consider yourself enlightened.</p>

[A.E]

<p>

@bpkap

[Wrap it up, B.]

</p>

<p>Your objection to the SAT is purely a philosophical one, not an objective or logical one. I think perhaps that's the problem you're having with the OP. Your view is that of an idealist, that the system could be better and that one day we won't need the likes of the SAT, or grades, or any sort of competitive standardization for our society to function. Maybe so, maybe not. You also dismiss the validity of IQ and reject that intelligence can be measured and, instead, try to foist some namby-pamby multiple intelligences stuff on me. I happen to disagree with your position, and I think the correlation between the SAT and various IQ tests is telling, both about the SAT and, according to their scores, the people who take it. </p>

<p>I recognize it is unfair that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds score lower than those from privileged backgrounds, but this unfairness extends well beyond the SAT. Underprivileged children are more likely to end up in prison, get shot, struggle in the workplace later on in life, do poorly in school, go into the military, become drug addicts or alcoholics, or so many other things. Without major changes to the social structure throughout the entire world, this is going to continue to happen, whether or not the SAT is around to measure them against each other, and biases like this will be present in whatever method admissions offices decide to use to evaluate applicants. You can write a good essay? Congratulations, you were probably born into a privileged life.</p>

<p>There is diversity and then there is "diversity." If Swarthmore were to embrace true diversity, it could start accepting gang-bangers who, despite a penchant for microeconomics, have no interest in academics, or people who were convicted of felonies before they were even 18 and who want a second chance, regardless of whether or not they can read above the level of an 8th grader. What kind of diversity do you really want? In truth, not much. Swarthmore is for budding intellectuals with an interest in academics, who are looking for a well-rounded and intense experience in learning. Period. This is very specific and not all-inclusive by any means. Things like GPA, success in standardized tests, writing ability, and other metrics are useful to an institution like Swarthmore because they purport to gauge a student's interest in and ability for rigorous academic study. What's more, Swarthmore receives far more applicants than it can accept. This breeds competition and, in doing so, prospective students must out-do each other for acceptance. The only completely "fair" and non-competitive way to handle this would be to hold a lottery. That would certainly insure fairness and diversity (excepting, of course, the kids who can't even afford to apply or who are illiterate and can't even fill out an application, or who died in a youth army somewhere in Africa), but at what cost?</p>

<p>Also, please don't insult me or the rest of us with references to links on various studies. I could bombard you with dozens of links culled from simple Google searches of studies done showing how SAT scores correlate to salaries later in life, or whatever else. Do you really want to turn this into a links war, because that would be pretty lame.</p>

[CollegeDadX3]

<p>"refined, polite, and well-spoken" - Again - is that bad? That is the first definition. I am really not trying to be dumb, I am actually trying to find out if calling a young woman a young lady instead is some type of bash or put down. I teach seniors in high school and I am going to pose that question to them today. It will be interesting to see if their answer is the same as yours. And, thank you for enlightening me to the possibility that it may be incorrect to call a woman a lady instead. To tell you the truth, I have never thought about it. I do hope that you see that "chicks" is not the same as "lady". As in, "your daughter is a nice young lady" verses, "your daughter is a nice chick". Have a wonderful weekend A.E. as you seem like an incredibly intelligent student! The world needs more students like you to broaden the discussion. It is ALWAYS a good thing to question and look at things differently than others. I wish you were in my class. I love teaching.... uhm young adults (is that ok?) like you!</p>

[A.E]

<p>
[quote]
"refined, polite, and well-spoken" - Again - is that bad? That is the first definition. I guess there are a lot of answers to this. First, it's kind of disingenuous to label a group of women you've never met "refined, polite, and well-spoken." But,
I am really not trying to be dumb, I am actually trying to find out if calling a young woman a young lady instead is some type of bash or put down. I teach seniors in high school and I am going to pose that question to them today. It will be interesting to see if their answer is the same as yours. And, thank you for enlightening me to the possibility that it may be incorrect to call a woman a lady instead. To tell you the truth, I have never thought about it. I do hope that you see that "chicks" is not the same as "lady". As in, "your daughter is a nice young lady" verses, "your daughter is a nice chick". Have a wonderful weekend A.E. as you seem like an incredibly intelligent student! The world needs more students like you to broaden the discussion. It is ALWAYS a good thing to question and look at things differently than others. I wish you were in my class. I love teaching.... uhm young adults (is that ok?) like you!

[/quote]

I should point out that I'm an alum, not a student. As to your question, all I can tell you is that the term carries a lot of historical baggage, and it implies a demure and deferential nature, considered positive according to the chauvinistic social codes of bygone eras, that may be seen as patronizing coming from the mouth of a man in the modern day.</p>

[bpkap]

<p>Does "wrap it up B" mean that you want me to stop? This is a blog. I'm not requiring you to read anything. I sort of find it fun to discuss this, but if you don't just stop. That's all.</p>

<p>Anyway, first paragraph: How can you honestly say that you are against the multiple intelligence theory? You don't think that there are some people who are more socially smart than others? You don't think there are some people who are more musically talented than others? You don't think there are some people who are more creative than others? All of those skills can certainly manifest themselves later in life when you choose a career. In fact, I bet there are many more careers where social skills would be helpful than there are careers where SAT II-math skills would be helpful. Again, you need to understand I agree with you that the SAT and IQ certainly measure one type of intelligence. I'm not completely dismissing it, I just don't think that that's all there is to it. I think there are a million other things that are admirable as well, which don't get rewarded in tests. And I TOTALLY agree that my ideas of how education should be are not objective, but how is that remotely a bad thing? People are not objective, so why should education be objective? And, like I said in a previous post, there are MANY schools that don't have grades or tests which constantly send students to Ivy League schools, so it's not that all of my ideas are only in the abstract.</p>

<p>Second paragraph: I agree that there are a lot of things that would not go well for minority people. I'm saying that there is no NEED to constantly assess them in a standardized way. If you do the stuff that I've been advocating for, then race will become less meaningful, because it will get into the heart of who they are. Race only starts becoming an issue when you start imposing hierarchies on what skills are more admirable than others. And as for the argument about writing an essay, the essay wouldn't be judged in terms of grammar and actual writing skills unless that is their thing. You have to judge each person with relation to their own unique, personal skills. Then there won't be a race issue.</p>

<p>Third paragraph: I think that this is the most interesting of your paragraphs. The only thing bad about any of those people you mentioned is that they have the potential to commit another crime, which would be dangerous. That's all I can see that makes them undesirable. I think the grounds for admission should depend on the type of school, and if there are required reading classes (that's where your argument about the person reading at an eighth grade level would come in). The idea should be more of "Let's look at everyone's separate skills, and then figure out which skills line up with what our university can provide and emphasize" rather than "let's see who can get the most amount of questions correct on a multiple choice test, and put a preference on people who are the best at that." I am not anti-assessment. I just think that today we assess people WAY TOO OFTEN, and in the TOTALLY WRONG way.</p>

<p>Fourth paragraph: I don't get why you and Duhvinci are both so irritated by me citing other sources. Isn't that the nature of debate? I am citing studies and stuff because I don't want everyone to have to take my word for everything I say. I want to be able to back up my points. As for the "link wars" comment, no statistic that I've said has been from the internet, except for the official Collegeboard reports about SAT score by race. Every other study I've gotten from a book, primarily from the book "What Does it Mean to be Well Educated?" by Alfie Kohn, who is one of today's leading educational experts. I consider that to be an authentic source. If you don't believe me, just point out one statistic or study I've given, and I'll say what book I got it from, and what page in the book I found it at. If you can find other studies in official books that show that the SAT is an extremely valid indicator of success in future life, then I would be quite impressed. The only stuff I've used from the internet is a petition (which was not even an argument), a description of the multiple intelligence theory, and one thing that said the average sat of swarthmore. None of it was a quote or a psychological study.</p>

[A.E]

<p>
[quote]
Does "wrap it up B" mean that you want me to stop?

[/quote]

Something like that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is a blog. I'm not requiring you to read anything. I sort of find it fun to discuss this, but if you don't just stop.

[/quote]

Actually this is a forum, not a blog.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's all.

[/quote]

If only.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Anyway, first paragraph: How can you honestly say that you are against the multiple intelligence theory?

[/quote]

It's a bunch of feel good nonsense, that's why.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't think that there are some people who are more socially smart than others? You don't think there are some people who are more musically talented than others? You don't think there are some people who are more creative than others?

[/quote]

Sure. So what? Some of these correlate to IQ anyway (and, as such, to the SAT). Those things that don't likely aren't very important in the realm of education.</p>

<p>
[quote]
All of those skills can certainly manifest themselves later in life when you choose a career. In fact, I bet there are many more careers where social skills would be helpful than there are careers where SAT II-math skills would be helpful.

[/quote]

Yes, that's totally true. Social skills are probably more important than math skills in about 99% of careers. Again, so what? Swarthmore is not a vocational school, nor does it seek to teach people social skills or help people become more charismatic. That's not really what Swarthmore is all about.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, you need to understand I agree with you that the SAT and IQ certainly measure one type of intelligence. I'm not completely dismissing it, I just don't think that that's all there is to it.

[/quote]

I agree. It just happens to measure the type of intelligence most relevant to academics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think there are a million other things that are admirable as well, which don't get rewarded in tests.

[/quote]

Great.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I TOTALLY agree that my ideas of how education should be are not objective, but how is that remotely a bad thing? People are not objective, so why should education be objective? And, like I said in a previous post, there are MANY schools that don't have grades or tests which constantly send students to Ivy League schools, so it's not that all of my ideas are only in the abstract.

[/quote]

As far as I can tell, this doesn't mean anything.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Second paragraph: I agree that there are a lot of things that would not go well for minority people.

[/quote]

It's actually more a function of economics than race. It just happens that, in America, some ethnic and racial groups are poorer than others, thanks to obvious historical reasons. So too with the rest of the world.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm saying that there is no NEED to constantly assess them in a standardized way. If you do the stuff that I've been advocating for, then race will become less meaningful, because it will get into the heart of who they are. Race only starts becoming an issue when you start imposing hierarchies on what skills are more admirable than others.

[/quote]

Admirable is not the same as relevant. You could be the greatest bricklayer on the planet, but that's not relevant to how well you will perform in college, or how compatible you will be with the Swarthmore lifestyle. It's only hierarchical if you perceive it to be as such. Some of us have just as much respect for a skilled bricklayer as we do a skilled chemist.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And as for the argument about writing an essay, the essay wouldn't be judged in terms of grammar and actual writing skills unless that is their thing. You have to judge each person with relation to their own unique, personal skills. Then there won't be a race issue.

[/quote]

This is a blatant straw man. Skill at writing consists of more than just grammar. It deals with how well you can express a point, or make an argument. It covers far more than just knowing when to use a semi-colon or how to spell 'privileged.' People from better economic circumstances are better at mastering these skills, as with virtually all skills that have anything to do with academics. College is actually a big player in the status quo specifically because so much prestige is granted to academics, because academic success is harder to attain for those from underprivileged backgrounds.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Third paragraph: I think that this is the most interesting of your paragraphs. The only thing bad about any of those people you mentioned is that they have the potential to commit another crime, which would be dangerous. That's all I can see that makes them undesirable. I think the grounds for admission should depend on the type of school, and if there are required reading classes (that's where your argument about the person reading at an eighth grade level would come in). The idea should be more of "Let's look at everyone's separate skills, and then figure out which skills line up with what our university can provide and emphasize" rather than "let's see who can get the most amount of questions correct on a multiple choice test, and put a preference on people who are the best at that." I am not anti-assessment. I just think that today we assess people WAY TOO OFTEN, and in the TOTALLY WRONG way.

[/quote]

Pipe dream.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fourth paragraph: I don't get why you and Duhvinci are both so irritated by me citing other sources. Isn't that the nature of debate? I am citing studies and stuff because I don't want everyone to have to take my word for everything I say. I want to be able to back up my points.

[/quote]

You're never going to convince me of your points because I disagree with the very premises upon which they are based. You have even copped to them being personal and subjective.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As for the "link wars" comment, no statistic that I've said has been from the internet, except for the official Collegeboard reports about SAT score by race. Every other study I've gotten from a book, primarily from the book "What Does it Mean to be Well Educated?" by Alfie Kohn, who is one of today's leading educational experts. I consider that to be an authentic source. If you don't believe me, just point out one statistic or study I've given, and I'll say what book I got it from, and what page in the book I found it at. If you can find other studies in official books that show that the SAT is an extremely valid indicator of success in future life, then I would be quite impressed. The only stuff I've used from the internet is a petition (which was not even an argument), a description of the multiple intelligence theory, and one thing that said the average sat of swarthmore. None of it was a quote or a psychological study.

[/quote]

Appeals to authority don't impress me. And what, exactly, is "an official book" anyway? Sounds like some sort of elitism to me, suggesting a book is somehow more valid than a scientific study. If you want to play the link game, though, I can bury you in a deluge of boring links talking about how the SAT correlates with this, that, and the other.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>does the phrase <em>reductio ad absurdum</em> mean anything to either of you? I think you reached it abut six posts ago. </p>

<p>bpkap, I think it is the goal of every adcom of which I am aware -- at least the ones toiling in the LAC vinyards -- to judge every applicant as a unique individual. It is Swarthmore's "curse" that it receives WAY more than they can possibly offer admittance. This leaves juvenile offenders, Asperger's sufferers, Siamese twins and many, many other deserving people who arguably could benefit from a Swarthmore education at a distinct disadvantage when applying. In that respect, Swarthmore cannot hope to compete with a good state flagship university in meeting the needs of society.</p>

<p>OTOH, I don't think I would go as far as A.E. in reducing the entire Swarthmore experience to what happens in the classroom (or, its apprentice equivalent: filling out crossword puzzles in one's spare time.) Obviously, I can't speak for Swarthmore, but, I do know lots of people who still look forward to college as a time to hone social sklls and to test one's comfort zones. </p>

<p>I have no way of proving this but my best guess (since everyone's so averse to quoting "authorities") is that ninety percent of the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences scored below Swarthmore's 75th percentile on the SAT. Would it have killed the Swarthmore experience, as you know it, to have admitted a few of them?</p>

[bpkap]

<p>I think johnwesley made a really great post, and everyone should read it. It gives a great view of both sides, and every argument is very legitimate. I do agree that it is unfortunate that so many colleges get so many more applications than they can accept, and I feel bad for the admissions people who are forced to rely on less-than-perfect methods to accept students. I still think they would live if they evaluated people based on the ways I have been proposing, but I still think everything he said was spot on. And, of course, the arguments against A.E. were also valid! The only thing I disagree with is that "reductio ad absurdum" part. I think this discussion is really engaging, and both sides are making really interesting points. There was some absurd stuff like that whole thing about "chick" vs. "lady" and some comments by Duhvinci, but I think the majority of this is great. I don't think it's absurd. (Did I get the definition wrong for "reductio ad absurdum"?)</p>

<p>Now to AE. Whether or not you agree with me, you do not need to ask me to stop posting. Like, come on. You act as if I'm imposing a chore and forcing you to read everything I write. If you have had enough, then that's fine; just close this window. When you say "I wish" that I would stop, well, you can EASILY stop. I'm assuming that since this topic has gotten over 2,100 views, then there are at least SOME people who have some sort of interest in what I say, and I find this discussion interesting, so why should I have to stop?</p>

<p>OK, now to the main topic. If you agree that some people are musically intelligent and some people are socially intelligent, and that those types of intelligence are separate, then you believe the multiple intelligence theory, even if you think that schools should only emphasize a certain type of intelligence. If you believe that the other types of intelligences exist (and especially if you admit that they are useful), then you believe it. So your point about how its "feel good nonsense" clearly shows a misunderstanding of the theory. It's sort of considered an accepted idea. It's not very "radical." To not believe in multiple intelligences would be to think that the IQ is all there is to intelligence, and that musical skills and social skills are irrelevant and/or nonexistent. And johnwesley nicely argued your point about swarthmore being a vocational school. Also, a lot of parents do want college to teach their children "manners" and "discipline", which IS teaching about character and such. People just don't think of it that way, because it is an accepted norm. If personality was irrelevant, then admissions committees wouldn't suggest interviews. And my mom does interviews for Brown, and she says she has to fill out answers to lots of questions like, "Would this person get along socially with the majority of other Brown students?" So, colleges DO care about other things.</p>

<p>As for the argument, "It [the SATs] just happens to measure the type of intelligence most relevant to academics," I think it depends on the person. Again, if you want to major in anything art-related, then none of that would matter. I want to major in music composition, and I can speak from an experienced perspective that there wasn't ANYTHING about the SATs that had anything to do with music composition, even in the abstract. In fact, I couldn't really see how that could matter unless you want to major in English or Math. And even that's debatable because, as another poster mentioned, many people with PhDs in English do horribly on the Critical Reading section of the SAT. And some people just aren't good test-takers! Hillary Clinton gave a great speech about standardized tests where she talked about geniuses who did badly on the standardized tests. I won't post the link because then this will erupt into a frenetic "link war", so if you're interested, just youtube it yourself. So, your argument is weak on two levels.</p>

<p>In the paragraph that you did not understand, I was saying that there is no real reason why education HAS to be standardized, and why students HAVE to get measured in an objective manner, when so many students are good in so many different ways. And then I was saying that lots of schools don't evaluate students constantly (by not giving grades), and they have turned out fine, so why can't all schools do that?</p>

<p>As for your argument that essays will also discriminate against the lower class, even if sheer writing skills are not the main emphasis, I can see what you're saying, but I think that essays, in conjunction with the other things I have said I want college admissions committees to focus on, would be sooooo much less discriminatory than would the SAT. Using my ways, every candidate would at least be given a chance to show what makes them unique.</p>

<p>Your point on economics is well-taken. My bad. I just mentioned race because that's what had been discussed earlier. Economics is way more important. You're right.</p>

<p>The fact that you called my ideas "pipe dreams" at least shows that you think they're good ideas, and that the only problem is then that it is just impossible to achieve. Well, if that was a pipe dream, then there would not be hundreds of alternative schools around the globe, and all those schools I mentioned which are the same as other schools, just without grades. And colleges have adapted to those. So, it's already happening and is working fine. "Pipe dream" would imply that it is completely impossible. </p>

<p>As for the book argument, I didn't say a book is more valid than a scientific study. When did I say that? I said that I think a book is generally more reliable than a google search, which is what you were talking about. And if you want me not to point to studies, I won't, but I still don't see how that is remotely a bad thing. If it bores you, you don't have to, but I would be VERY shocked if there was a book that showed studies that have been done which show that the SATs are the number 1 indicator of future success.</p>

[A.E]

<p>
[quote]
OTOH, I don't think I would go as far as A.E. in reducing the entire Swarthmore experience to what happens in the classroom (or, its apprentice equivalent: filling out crossword puzzles in one's spare time.) Obviously, I can't speak for Swarthmore, but, I do know lots of people who still look forward to college as a time to hone social sklls and to test one's comfort zones.

[/quote]

This is a straw man, and also wrong. Nowhere did I say that Swarthmore consists 100% of what goes on in the classroom. But, someone who cannot succeed in the classroom cannot succeed at Swarthmore. It happens to be a prerequisite for graduation that you be able to function in an academically rigorous environment. The point is that, at a minimum, a student must be able to do this. The hope, then, is that the admissions office can find people who fit this minimum requirement but also bring other diverse elements to the table.</p>

[A.E]

<p>
[quote]
The only thing I disagree with is that "reductio ad absurdum" part.

[/quote]

He was actually right, at least in regards to you. You still don't even understand the point of the OP, and an avalanche of convoluted, repetitive, tangential arguments riddled with fallacies isn't going to change that.</p>

[bpkap]

<p>They aren't convulted because they are organized in a way that I take everything you say and respond to each paragraph separately, so there is an organization. They are only repetitive because the same issues get addressed by you and duhvinci over and over again, and each accusation will still have the same answers (the whole thing about quoting authorities, the whole thing about grades being subjective, etc. If you bring up the issue more than once, I have no choice but to be repetive.) I don't know what parts were tangential either. What have I said that doesn't relate to the topic of standardized testing and grades that wasn't a direct response to something you said? Riddled with fallacies is obviously debatable. As for not understanding your point, I got a 700 on the critical reading section on the SATs, so according to your logic, I should most definitely be able to understand what you are saying (and I got a 730 on the writing section, so obviously my writing can't be convoluted, repetitive and tangential, or else that would have shown up in low SAT scores) :)</p>

<p>It seems to me like you've had enough of this conversation. So, I'll make one point, and if you want to respond again, I won't respond, and you can have the final word. I bet that you got high SAT scores, which is why you're so obsessed with them, and I think that's great, and that's totally admirable, and I'm sure you're a really smart guy! And not only that, I bet that there are a million great things about you which are way more interesting and specific to you than your high SAT scores. I just think that it might not hurt if you (and, more importantly, the admissions committees) could recognize that other people who are intelligent in different, less test-able ways than you are not necessarily less intelligent than you.</p>

[A.E]

<p>
[quote]
It seems to me like you've had enough of this conversation. So, I'll make one point, and if you want to respond again, I won't respond, and you can have the final word. I bet that you got high SAT scores, which is why you're so obsessed with them, and I think that's great, and that's totally admirable, and I'm sure you're a really smart guy!

[/quote]

Attack on motives. Another logical fallacy. Fitting that this is your final point.</p>

[jbuehler]

<p>hmmm. since bpkap asked about other people's opinions, i thought duhvinci came off as a total idiot, A.E. was certainly better than duhvinci but still came off as an angry, narrow, inconsiderate guy whose points didn't seem as convincing as bpkap's. but at least his narrow-mindedness was presented in a smarter way. bpkap started wandering in a few of the more recent posts; his earlier posts were better, but overall i thought he made a lot of really excellent points. if i had to pick a side, i would definitely pull with bpkap on this one.
ive never really thought about this issue before. great discussion!</p>

[A.E]

<p>jbuehler</p>

<p>Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1</p>

<p>LOL</p>

[jbuehler]

<p>not only did I make this name in march, I made this name a few minutes ago! that was my first post ever. i have been reading Swarthmore posts in the past, because I'm considering it for next year. this debate just seemed interesting, and bpkap seemed pretty desperate to know what side of the debate everyone was on, so i decided to make one.</p>

<p>i'm not sure why you felt the need to point that out though. but yes, feel honored that your debate got me to make my first response.</p>