« What About the Boys? | Main | Socioeconomic Integration »

Is the SAT Unfair?


What's wrong with the SAT? Quite a bit, according to Walt Gardner in this Education Week Commentary.

Gardner argues that, in order to meet expected levels of scoring differentiation, the SAT has to discount material emphasized by teachers. Instead, it relies heavily on questions based on knowledge students acquire outside the classroom—which is often correlated to students' socioeconomic backgrounds. That factor can leave both students and teachers feeling frustrated and helpless, he says, and is ultimately unfair.

What do you think? Is the SAT a good predictor of future performance in college? Or is it an unfair test that needs to be scrapped? What are the alternatives?


I agree. What can we do to change it?

Another way to phrase Gardner's complaint is to suggest that what the students learn from today's teachers is not worthwhile as far as doing well on the SAT. I would take it further. Teachers in public schools at the jr and high school levels often are not schooled in the courses they "teach" and that is a problem. Dr. Hess from University of Virginia informs that less than 40% of History teachers majored in History. If the same is true of other courses there is good reason why kids aren't being lead to knowledge. At least one-half of the SAT focuses on Math and if the situation with the History teachers approximates those who "teach" math, one can sense where the problem lies.

But with the cottage industries in tutoring and SAT preparation, and the monopoly of public instruction, one is unlikely to see things change at the instruction level. As long as tax payers continue to acquiese to these systems, students without the financial resources will be doomed to getting their instruction from less than prepared teachers. The SAT is only an indicator of what is missing in public schooling - not another excuse to cry discrimination.

Hats off to Ed Week for publishing Walt Gardner's accurate and insightful piece about the SATs. This whistle has been blown loudly in Nick Lehman's fine book "The Big Test" and before that in Stephan J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man", and been studiously ignored by the educational Clerisy with the few exceptions Gardner has recognized.
A question begged: why have so few reformers and "educational leaders" been willing to confront this conspicuously naked emperor?
I think we need an answer.

The SAT is fair, niggling flaws aside. If teachers are not teaching what a SAT measures, they, or their supervisors, can change what is taught. The notion that a SAT measures socioeconomic status is suspect to me. I came from a low socioeconomic rural family and did very well on the SAT. A more valid complaint might be that the SAT acts as a proxy for intelligence. If so, then the SAT remains useful as an indicator of test-takers' potential for academic success.

I agree that the SAT is unfair for some groups. Having taught the SAT outside the US to non-native speakers, I found the context of many questions to be geared towards a native speaker from the US. Much like the TOEFL, the SAT relies on cultural knowledge acquired outside the classroom, that international students coming to the US will typically not possess.

Gardner adds nothing new to the regular litany of criticisms of the SAT. As a previous writer pointed out, the best source for reading about the test is Lemann's book. There are, however, some rather glaring inaccuracies in what Gardner has written.
First, he writes that there is no justification for continuing to use the test. He is entitiled to that opinion, of course, but the justifications are largely the same as they have always been; (a) to allow competitive colleges to have an objective measure to differentiate between students coming from varied high school backgrounds and (b) because the test when taken with GPA is the best current predictor that we have of first year grades in college.
Second, Gardner writes that standardized testing is in a morass. In fact the College Board will administer over 2.5 million SAT tests this year and administered about 2.3 million AP exams in May. If there is a morass it's not the testing industry within it but the uses to which colleges are putting the testing tools.
Third, to my knowledge, the SAT I has never been an important content measure for hs teachers. SAT II's are intended to measure content of specific subjects. The idea that teachers are frustrated b/c they can't, won't or don't teach to the SAT has never been my experience as a public and private high school teacher for over ten years.
Fourth, Gardner confuses correlation with causation in writing that students are frustrated by the impact that their family income has on performance on the SAT. SES is of course correlated with scores on the SAT. But there are a variety of outside variables which contribute to the high SES kids having higher SAT scores than the low SES kids- being read to as children, trips to museums, etc.
Fifth, Gardner writes that the SAT has determined the destiny of many and that is true-to an extent. The SAT unquestionably serves as one gatekeeper to elite institutions. However, the vast majority of colleges and universities in this country are not selective or are, relatively unselective, institutions. In California, for example, motivated students can attend one of our fine community colleges for two years and then transfer to Berkeley, UCLA, another UC school, or one of the state university schools. The SAT then b/c an issue at a narrow range of schools and the kids applying to those schools generally have an array of attractive college options.
Finally, Gardner does the same thing that Fair Test does, which is confuse the SAT tool, with the SAT as the brass ring. Colleges are free to use the test in any manner (or not at all) they choose. The fact that the elite schools have allowed themselves generally to be drawn into the rankings game suggests more about the schools and the nature of the competition than it does about the SAT.

Mr. Mattimore - Hear, hear!
Your point (4) is especially important, I think, and perhaps worth expanding.
Socio-economic status (SES) would probably serve as a pretty good predictor of success in school and in adult life -- and one with which many of the more influential members of society might be very comfortable.
Poor people are typically more poorly educated and may value education less, and therefore may have lower expectations of the schools and for their children in school. In addition, poor people have fewer and lesser resources with which to support their children's educations even if they do believe their children can learn their way into a higher SES. Parental (or family) expectations and support are the most important variables in education outcomes, so it follows that the children of lower SES families will more often have poorer outcomes.
But what kind of society would we have if SES were, in fact, used directly as the predictor for academic success? It would be a much poorer place to live, even for those whose assumptions would justify (to themselves) such an approach. The SAT is one avenue out of the SES trap for those who are, or whose parents are, exceptions to expectations.
If we want to effect a more equitable distribution of opportunity among the groups that perform less well on the SAT, we would be more successful if we were to change parents' expectations of and for their children than if we were to change, or ditch, the test.

In Sept. of 2000, another National Commission on Science and Math Education released a report with what had to be characterized as a foregone conclusion. Sect'y of Ed. Richard Riley had charged the Glenn Commission with finding ways to improve teacher training, and the Commission obliged by finding out that teachers needed more and better training.
But, Broward Co., FL public schools just released their latest FCAT reports and it's terrific news. Over 90% of County elementary schools scored a "B" or better. My question to the writer who blames poor teaching for low SAT scores is this: would you give the teachers any CREDIT for improved scores if we see them?

I just read the parent, Durden's, commments and agree in many ways with him. However, I am concerned with the view that SES might somehow be discounted in college admissions. I think the FL approach is much better. Students who score below minimum SAT or ACT scores must take a college placement exam in those subjects (English or Math) and then enroll in an appropriate remedial course, taught for the universities by their nearby community college.

This is vastly better than either ignoring the discrepancies, or not admitting students who might not come from great SES backgrounds. To see how clearly race and economics affect performance in say math, review the latest NAEP reports online and compare the white males to everyone else right accross the tables for grades 4, 8, and 12. The trend is obvious!

I am originally from Singapore with two first languages; my father spoke to us in English and my mother spoke to us in Malay. British English has been the first language in Singapore for a long time until the PAP government displaced the majority Malays with Chinese. Today, it seems there are two first languages; Mandarin and English. So there is personal and political background.
Now here is my take on the issue of standardized tests such as the SAT. My undergraduate GPA was 3.56, and I did this with merely getting by on a number of courses. My master's GPA was 3.96 and my current Ph.D GPA is 4.0. I guarantee that if I take the SAT today I will not do well. Why? Because personally I have a fear of these demoralizing measures that would only hurt my self-esteem.
I refuse to take the ETS Praxis Subject tests to prove what I know, and I refuse to take the GRE to prove my worthiness to attend graduate school. Why? Because politically I refuse to be subject to monopolistic pressures. Standardized testing is big buisness in this country, and College Board has a monopoly in it. It would be curious to find the person responsible for slipping this into a Bill a long time ago. It would be more curious to find the connection between College Board and this person today.
As an education researcher, I KNOW standardized testing is not a fair or accurate measure of anything but test taking skills. As an educator, I KNOW standardized tests do not measure one's intelligence, one's intellectual capacity or potential, or one's knowledge base. As a foreigner with not just a multicultural background but one who is immersed in many cultures of the world, standardized tests in this country is eurocentric. How can they not be when those behind these tests are almost 100 percent whites? And I wonder what socio economic status they belong to.
We don't need to just scrap the SAT; we need to scrap the College Board and all its subsidiaries. It is a good thing that more and more colleges are using multiple assessments to guide their admission decisions. We still have a long way to go before we get to where we need to be; equity in access and opportunity for all.

What's considered knowledge students acquire outside the classroom? I have seen many students score fairly high on the old and new SAT I without any out-of-class preparation, i.e. SAT classes. The test is based on critical thinking and really just requires the most basic knowledge in each subject area. If a student reads extensively books from the local library, or even the local newspaper, he or she should do fine on the reading sections of the new SAT. Every math section comes with all the formulas that may be required to do the problems.
If students are doing bad on the test because it is so different from what they are taught in class, then that means their teachers are not teaching them to reason, to think critically. And if students can't reason, what can they do? They will probably never use the hard facts that they learned in class, but they will have to reason every single day of their lives in whatever career they devote themselves to.

(continued from above)
I have also seen many students who spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to "prepare" for the test. All they are doing is getting more practice in thinking. There's really no special teaching in SAT classes that guarantees a boost in scores.
The same kind of practice can be done by one's self. My son familiarized himself with the test by borrowing the Official College Board book from a friend. His scores improved more than those of his friends that took the SAT classes.

Kenneth Larson(above) hit it right on the button. It is amazingly easy in most states for administrators to staff their schools with unqualified teachers. The NCLB Law, "theoretically" requires that, very shortly, all teachers in qualifying schools be "experts" in the subjects they teach. Right....! Even as we have these discussions, important officials are preparing to water down NCLB, again, because it is predicted that no state will be able to meet this "expert" requirement in its schools. I taught in schools in a state that permitted teachers to teach a subject for which they had no(thats correct: ZERO)university training at all, so long as the subject did not constitute more than half of their daily "load" of classes. It was possible, therefore, to put a teacher in charge of two courses, one of which, at least, for which he was untrained, so long as each did not exceed half of his daily load! And I don't mean by "untrained", merely, lack of a "methods course". I mean no college coursework in the subject, except, perhaps(though not required)an intro survey course. As a department chairman, I saw this happen. And this was in the county seat of an affluent suburban district!
Kenneth Larson got it right. If the teachers are ignorant of much or all of the content they are required to explain, the only way the students will obtain the amount of knowledge needed to pass ANY summary exam will be from input outside of the regular classroom. Remember what was written here when the schools are let off the NCLB "expert" hook in a year or two. It is going to happen.

believe this ED WEEK article reflects the reality that has been created by educators themselves! How? Since 1994 when I became an involved parent, I was told "that a lot of learning" happens outside the classroom" and educators are fine with this. So fine, that the NCLB movement is relying on the government financed "outside tutoring model" that flourishes in the Chicago North Shore affluent school districts--almost to the level of being a "shadow" education system. (Most teacher's unions object to non-union tutors, but seem to support member teachers tutoring for additional income.)

Of course the SAT "discounts" the many edutainment activities that characterize the classroom. With less emphasis on direct instruction and ever more time spent on social activities or discovery academic "constructivist activities, there is less time in the school day to focus on the math, english grammar and written work--the focus of the SAT. Yes, the SAT tests "reasoning ability", relying on vocabulary and the symbols and formulas of geometry--not the discovery processes. So, parents who can afford it (that's the link to "socio-economic" factors) hire tutors to "directly teach" their students. Parents are not paying tutors $50-$80 per hour to facilitate discovery learning.

Services like Huntington give constant feedback to the students, each "test" is a learning experience and the "teaching" is direct. The SAT is not going to test what the kids learned on pajama day, wrap the playground day, wheel of fortune day, the Jungian analysis of the Chocolate Wars, the web site built in computer class, the photography class, the Disney party/movies or how much fun was the civil war enactment. The SAT cannot (should not) test the affective qualities, or social service delivery successes of our schools. So, as long as our public schools define their mission (measure their success) as socialization of the leaders of tomorrow instead of academic preparation of tomorrow's leaders, the SAT probably will not test a lot of what goes on is school.

Even when a school performs at the top of the ISAT ranking, becasue the Illinois standards on which public schools base their academic objectives are considerably lower than what is needed to excel in competitive academic environments like New Trier and other rigorous college prep high schools, parents make a rational decision to provide "learning outside the classroom."

Yes, the SAT will and probably should "discount" much of what is learned in the public schools. At least the SAT provides a high enough"target" benchmark which is academic. If teachers want the system to be more "fair", schools should focus on preparing students for the academic rigors of the SAT test and the college experience. What's unfair, is that kids have to go to school after school to get an education--and taxpayers and parents pay. We pay twice!



Your comments lead me to imagine that you have struggled with the thought of home schooling. Afterall, that is the ultimate "choice" for parents. As for diversions at school, please let me refer you to an article I wrote about Movies in the Classroom http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=19948

Imperfect though it may be, the SAT remains the best of the admissible predictors of student achievement in college. Consider the alternatives. Grades have never been standard across schools, and grade inflation makes them meaningless. Recommendations from teachers and others are almost totally subjective, and biased as well: the wealthy are in the best position to solicit positive recommendations.

Adding the essay section was a highly egalitarian move. Teachers now have simply to teach their students how to organize their thoughts and compose sentences, something every teacher should have been doing all along. The effort the College Board invested in devising valid and reliable system for scoring the essays was well spent; it targets the most significant skill a student must master for both college and professional life.

This new model of objective measurement of something subjective as an essay the SAT minimizes the benefits of prep courses such as Kaplan and of teaching to the test. Can the paradigm be extended? Would it be possible, for instance, to ask examinees to solve their choices among perhaps ten pairs of math problems, showing their work?

Colleges need something like SAT to adequately match student abilities with the demands of their curricula. The answer is not to throw it out, but to ensure that it is the fairest possible predictor of student achievement.

If students of any background cannot read or write or solve problems, they cannot perform well on any test, including the ACT.
Patrick Mattimore has offered an objective and logical explanation of the real use of the SAT by colleges. Only those with ears will hear.

Many teachers are guided by a "personal" curriculum punctuated with low expectations for minority, poor, or female students. Frequently, teachers of this type have limited intellectual abilities or lack an in-depth understanding of educational pedagogy. They may not have graduated from their "first-choice" college. Currently, they may be enrolled in graduate school at No Name University. Dare those teachers to make public their academic records! Check your local school. These are the same "teachers" who refuse to teach the curriculum and standards of the school system. These teachers state that they refuse to "teach to the test." The ACT is curriculum-based on national standards. If a teacher does not teach the standards of the curriculum, the teacher is not performing the duties for which she/he was employed. The SAT is a reasoning test with reading materials from a variety of genre including philosophy, psychology, art and music as well as science. If a teacher does not teach the concepts/strategies of reading comprehension in any discipline, has she/he performed the duties of a teacher? Teaching from page 1 to page 190 in mathematics is not the same as teaching the math curriculum! What type of test can measure the kind of intellectual irresponsibility demonstrated by ineffective and incompetent teachers? After thirty years of experience in the classroom, I assure you that those teachers in the confines of their classrooms are wasting instructional time because they discussing a personal curriculum (glory days of college, cheating the system, adult/student promises such as a "free" day today if you promise to work tomorrow) and/or "teaching fluff"(limited to who/what/when/where questions) that cannot be measured by any test. The students exposed to these "lethal weapons" gain nothing in terms of the academic rigor designed to foster a fruitful future. Does the SAT or ACT expose these atrocities in the classroom?

Picking up on what some others have written...
Though I disagree with a great deal of what Gardner wrote, I believe that the time for a national discussion about the SAT, and to a more general extent, standardized testing, is long overdue. It's quite incredible that these issues are voiced by politicians and educational policy makers without any real mechanism for public feedback. Maybe Ed. Week would consider ways to bring the public into this debate and help to raise consciousness about standardized testing generally, and the SAT specifically.

The S.A.T. scoring problem of last fall is just one of many mistakes that the same company has made. The excuse that the answer sheets may have expanded due to misture is nearly as funny (not ha-ha funny) as it is absurd.
S.A.T. tests are administered all over the world in climates ranging from very dry to very wet. A testing company that cannot be trusted to keep answer sheets dry cannot be trusted to score those tests accurately. It IS odd also that none of the questionable scores was questionably high. It seems that some of the miscored answers should at least have changed a wrong answer to right.
Is the S.A.T. unfair? Yes, it probably is. There are so many variables that can affect scores (real variables, as opposed to ridiculous ideas like "wet answer sheets"). Luckily, most colleges and Universities do not rely soley on S.A.T. scores to determine admissions. The major reason is that the S.A.T. scores are not accurate measures of how well a student will do in college.
Most U.S. schools also offer "remedial" classes for students that may have a weakness in a particular area, such as math.
If a college or university feels a need to test applicants, whether it be for placement or selection of a students for limited enrollment opportunities, the college or university should create its' own test or assessment tool, based on the requirements of its' own programs. This would however, create a p[roblem for the testing industry and the employees of that industry. Maybe they could get work as teachers. Test company employees areeducators, right? We certainly wouldn't trust assessment to just anyone, right?

A friend pinted out that a want ad in a California newspaper offered employment, at slightly over minimum wage and without benefits, scoring the state's teacher exams. These are the tests that the teachers must take to becvome licensed in California. The ad sated, "No experience necessary", and also mentioned that successful applicants will be trained.

the SAT may have disadvantages but it is still useful in determining GPA and may help students and teachers to consider remediation. It would be better to use alternative assessments in addition to the SAT. The use of alternative assessments will help measure (or determine) the learners' other potentials that may not be identified by the SAT. I believe that the more tools we use, the better we can understand the learner, and the better we can provide opportunities for learning. This way we can be assured that these students can finish college and then land a job.

The SAT is useful, but not in determing a student's GPA. That is an average of the letter grades and their numbered equivalent on a 4 point scale. This is another area of education that has come under fire of late, the use of the traditional letter grade.
Both the GPA and the SAT are valid indicators of potential, but neither is a clear indicator. Then again, who has a crystal ball that can tell how any individual student will do in college?
The SAT, for all its' usefulness is a very general test and cannot possibly meet the needs of the many diverse colleges and iniversities in our country. GPA is criticized because of the possibility of grade inflation. What does an "A" mean after all? It ends up cycling back to the issue of accountability. Who is responsible for the ducation of our children? How do we determine if that education is indeed being transmitted?
So far, the answer appears to be the standardized test which again raises the problem of the test being too general. There are so many students out there also that do poorly at one stage of their life, but are able to focus and do well later. Where do we put these students?

The SAT is not intended "to meet the needs of the many diverse colleges and iniversities (sic) in our country." The vast majority of colleges and universities are non-selective. For slective institutions the SAT continues to serve as one objective measure (AP exams are another) that differentiate applicantas.

There are many colleges and universities to choose from in the U.S. and abroad. There are many different ways into these universities. Candidiates that cannot make the required scores for freshman admission, often can work their way in, as in the case of California schools, through a Junior or community college.
Another means towards a college education is having a particularly good athletic record. Many schools search for scholarship athletes on their sports ability only.
The larger the institution, the more opportunity there may be for admission.
There are military academies as well and even veru elite schools make space for "legacies" and faculty dependents.
If one really wants a college education, there is probably a college somewhere that can be gotten into.
This however does not answer the question as to whether the SAT really measures or offers an accurate measure of college success.

Perhaps accurate is too imprecise a word with which to measure the SAT.
To be widely accepted a test such as the SAT generally must meet three criteria- standardization, reliability, and validity. The SAT is standardized b/c the scores are compared with previously tested groups and the procedures for testing everyone are uniform. To be reliable a test has to yield dependably consistent results. The SAT has a high reliability index. The SAT ’s validity, or the extent to which the test measures what it is supposed to measure or predict what it is supposed to predict, is where most of the controversy comes in re. the SAT. The test does an ok job of predicting first year grades in college (though some critics such as Fair Test would dispute that and others would question whether that is an important thing to predict). Further, it’s not really clear that anyone knows exactly what the test is supposed to measure. Some studies have found that it is a good measure of intelligence (though again, you will get lots of debate there) and again, maybe intelligence isn't the criteria we should be looking for in prospective applicants.
I happen to think the SAT should be retained and even emphasized to a greater degree in our hs’s until a better objective measure comes along. The alternative, as I see it, is to substitute a variety of fuzzy subjective judgments as to which students are "college material."
Other societies, (Europe, China, and Japan,) rightly or wrongly, put a great deal more stock in these standardized types of tests and at much earlier ages.

The Maine Department of Education required on April 1, 2006 that all third year students take the SAT as a measure of their reading and math for Adequate Yearly Progress for NCLB. In view of Gardner's discussion of aptitude versus achievement, where does this fall as a valid and reliable use of the instrument?

Maine is likely taking advantage of an exiting standardized test. This is perhaps a fiscally responsible thing to do. It is certainly cheaper than creating a whole new exam for acoountability purposes.
To the extent that the SAT is a reliable instrument for assessing achievement and predictng college success, it may be a reliable assessment of achievement. It may also be a reliable assessment of exam taking skills.
It could also be the case that because the SAT has a lot of preperation material avaiable, i.e. Kaplan, it is easy to incorporate this material into the school curricula. This is often referred to as "teaching to the test". Using an established test with a goodly amount preparation material available should result in higher achievement scores.
Interestingly, if I teach the exact items that students will be tested on, or even similar items, some might call that cheating. Of course that would be those who, like me attended school back in the dark ages when taking standardized tests was a means of measuring our aptitude and we were told there was no way to actually study for such tests

Your article on the SAT is basically a carbon copy of one I wrote last week. I certainly apprecite your support. It is time we reconsider our educational plans and goals. We need to focus more on overall assessment and less on testing, particularly on the vehicles we have been using. I think it is great that you have exposed this information to the educational public. It is time they start to deal with it.
Thank you!!!

I believe that the SATs are fair in the sense of the effect of a person's SES on their scores. In other words, I feel that people who are poor, Hispanic or black, can score just as high as a rich white person who has taken SAT prep courses. All that's required of the testee is that you are dedicated to your schoolwork and pay attention in class. School is not that hard if you are open to learning and attentive. Poor people or people of a different race have no excuse for scoring low-if you didn't pay attention, didn't study, then you deserve your low grades and low scores. (This, of course, excluding schools like those in the book Savage Inequalities by Jonathon Kozol, in which the schools are dilapidated and the teachers second-rate)

I don't believe, however, that the SATs are an accurate or efficient way of measuring a person's scholastic aptitude, or intelligence. There is no way in the world to measure the amount of knowledge contained within someone's brain.

But I will take the SAT (and the ACT) reluctantly and hope for high scores. I consider myself smart and motivated. I take dual-enrollment classes, AP courses and college-prep courses. I am dedicated to my dream of going to UVA and majoring in secondary education, and becoming a high school history teacher.

But I feel like I will never be able to accomplish these dreams if I do not score high on the SATs. Older adults do not understand and can not even begin to comprehend the pressure felt these days by High School students to pass the SATs and go to college. The pressure is put on us heavily from our first day in kindergarten all the way to graduation day. Most students feel like if they don't pass the SATs then they will not be able to go to college. This is simply not true. But adults continue to pressure students into believing this.

I think colleges shouldn't rely so heavily on a number to predict the performance of a student. A number means nothing. It's the person--their grades, GPA, transcript, as well as personal characteristics of that student that makes them a well-rounded person who will accomplish much in life. this is what colleges should count on--the quality traits of the individual as well as their past performance in school.

I know that many people will complain that there is not enough time to evaluate all of these things in the college admissions process. I say--make time. If 1,000 people or 20,000 people apply to your school, you should evaluate every single one of them fairly, no matter how long it takes. Every person should be allowed a fair chance to go to college, and not have this determined by something so demeaning as a low number.

First off, not all poor people are Hispanic or Black and not all Hispanics or Blacks are poor.
Kids from POOR FAMILIES don't have the same advantages as a rich kid.
Poor kids tend to have:
*bad family situations(abuse, financial problems, stressed out parents, single parents, etc.)
*do not have access to the same things(ex. highspeed internet or a computer at all, people to turn to, etc).

Poor schools usually don't have very good teachers nor good, up-to-date books.
so, if you honestly think that poor kids have it soooo~~~ooo much alike to the rich kids whose parents don't have to worry about putting bread on the table or having the kid cook them dinner and take care of the house all the time and what not, then obviously you have not been out of your little bubble enough. Probably at all.
Rich kids do NOT have as much on their plate as a poor kid -- that is a fact.

The rich kids whose "mommy" and "daddy" come picking them up in a fucking Lexus do not have the stressers and force to grow up quick as do the poor kids.

Also, there is such thing as people who are horrible on test.
Some people get nervous and space out when they are being tested.

ANOTHER THING, the SAT is BIASED AGAINST NIGHT OWLS. And PLEASE don't just say, "then go to bed earlier" because that is like telling someone to go to bed standing up with a heavy metal band thrashing around in the background.
The test are way too fucking early!


oh and ps:
excuse my "inproper" language you fucking pieces of shit!!!

I stongtly agree with everything presented. My name is Ankit Patel (brown). My boys call me brown. Message me on Myspace

I got a solid 1460 on my SAT's. I rocked those things. I dont need people trying to tell me there not vaild. Its bs. Now im going to Princeton. Cya

it has been two years since my first response to Gardner's article. I have since completed my historical research for my dissertation. A key finding is that public education is designed to keep the masses where they belong. Specifically on the issue of the SAT, here is an excerpt from my dissertation:
In 1947, the National Commission on Life Adjustment Education of Youth was formed (Ravitch, 1983). Incidentally this same year saw large
increases in college applicants (Ravitch). Coincidentally, this was the same year the
College Entrance Examination “rooted in a common liberal arts curriculum" was displaced by the Standardized Achievement Tests (SAT), "machine scored" tests with emphases in general knowledge and subject matter knowledge designed to keep students with functional education from entering college (Ravitch, 69). Among those influencing
this change in college entrance requirements was NEA who was also responsible for changing public education curriculum from a focus in academics to a focus in the “practical arts”.
Anyone interested in learning about the systemic oppression of the masses through public education look up my dissertation published with University of Michigam; SHAPING THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TEACHERS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 1830s- 1950s
Only those living in their "bubbles" will continue to keep blindfolds on in order to deny the truth.

Like most things the "unfairness" has become a class issue . When those who can afford it, send their children to seminars and hire tutors to prepare their children to take tests like the SAT,
it gives that student an unfair advantage over the others participating. The tests outcome is no longer valid . If you want a fair assessment of the students comparitively ban seminars and tutorials for the test.

Comments are now closed for this post.


Recent Comments

  • William Roach: Like most things the "unfairness" has become a class issue read more
  • Dr. Suraiya Shaik Ali-Williams: it has been two years since my first response to read more
  • Kurt Lehmur: I got a solid 1460 on my SAT's. I rocked read more
  • Ankit Patel: I stongtly agree with everything presented. My name is Ankit read more
  • response to Kelley(above)the suburban kid: First off, not all poor people are Hispanic or Black read more




Technorati search

» Blogs that link here