<p>^ Yeah, but we could have had this discussion before the New SAT too. </p>
<p>While grammar is important, I just feel that grammar is what you hire secretaries for, not CEO's and Nobel Prize winners. Sorry to sound arrogant, thats just the way I feel about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just feel that grammar is what you hire secretaries for, not CEO's and Nobel Prize winners
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even these people need to be able to communicate in an effective manner.</p>
<p>I don't understand your argument that the SAT is supposed to test intelligence, when it is by definition an aptitude test. At 18 years of age, students are expected to know a certain amount of grammar. Note that I didn't say "expected to be complete grammar fiends". None of the questions on the SAT were really that complex. Aptitude can encompass basic skills as well as logical thinking.</p>
<p>100% absolutely... Math is more important. (<= Period.)</p>
<p>but why not more math on SAT then? I guess your opinion is more important than college boards</p>
<p>^ I have taught SAT for many years. A very famous instructor confided in me that College Boards recent decisions have beeen more about POLITICS than actual testing of intelligence.</p>
<p>Once again, sorry to sound arrogant, but grammar is what you hire secretaries for, mathematical and verbal logic is how you end up with CEO's and Nobel Prize winners.</p>
<p>Of course basic grammar, as on the SAT is not a dispaly of genius, but neither is the basic math that's on the SAT. For everyone saying basic grammar let's you write a few sentences while math allows you to build a bridge, calm down a minute.</p>
<p>Basic grammar, literary, and writing skills are the building blocks on top of which history, politics, the humanities, law, and other subjects are built, just as many subjects are built on math (and most in fact require some skill in both). Yes, I'd rather be a nuclear engineer than be able to fix a comma splice too - but the comparision is silly because you're comparing different levels. You should be saying would I rather comprehend algebra 1, or how to express your thoughts in a paragraph - and the answer is I'd like to be able to do both. (It's not a cop out to answer a question so silly with an invalid answer.) </p>
<p>But the SAT isn't really just about how much knowledge you've got, and it shouldn't be. The SAT is a college admissions test. Academia isn't about just training future engineers, or future lawyers for that matter, it's about expanding and passing on human knowledge and thought - and the process of thinking, which requires building on the foundations of basic grammar and writing. Now you could argue that being able to grasp grammar doesn't make one a better philosopher, but colleges seem to think it does (being able to grasp how to write indicates one will better be able to grasp how to think).</p>
<p>But if you think the point of education is simply to learn more and more math, and get a good job, I doubt you'd get more out of Harvard than you would out of a state school - it's the intangibles and the dedication to depth that make these schools better, the equations are exactly the same at UNC. (Not that UNC's a bad school, and not that science isn't more advanced at the ivys - it is, but not because the kids and profs at the ivys are better at solving math problems, but because they're better at comprehending and questioning the natural systems that create them).</p>
<p>So here's the point: I don't think it's unreasonable for the SAT to now have two english sections vs. one math, because colleges feel they can tell your basis in math from that one section, but didn't feel that they could tell your english skills from one verbal sections. But they know not to just look at the numbers that result, they'll view a 2000 with an 800 math different from a 2000 with a 400 math because they have the analytical skills to know that the number doesn't tell them everything. Whereas if you lack this skill, you prove the colleges point by complaining that your 800 math has been diluted (especially since most good schools already asked for an SATII writing and won't use this writing score differently).</p>
<p>-just so I don't look too biased, I did get better writing and cr than math, but it was a 2390 so I think I've got the math thing down too.</p>
<p>^ While I agree that writing is important, I don't agree that grammar is important. </p>
<p>I see grammar and writing as two different things. </p>
<p>For example:</p>
<p>I see a red cat. (Perfect grammar, zero intelligence)</p>
<p>That red cat reminds me of a paralell in human dialectical behaviors that refuses to acknowledge truth as fiction. (Grammar mistakes, and good creativity)</p>
<p>Which one would you prefer to write? That is all I am saying. Grammar is not the same as writing skill. This is a common misconception. You hire secretaries to edit and correct great works of literary accomplishment. You don't hire secretaries to actually write them. </p>
<p>Now, I sincerely believe that grammar should not be such a large portion of the SAT, while I believe writing should be more important. SAT Math used to be much harder than what you guys see nowadays. Today it is a joke. Almost everyone gets 800's. Its not hard enough.</p>
<p>Your argument is ridiculous. Without grammar there could be no real writing, because the words would show up in any random order depending on the whim of the author, and no one would understand anything anyone was saying. Without grammar you couldn't have articulated the post you just wrote. It wouldn't be legible to people, because not everyone would have the same opinion on how a sentence should be structured. LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE STANDARDIZED. You seem to assume that grammar is all nitpicking and splitting hairs, but you don't seem to realize that if there weren't a universal standard for the English language there could be no communication.</p>
<p>edit: Ali G -- thanks for posting.</p>
<p>^ Actually, the real english would be British grammar. We are speaking a colloquial offshoot of the real english, which is British english. As far as I am concerned, in legitimate terms, ebonics is just as legitimate as what we are speaking now, because neither is British English. </p>
<p>Sure without grammar we wouldn't be able to communicate. But really, grammar was already tested in the TSWE in the 90s. There is no need to have it so overemphasized to the point where we have millions of kids with perfect grammar, but no real brain.</p>
<p>Touch</p>
<p>^ Yes I agree with you. But most college students, and adults today complain of an oppression of creativity and free thought in life, largely because of the Bush administration. </p>
<p>So what really is true intelligence? I believe we are losing that battle overseas because we don't focus on true intelligence anymore. Problem solving, mathematical logic, creative ideas, pattern recognition to me is true intelligence. There are too many verbal tricks on the SAT Math nowadays. I see the US headed for a rude awakening very very soon, hopefully we will not be considered a third world country because of our obession with grammar over "true intelligence".</p>
<p>GRAMMAR AND "TRUE INTELLIGENCE" ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I REALLY WISH YOU'D UNDERSTAND THAT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAT, A COLLEGE ADMISSIONS TEST--NOT THE FATE OF THE WORLD, NOR EVEN THE ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. JESUS *****ING CHRIST.</p>
<p>Sorry about the caps; I felt that needed emphasis.</p>
<p>^ I am not saying that it is mutually exclusive. But there are other measure of intelligence that is more prone to political manipulation rather than what is agreed upon my intelligence academics as "true intelligence". </p>
<p>For instance, College Board threw out certain types of verbal logic questions when they found out that Blacks did better on those types of questions. Why? Because it was a politically motivated decision. The Harvard Educational Review studied this thoroughly. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that to define intelligence along politically motivated guidelines will be a huge detriment to society in the long term. I am just saying keep intelligence as what the top intelligence academics define it as. I trust their objective judgement much more than politically motivated decisions, such as emphasizing grammar to be as important as math. </p>
<p>All decisions in society are connected. No need to get mad. I have not "raised" my voice at all in any of my posts. In the end, you will all see that I am right.</p>
<p>BTW, please don't take God's name in vain. =D</p>
<p>Of course rules of grammar alone can't result in anything revolutionary. Grammar is the foundation of language, a tool you need to do anything else--much like, in math, you have to learn equations that you then apply to other problems. The format of the SAT isn't conducive to creativity, and therefore doesn't lend itself to writing; also, many high school students haven't reached the verbal ability that would be necessary for a test that measured more than the lowest common denominator (rules of grammar). And I hate to break it to you, but seriously, if you haven't learned how to construct a correct sentence by your senior year there really isn't any place for you at Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the end, you will all see that I am right.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's nice and humble of you. I'll be sure to write you when I see a peace agreement fall through due to ambiguous phrasing. The general verbal skills in this country are already crumbling; if this continues I'll start posting on message boards predicting an apocalypse not far from now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW, please don't take God's name in vain. =D
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as I'm concerned He's just a silly fantasy who will not take offense.</p>
<p>^ Umm... ok. </p>
<p>Actually, I would consider reading comprehension, vocabulary, writing skills, verbal logic to all be much more important than grammar. What good is having perfect grammar if you can't read and comprehend? Grammar and reading ability are not mutually inclusive. I happen to think that all the following skills:</p>
<p>Reading comprehension, mathematical logic, problem solving, verbal logic, spatial pattern mathematics, creative writing are ALL MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than memorizing grammar rules. </p>
<p>Thats all I am saying. And most academics and admissions officers realize that too fortunately.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's nice and humble of you. I'll be sure to write you when I see a peace agreement fall through due to ambiguous phrasing. The general verbal skills in this country are already crumbling; if this continues I'll start posting on message boards predicting an apocalypse not far from now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hey ur pretty funny. What I am talking about is the impending fall of America in its dominance in academia, research, and technology. Most would argue that technology is already second rate compared to Asia. But I would like to see academia and research to remain on top in the US.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with you, but predictions of doom aren't going to get us (you*) there. I don't think there is a need for an either/or argument. We should be able to excel at both.</p>
<p>*I am not an American citizen</p>
<p>I don't think the SAT has the power to affect where our country stands with regards to academia. The brilliant minds of our country will naturally excel in every area; they don't need a test to make them. And keep in mind that the higher-tier students, to ones who will shape academia, have been taking the SAT II Writing test for years, so really the only thing that's changed is that they take it the same day as Math and Verbal (Critical Reading, excuse me).</p>
<p>I am quite pessimistic about American education, and the fact that it doesn't work, but I blame this on the fact that we use tests like the SAT in the first place. The specific content is almost irrelevant.</p>